What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361585 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5361585?

Cleaning: $819.37 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5016151 D…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,657.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $825.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Doors: $428.73 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,927.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361585?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13098686-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361585 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5361585?

Cleaning: $819.37 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5016151 D…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,657.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $825.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Doors: $428.73 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,927.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361585?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13098686-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361585 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361585 — net $4,370.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 May 2025	$825.00	Rent arrears to 19 May 2025
Previous order application 5016151 dated 02/12/2024	$20.44	Previous order application 5016151 dated 02/12/2024
Cleaning	$819.37	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,927.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$65.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace doors	$428.73	Replace doors
Repairs to walls	$1,657.00	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,370.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,370.54

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jazzmin Rangi and Michael Wirimana Maranui must pay [The landlord/s] $4,370.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property manager] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 21 November 2022. On 19 May 2025, the tenant breached the terms of a mediated order, and the tenancy was terminated. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears ($825.00) ii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy ($817.37), iii. Failed to remove all rubbish ($1482.00 + disposal fees $795.30), iv. Failed to return the keys ($65.00), v. Damaged doors and walls (doors $428.73 + walls $1,657.50) vi. Failed to account for missing light bulbs ($30.00)
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). Rent arrears.
The landlord has provided a rent summary that includes all rent payments received, including those made under the previous mediated order. I am incorporating the mediated order into this order so that only one order needs to be enforced. I also award reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to remove all rubbish, and to return the keys. The landlord has withdrawn the claim concerning missing light bulbs.
The landlord has produced tenancy inspection reports dated 03 October 2022, 03 March 2023, and an end of tenancy report dated 29 May 2025. All of the reports include a check list and photographs. The landlord states that the property remained empty between 03 October 2022 and the commencement of the tenancy. Law
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) of the Act. Analysis and decision
The property is located in a rural setting and is a single-level weatherboard house built in the 1950s. It consists of three bedrooms, a kitchen/dining room, a lounge, a bathroom, a toilet, and a laundry. At the rear of the property, there is a carport and a garage, which the landlord describes as a farm shed.
The report dated 3 October 2022 shows that two bed mattresses, a washing machine, a microwave, a bookcase, and two lounge chairs were left inside the property by the previous occupant. Photographs of the farm shed, taken from a distance, also show items already present in the shed. Comparing the photographs of the shed at the end of the tenancy, which show it full of rubbish, it appears that the items left inside the house at the start of the tenancy were later moved into the farm shed, joining the items already there. The tenant then appears to have added further items.
While I am satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all their rubbish, they should not be held liable for removing items that were already at the property. In this case, I reduce the amount claimed by $350.00 and award the landlord $1,927.00 for the removal and disposal of rubbish.
Having considered the photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. The cleaning claim includes carpet cleaning. The tenant kept dogs inside, contrary to the terms of the agreement. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy and shows significant staining and soiling at the end, likely caused by the dogs.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had the front door rekeyed and purchased a new key for the back door. The amount claimed is for the rekeying of the front door only.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the walls and doors occurring during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has provided photographs showing a total of three large holes and six smaller holes in two-bedroom doors and the door between the hallway and lounge.
The landlord has also provided photographs showing holes in the walls of the hallway, two of which have been roughly and only partly repaired, as well as holes in the walls of the lounge and each of the three bedrooms. There is also a small area of graffiti, likely made by a child, in the hallway. 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 are 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 landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $500.00 per claim.
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 and decision
I am able to make a proper before-and-after comparison. I am satisfied that the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. Given the construction of the doors and the extent of the damage, it was more economical to replace them rather than attempt repairs. The doors were original features. Hollow core internal doors in residential rental properties typically have an expected lifespan of approximately 15 to 20 years. While these doors were well past their expected lifespan, they were nevertheless functional and in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord replaced them with a cheaper alternative. In these circumstances, the landlord is entitled to reasonable compensation, and I make no deduction for betterment.
Concerning the other damage to walls I am also satisfied that it occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances. Only the damaged areas were repaired, and I am not satisfied that there has been any betterment, and no deduction is made.
The amount claimed and awarded is less than the insurance excesses that may have applied. However, I am satisfied that the damage, particularly the holes in the doors and walls, was intentional. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and the address of the property.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361585 — net $4,370.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 May 2025	$825.00	Rent arrears to 19 May 2025
Previous order application 5016151 dated 02/12/2024	$20.44	Previous order application 5016151 dated 02/12/2024
Cleaning	$819.37	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,927.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$65.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace doors	$428.73	Replace doors
Repairs to walls	$1,657.00	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,370.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,370.54

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jazzmin Rangi and Michael Wirimana Maranui must pay [The landlord/s] $4,370.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property manager] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 21 November 2022. On 19 May 2025, the tenant breached the terms of a mediated order, and the tenancy was terminated. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears ($825.00) ii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy ($817.37), iii. Failed to remove all rubbish ($1482.00 + disposal fees $795.30), iv. Failed to return the keys ($65.00), v. Damaged doors and walls (doors $428.73 + walls $1,657.50) vi. Failed to account for missing light bulbs ($30.00)
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). Rent arrears.
The landlord has provided a rent summary that includes all rent payments received, including those made under the previous mediated order. I am incorporating the mediated order into this order so that only one order needs to be enforced. I also award reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to remove all rubbish, and to return the keys. The landlord has withdrawn the claim concerning missing light bulbs.
The landlord has produced tenancy inspection reports dated 03 October 2022, 03 March 2023, and an end of tenancy report dated 29 May 2025. All of the reports include a check list and photographs. The landlord states that the property remained empty between 03 October 2022 and the commencement of the tenancy. Law
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) of the Act. Analysis and decision
The property is located in a rural setting and is a single-level weatherboard house built in the 1950s. It consists of three bedrooms, a kitchen/dining room, a lounge, a bathroom, a toilet, and a laundry. At the rear of the property, there is a carport and a garage, which the landlord describes as a farm shed.
The report dated 3 October 2022 shows that two bed mattresses, a washing machine, a microwave, a bookcase, and two lounge chairs were left inside the property by the previous occupant. Photographs of the farm shed, taken from a distance, also show items already present in the shed. Comparing the photographs of the shed at the end of the tenancy, which show it full of rubbish, it appears that the items left inside the house at the start of the tenancy were later moved into the farm shed, joining the items already there. The tenant then appears to have added further items.
While I am satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all their rubbish, they should not be held liable for removing items that were already at the property. In this case, I reduce the amount claimed by $350.00 and award the landlord $1,927.00 for the removal and disposal of rubbish.
Having considered the photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. The cleaning claim includes carpet cleaning. The tenant kept dogs inside, contrary to the terms of the agreement. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy and shows significant staining and soiling at the end, likely caused by the dogs.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had the front door rekeyed and purchased a new key for the back door. The amount claimed is for the rekeying of the front door only.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the walls and doors occurring during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has provided photographs showing a total of three large holes and six smaller holes in two-bedroom doors and the door between the hallway and lounge.
The landlord has also provided photographs showing holes in the walls of the hallway, two of which have been roughly and only partly repaired, as well as holes in the walls of the lounge and each of the three bedrooms. There is also a small area of graffiti, likely made by a child, in the hallway. 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 are 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 landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $500.00 per claim.
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 and decision
I am able to make a proper before-and-after comparison. I am satisfied that the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. Given the construction of the doors and the extent of the damage, it was more economical to replace them rather than attempt repairs. The doors were original features. Hollow core internal doors in residential rental properties typically have an expected lifespan of approximately 15 to 20 years. While these doors were well past their expected lifespan, they were nevertheless functional and in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord replaced them with a cheaper alternative. In these circumstances, the landlord is entitled to reasonable compensation, and I make no deduction for betterment.
Concerning the other damage to walls I am also satisfied that it occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances. Only the damaged areas were repaired, and I am not satisfied that there has been any betterment, and no deduction is made.
The amount claimed and awarded is less than the insurance excesses that may have applied. However, I am satisfied that the damage, particularly the holes in the doors and walls, was intentional. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361585 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361585 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions