Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5352102 — Rent arrears at 232A Te Rapa Road, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200
Decided 22 Jan 2026 · Published 22 Jan 2026 · Application 5352102
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Smoke alarms
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay Tapper Property Management Group Limited $ 2,362.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Ms Hardy, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
- The tenancy commenced on 18 November 2024 for a fixed term ending 19 November 2025. The tenant breached a conditional termination order, and the tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. On 24 September 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears and compensation.
- In November 2025, the landlord made a unilateral application for the release of the bond, which was subsequently released by the Bond Centre. This amount will be offset against the amount ordered. Rent
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 14 September 2025. The amount claimed is awarded. Rubbish removal, carpet cleaning, missing smoke alarms, failure to return keys.
- The landlord claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, failed to leave the carpet in a reasonable condition, damaged a lock on the laundry door, failed to return the keys, and removed smoke alarms from the hallway.
- The landlord seeks: $575.00 for rubbish removal from the exterior of the property, $138.00 for carpet cleaning, $86.60 to replace two missing smoke alarms in the hallway, and $426.06 to replace the damaged lock, and rekey the front and back doors. Law
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit, which includes smoke alarms. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)–(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the act or omission constituting the breach of the agreement or the Act. Analysis
- The landlord has produced pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, which include photographs.
- The end-of-tenancy inspection report shows staining to the lounge carpet that does not appear in the pre-tenancy report. Ms Hardy, who conducted the end-of- tenancy inspection, states that the property smelt of cigarettes and that carpet cleaning was required to remove the odour. Smoking inside the property was prohibited under the tenancy agreement.
- The end-of-tenancy inspection report shows household items and rubbish in the carport, shelving, and an assortment of wood in a small garden shed, as well as a BBQ and gas bottle, table, and umbrella stand left outside. The pre-tenancy inspection report shows a BBQ with a cover at the rear of the property. There are no photographs of the interior of the shed at the start of the tenancy.
- The pre-tenancy inspection report shows two smoke alarms installed next to each other in the hallway. The end-of-tenancy photographs show both missing. Ms Hardy states that one was later located in the kitchen.
- The pre-tenancy inspection report includes a photograph of the keys provided to the tenant. The landlord states that the keys were not returned and that the front and back doors required rekeying. The laundry is accessed via an external door off a deck. At the commencement of the tenancy, the door had three locks. At the end of the tenancy, two of those locks had been removed and were located on a nearby shelf. Decision
- I am satisfied that the carpet was not left reasonably clean. Smoking inside the property was contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
- I am not satisfied that all of the rubbish remaining at the property was the responsibility of the tenant. The BBQ and gas bottle appear to have been present at the commencement of the tenancy. There are no photographs of the interior of the garden shed, and I cannot rule out that some of the items were already present. I reduce the claim and award the landlord $338.33 for rubbish removal. I also award $86.25 towards the contractor’s travel costs.
- I am satisfied that the tenant removed smoke alarms. The claim is to replace two smoke alarms; however, one was located in the kitchen. I therefore award half of the amount claimed.
- The locksmith’s invoice is not sufficiently itemised. While the laundry door lock was removed from the door, it was not removed from the property. There is no evidence that it was damaged or could not be refitted. While rekeying of the front and back doors was necessary due to the failure to return keys, I am not satisfied that the laundry lock required replacement rather than refitting with new keys cut. Accordingly, I award the landlord two-thirds of the amount claimed.
Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for three broken windows and damage to the shower head and rail. The landlord seeks $585.97 to replace the windows and $138.00 to replace the shower head and rail. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant may avoid liability by proving that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear is damage that might reasonably be expected to occur over time through ordinary use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2 KB 283 (CA).
- Where damage is caused carelessly and is covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
- The test for carelessness is objective and considers whether a reasonable and prudent tenant would have exercised the same degree of care in the circumstances.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not placed in a better position. The age, condition, and expected lifespan of the items at the commencement of the tenancy must be considered. Analysis
- The end-of-tenancy photographs show minor cracking to two windows in a bedroom overlooking the carport. There is no evidence of a third window being damaged. The property appears to have been built in the 1960s and has wooden joinery. The windows appear to be original features.
- The end-of-tenancy photographs show a shower head and hose left in the hand basin. Another photograph shows a shower rail attached to the wall, with a shower head secured using cable ties. Ms Hardy states that the rail and shower head and hose are not the original fittings. Decision
- The curtains in the pre-tenancy inspection photographs are drawn, making it impossible to assess the condition of the windows at the commencement of the tenancy. Given the age of the property, I cannot rule out that the cracking amounts to fair wear and tear. Further, apart from the invoice, there is no evidence of damage to a third window. The claim is dismissed.
- While I am satisfied that the shower head and hose were removed, and that the rail was removed and replaced during the tenancy, I cannot exclude the possibility that this resulted from fair wear and tear. Although the property was likely built in the 1960s, the bathroom appears to have been renovated in the 1990s. The bathroom fittings are therefore likely around 30 years old, are made of plastic, and are in a high-use area. The claim is dismissed. Costs
- As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the filing fee is reimbursed. Name suppression
- The landlord does not seek name suppression, and no orders are made.