What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356097 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5356097?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356097?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12706439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356097 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5356097?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356097?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12706439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 40 New Brighton Road, Shirley, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356097 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For Upsize Limited $2,1600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 August 2025 under application 5295799.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6521081-009) to Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For Upsize Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 22 August 2025 the Tribunal made an order by consent relating to this tenancy ending and for rent arrears. The previous order filing fee is incorporated into this order. The rent arrears in that order is included in the final rent arrears awarded in this order.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Weeding was required. The landlord submitted invoices for weeding ($100.00 – as part of a larger invoice), cleaning ($150.00, and rubbish removal ($90.00). The tenant did not dispute the three claims and all three are awarded.
The tenant arranged a carpet clean after exit. This greatly improved the carpet, but stains were still evident and the carpet in the lounge and two bedrooms were replaced. The compensation claim for that is dealt with under Damages below.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Carpet
The carpet was in poor condition at the end of the tenancy, especially in the lounge and two bedrooms. The initial photos provided by the landlord confirmed that. Based on those photos, the subsequent cleaning results by the carpet cleaner engaged by the tenant appear dramatic. The landlord reinspected the carpet and believed the carpet in those areas remained beyond repair and replacement carpet was quoted and later installed at a cost of $1,949.43.
Further photos were provided by both parties during and after the hearing. The sequence of the photos was important given the first inspection, cleaning, then second inspection. Some time was spent reviewing these and hearing submissions from both parties. The tenant also provided six post-cleaning photos provided by the carpet cleaner – these are taken from further back than the landlord stain-specific close ups. Some stains are still visible but an overall appearance of reasonably clean carpet is seen elsewhere.
There is some tenant liability for carpet damage, but I do not consider the full replacement cost should fall on her. The carpet had some 3.5 years of tenancy aged life by the end of the tenancy. Depreciation needs to be considered. Allowing for the age and entry condition shown, 40-50% depreciation would not be unreasonable. As well as that, I do not find it evidenced that all three areas required replacement due solely to tenant staining. The worst stain in the lounge was pre-existing while the main bedroom’s most visible stain was not unlike the pre-existing one in the lounge that was considered acceptable to leave “as is” for this tenancy. The staining in bedroom two is considered a full tenant liability.
Divining appropriate compensation given the multiple considerations is not an exact exercise. This was not helped by the invoice being a single cost across the three rooms recarpeted.
Weighing up all factors and the submissions, I have determined the tenant contribution should be $573.57. This exact amount reflects a rounding from a calculated amount that was close to the balance of the bond that that equates to the $573.57 awarded.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Door handles
The landlords claim for replacing door handles ($100.00) is dismissed. There is no evidence of cause more than expected wear and tear. Filing fee
Because Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For Upsize Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For Upsize Limited $2,1600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 August 2025 under application 5295799.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6521081-009) to Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For Upsize Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 22 August 2025 the Tribunal made an order by consent relating to this tenancy ending and for rent arrears. The previous order filing fee is incorporated into this order. The rent arrears in that order is included in the final rent arrears awarded in this order.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Weeding was required. The landlord submitted invoices for weeding ($100.00 – as part of a larger invoice), cleaning ($150.00, and rubbish removal ($90.00). The tenant did not dispute the three claims and all three are awarded.
The tenant arranged a carpet clean after exit. This greatly improved the carpet, but stains were still evident and the carpet in the lounge and two bedrooms were replaced. The compensation claim for that is dealt with under Damages below.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Carpet
The carpet was in poor condition at the end of the tenancy, especially in the lounge and two bedrooms. The initial photos provided by the landlord confirmed that. Based on those photos, the subsequent cleaning results by the carpet cleaner engaged by the tenant appear dramatic. The landlord reinspected the carpet and believed the carpet in those areas remained beyond repair and replacement carpet was quoted and later installed at a cost of $1,949.43.
Further photos were provided by both parties during and after the hearing. The sequence of the photos was important given the first inspection, cleaning, then second inspection. Some time was spent reviewing these and hearing submissions from both parties. The tenant also provided six post-cleaning photos provided by the carpet cleaner – these are taken from further back than the landlord stain-specific close ups. Some stains are still visible but an overall appearance of reasonably clean carpet is seen elsewhere.
There is some tenant liability for carpet damage, but I do not consider the full replacement cost should fall on her. The carpet had some 3.5 years of tenancy aged life by the end of the tenancy. Depreciation needs to be considered. Allowing for the age and entry condition shown, 40-50% depreciation would not be unreasonable. As well as that, I do not find it evidenced that all three areas required replacement due solely to tenant staining. The worst stain in the lounge was pre-existing while the main bedroom’s most visible stain was not unlike the pre-existing one in the lounge that was considered acceptable to leave “as is” for this tenancy. The staining in bedroom two is considered a full tenant liability.
Divining appropriate compensation given the multiple considerations is not an exact exercise. This was not helped by the invoice being a single cost across the three rooms recarpeted.
Weighing up all factors and the submissions, I have determined the tenant contribution should be $573.57. This exact amount reflects a rounding from a calculated amount that was close to the balance of the bond that that equates to the $573.57 awarded.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Door handles
The landlords claim for replacing door handles ($100.00) is dismissed. There is no evidence of cause more than expected wear and tear. Filing fee
Because Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For Upsize Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356097 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 40 New Brighton Road, Shirley,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356097 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 40 New Brighton Road, Shirley,

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.