What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363554 about?

The tribunal order states: Ronald Hale and Taryn Kanofou must pay Christchurch Property Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5363554?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,920.00 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint Hole In Wall: $397.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Ad Cost: $136.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363554?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363554?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363554 about?

The tribunal order states: Ronald Hale and Taryn Kanofou must pay Christchurch Property Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5363554?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,920.00 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint Hole In Wall: $397.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Ad Cost: $136.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363554?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363554?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 65 Lincoln Road, Hillmorton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363554 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363554 — net $2,877.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15.10.2025	$2,920.00	Rent arrears to 15.10.2025
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: plaster and paint hole in wall	$397.46	Repairs: plaster and paint hole in wall
Trade me ad cost	$136.85	Trade me ad cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,877.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,877.13

Order

Ronald Hale and Taryn Kanofou must pay Christchurch Property Limited $2,877.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.18 (BN-00035166) to Christchurch Property Limited immediately.

Reasons

Ms Catanach, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone numbers for the tenants, the last three digits being 267 and 101 respectively, were each called without any response. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages at the start of the hearing.
The landlord said this was a fixed-term tenancy that was due to end on 31 February 2026, that the tenants asked to break the lease early, that new tenants moved into the property on 16 October 2025, so the landlord considered the end of the tenancy was 15 October 2025, which I accept. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making any claim bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not that something happened.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 15 October 2025, which is the end of the tenancy, which is $2,920.00.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord did not provide a full Entry Inspection Report or a full Final Inspection Report but provided a handful of photographs, some on entry and some on exit of the tenancy, along with invoices. Cleaning and carpet cleaning
The photographs provided by the landlord in relation to cleaning and carpet cleaning they say was required at the end of the tenancy, as highlighted by them at the hearing, included photographs of some carpet stains in bedroom 1, a dirty toilet, a dirty bathroom windowsill, some small pieces of dirt on the floor of the toilet and the bathroom cupboard that needed cleaning after some rubbish items were removed from it.
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning and carpet cleaning in the amount of $275.00 and said there were two cleaners at the property cleaning and doing the carpet cleaning.
The landlord’s photographs of the areas that required cleaning and carpet cleaning, which I accept, include cleaning the carpet of some stains in bedroom 1, cleaning the bathroom windowsill, bathroom cupboard, the toilet bowl and probably sweeping the floor around the toilet with the small pieces seen in the photograph of the toilet floor. In other words, whilst the landlord has provided some evidence of a requirement for cleaning, I find the evidence provided did not support a full house clean, which the landlord said was the work completed by the cleaning company, in the amount of $275.00.
Therefore, given insufficient additional supporting evidence provided as to the requirement for a full house clean, I find that, based on the evidence provided of actual cleaning requirements that have been shown, a more reasonable amount for cleaning and carpet cleaning is $175.00. Rubbish removal and garden work
The landlord said there was garden work required and rubbish that had to be removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed $350.75 for this and provided an invoice in this amount which showed lawn mowing, weeding, rubbish removal and disposal.
However, the photographs provided by the landlord for their claim did not include any photographs of the condition of the lawns or edging of the lawns or gardens at the end of the tenancy to show any requirement for the garden work claimed. Further, the photographs provided and highlighted by the landlord in relation to rubbish showed several smaller items left in the bathroom cupboard, such as a can of shaving foam and a couple of small items, a wire basket and packet of wipes, then a knife, another small item, laundry powder and a small box left in the laundry cupboard. There was a photograph of an outside grate with some leaves and dirt around it which showed a few small red paper clip type objects but showed little else other than very small pieces of a white material. The landlord said during the hearing that these small pieces were all around the garden, but the landlord did not provide any photographs or other evidence confirming this.
As the landlord has not provided any photographs of the condition of the lawns and gardens at the end of the tenancy, I cannot consider the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing and weeding, as they have not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim was likely required.
However, based on the photographs provided of the rubbish left at the property, as outlined above, I consider $150.00 reasonable to cover any rubbish removal and disposal costs for the items shown in the photographs provided. Trade me advertisement cost
The landlord claimed for the cost of an advertisement on Trade me to find a new tenant after these tenants broke the lease early. The landlord claimed $136.85 for the Trade me ad and provided an invoice for this. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find this a reasonable amount and award this to the landlord.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the 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 or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Hole in bedroom wall
The landlord said the tenant caused a large hole in the wall of bedroom 1 and provided photographs of the before and after conditions of these walls, which showed a large hole in the wall at the end of the tenancy.
Given the photographs provided, I find this is intentional damage on the tenants’ part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B does not apply here.
The quote provided by the landlord, which the landlord confirmed was work completed and later invoiced for the same amount, which I accept, is in the amount of $454.25, which I find is a reasonable cost for this repair before considering depreciation.
The quote/invoice confirms that the hole was plastered, sanded and painted. The landlord was unsure as to the amount of the invoice that was attributable to only the painting. I attribute half the total cost of $454.25, which would be $227.12, to painting alone for this repair.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
In relation to the painting of the hole, the landlord said the entire premises were last painted about 1.5 years before the tenancy began in February 2025, which would be 2.5 years ago.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property to be around 10 years. As such, I deduct the cost I find is attributable to the painting, $227.12, by 25% to an award of $170.34 for the painting portion of the repair. I then add this to the balance of the invoice, which is $227.12, for a total award to the landlord of $397.46 for plastering, sanding and painting the hole in the bedroom wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Christchurch Property Limited has been successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.18 (BN-00035166) to Christchurch Property Limited immediately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363554 — net $2,877.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15.10.2025	$2,920.00	Rent arrears to 15.10.2025
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: plaster and paint hole in wall	$397.46	Repairs: plaster and paint hole in wall
Trade me ad cost	$136.85	Trade me ad cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,877.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,877.13

Order

Ronald Hale and Taryn Kanofou must pay Christchurch Property Limited $2,877.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.18 (BN-00035166) to Christchurch Property Limited immediately.

Reasons

Ms Catanach, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone numbers for the tenants, the last three digits being 267 and 101 respectively, were each called without any response. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages at the start of the hearing.
The landlord said this was a fixed-term tenancy that was due to end on 31 February 2026, that the tenants asked to break the lease early, that new tenants moved into the property on 16 October 2025, so the landlord considered the end of the tenancy was 15 October 2025, which I accept. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making any claim bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not that something happened.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 15 October 2025, which is the end of the tenancy, which is $2,920.00.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord did not provide a full Entry Inspection Report or a full Final Inspection Report but provided a handful of photographs, some on entry and some on exit of the tenancy, along with invoices. Cleaning and carpet cleaning
The photographs provided by the landlord in relation to cleaning and carpet cleaning they say was required at the end of the tenancy, as highlighted by them at the hearing, included photographs of some carpet stains in bedroom 1, a dirty toilet, a dirty bathroom windowsill, some small pieces of dirt on the floor of the toilet and the bathroom cupboard that needed cleaning after some rubbish items were removed from it.
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning and carpet cleaning in the amount of $275.00 and said there were two cleaners at the property cleaning and doing the carpet cleaning.
The landlord’s photographs of the areas that required cleaning and carpet cleaning, which I accept, include cleaning the carpet of some stains in bedroom 1, cleaning the bathroom windowsill, bathroom cupboard, the toilet bowl and probably sweeping the floor around the toilet with the small pieces seen in the photograph of the toilet floor. In other words, whilst the landlord has provided some evidence of a requirement for cleaning, I find the evidence provided did not support a full house clean, which the landlord said was the work completed by the cleaning company, in the amount of $275.00.
Therefore, given insufficient additional supporting evidence provided as to the requirement for a full house clean, I find that, based on the evidence provided of actual cleaning requirements that have been shown, a more reasonable amount for cleaning and carpet cleaning is $175.00. Rubbish removal and garden work
The landlord said there was garden work required and rubbish that had to be removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed $350.75 for this and provided an invoice in this amount which showed lawn mowing, weeding, rubbish removal and disposal.
However, the photographs provided by the landlord for their claim did not include any photographs of the condition of the lawns or edging of the lawns or gardens at the end of the tenancy to show any requirement for the garden work claimed. Further, the photographs provided and highlighted by the landlord in relation to rubbish showed several smaller items left in the bathroom cupboard, such as a can of shaving foam and a couple of small items, a wire basket and packet of wipes, then a knife, another small item, laundry powder and a small box left in the laundry cupboard. There was a photograph of an outside grate with some leaves and dirt around it which showed a few small red paper clip type objects but showed little else other than very small pieces of a white material. The landlord said during the hearing that these small pieces were all around the garden, but the landlord did not provide any photographs or other evidence confirming this.
As the landlord has not provided any photographs of the condition of the lawns and gardens at the end of the tenancy, I cannot consider the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing and weeding, as they have not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim was likely required.
However, based on the photographs provided of the rubbish left at the property, as outlined above, I consider $150.00 reasonable to cover any rubbish removal and disposal costs for the items shown in the photographs provided. Trade me advertisement cost
The landlord claimed for the cost of an advertisement on Trade me to find a new tenant after these tenants broke the lease early. The landlord claimed $136.85 for the Trade me ad and provided an invoice for this. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find this a reasonable amount and award this to the landlord.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the 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 or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Hole in bedroom wall
The landlord said the tenant caused a large hole in the wall of bedroom 1 and provided photographs of the before and after conditions of these walls, which showed a large hole in the wall at the end of the tenancy.
Given the photographs provided, I find this is intentional damage on the tenants’ part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B does not apply here.
The quote provided by the landlord, which the landlord confirmed was work completed and later invoiced for the same amount, which I accept, is in the amount of $454.25, which I find is a reasonable cost for this repair before considering depreciation.
The quote/invoice confirms that the hole was plastered, sanded and painted. The landlord was unsure as to the amount of the invoice that was attributable to only the painting. I attribute half the total cost of $454.25, which would be $227.12, to painting alone for this repair.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
In relation to the painting of the hole, the landlord said the entire premises were last painted about 1.5 years before the tenancy began in February 2025, which would be 2.5 years ago.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property to be around 10 years. As such, I deduct the cost I find is attributable to the painting, $227.12, by 25% to an award of $170.34 for the painting portion of the repair. I then add this to the balance of the invoice, which is $227.12, for a total award to the landlord of $397.46 for plastering, sanding and painting the hole in the bedroom wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Christchurch Property Limited has been successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.18 (BN-00035166) to Christchurch Property Limited immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363554 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 65 Lincoln Road, Hillmorton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363554 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 65 Lincoln Road, Hillmorton, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions