What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364562 about?

The tribunal order states: to pay from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5364562?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364562?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364562 about?

The tribunal order states: to pay from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5364562?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364562?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

40 Liverpool Street, Hampden, Hampden 9410, House Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364562 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364562 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Compensation for carpet replacement
Net award	$2,000.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,000.00

Order

to pay from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () to immediately.
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $7,178.68 is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing, including a representative for the landlord.
On 1/9/2025 the tenant filed an application disputing the landlords’ claim for compensation over and above the bond.
In response on 13/10/2025 the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears of $500.00, compensation of $9,178.68 and exemplary damages for allowing a dog inside.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears because it did not relate to this tenancy.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term which began on 29/9/2023 at $500.00 per week.
The tenant vacated on 14/4/2025. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed compensation of $185.00 for replacement of a garage remote.
The tenant submitted that the remote had inadvertently been removed but they were unaware of that fact until after the landlord had replaced the remote.
The landlord disagreed that the tenant had not been advised before replacement that the remote was missing.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the garage remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
However, based on the fact that the tenant agreed at the hearing to return the remote and the landlord asked for this to happen I consider it is not appropriate to make an award for the costs of replacement.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $8,993.68 as follows: a. $3,371.80 for repairs and painting to various walls, b. $5,250.00 for 7 insurance excesses for carpet replacement, c. $371.88 for a television cable repair.
In support of the claim the landlord provided quotes for the walls and television cable repaired in July, an email from a carpet cleaner about the state of the carpet, and property assessor report and confirmation of excesses charged from State insurance.
Further the landlord provided exit photographs taken “approximately on 12/5/2025” an incomplete property inspection report dated 10/9/2023, a report dated 8/12/2024 and the exit report dated 9/2025.
While the tenant agreed some of the staining had been caused during their tenancy, they did not believe all the stains had and they were unsure of how the small hole happened.
The tenant offered the bond as their contribution to the carpet replacement, but believed the seven excesses were excessive, in particular because the lounge dining area was open plan, not three individual rooms.
Further the tenant confirmed they did make some marks on the walls but thought these were from wear and tear, and there were existing marks when the tenancy began.
The tenant submitted, and the landlord did not dispute, that the landlord paid for the installation of the television cable undertaken by the landlords’ electrician and had not asked for it to be removed during the tenancy.
The tenant provided photographs taken on the day they vacated, 14/4/2025 and a text message to the landlord about a replacement dog. They confirmed that the carpets had been professionally cleaned before they left the premises.
There is no suggestion by the landlord that the damage was caused other than carelessly.
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.
Based on the evidence of the tenant I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the carpets.
However, I consider the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear because of the lack of a completed entry inspection, the number of years since the last redecoration and the length of the tenancy.
As the landlord knew about and paid for the installation of the television cable, I do not consider the tenant is liable for the removal.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary damages are not available to the landlord because I consider the tenant had the tacit approval of the landlord to have a dog inside the premises.
This is supported by the text to the landlord of 26/2/2024.
Moreover, even if the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement by having a dog inside the premises such a breach would not amount to an unlawful act.
As I have found some damage was caused to the carpet during the tenancy I consider it is reasonable to award compensation.
However, I do not consider it reasonable to automatically award the 7 insurance excesses claimed by the landlord.
There is no objective evidence by way of photographs or a fully completed entry inspection report to support the state of the carpets at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord was unable to provide the full copy of the report from the technician who inspected the carpet.
The email from the carpet company noted that two of the carpeted areas, the downstairs hallway and downstairs bedroom/office were not damaged.
The landlord confirmed that the carpet was twelve years old and full replacement was needed due in part to the need to have matching carpets throughout. The age and condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy needs to be considered and their likely useful lifespan.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Taking all the circumstances into account, I consider an award in the form of the bond is reasonable compensation to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute from the tenant as their contribution to the damage to the carpets.
The renting of premises is a business and should be treated as such by landlords, including those who formerly resided in what are now rental properties.
I note with some concern that it took the landlord six months to file their claim with the Tribunal, and they did so only after the tenant had filed their application. This effectively means that the bond, which is tenants’ money until proven otherwise, was not available to be used to mitigate the loss of either party.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because they were largely successful with the proceedings.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364562 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Compensation for carpet replacement
Net award	$2,000.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,000.00

Order

to pay from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () to immediately.
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $7,178.68 is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing, including a representative for the landlord.
On 1/9/2025 the tenant filed an application disputing the landlords’ claim for compensation over and above the bond.
In response on 13/10/2025 the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears of $500.00, compensation of $9,178.68 and exemplary damages for allowing a dog inside.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears because it did not relate to this tenancy.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term which began on 29/9/2023 at $500.00 per week.
The tenant vacated on 14/4/2025. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed compensation of $185.00 for replacement of a garage remote.
The tenant submitted that the remote had inadvertently been removed but they were unaware of that fact until after the landlord had replaced the remote.
The landlord disagreed that the tenant had not been advised before replacement that the remote was missing.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the garage remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
However, based on the fact that the tenant agreed at the hearing to return the remote and the landlord asked for this to happen I consider it is not appropriate to make an award for the costs of replacement.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $8,993.68 as follows: a. $3,371.80 for repairs and painting to various walls, b. $5,250.00 for 7 insurance excesses for carpet replacement, c. $371.88 for a television cable repair.
In support of the claim the landlord provided quotes for the walls and television cable repaired in July, an email from a carpet cleaner about the state of the carpet, and property assessor report and confirmation of excesses charged from State insurance.
Further the landlord provided exit photographs taken “approximately on 12/5/2025” an incomplete property inspection report dated 10/9/2023, a report dated 8/12/2024 and the exit report dated 9/2025.
While the tenant agreed some of the staining had been caused during their tenancy, they did not believe all the stains had and they were unsure of how the small hole happened.
The tenant offered the bond as their contribution to the carpet replacement, but believed the seven excesses were excessive, in particular because the lounge dining area was open plan, not three individual rooms.
Further the tenant confirmed they did make some marks on the walls but thought these were from wear and tear, and there were existing marks when the tenancy began.
The tenant submitted, and the landlord did not dispute, that the landlord paid for the installation of the television cable undertaken by the landlords’ electrician and had not asked for it to be removed during the tenancy.
The tenant provided photographs taken on the day they vacated, 14/4/2025 and a text message to the landlord about a replacement dog. They confirmed that the carpets had been professionally cleaned before they left the premises.
There is no suggestion by the landlord that the damage was caused other than carelessly.
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.
Based on the evidence of the tenant I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the carpets.
However, I consider the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear because of the lack of a completed entry inspection, the number of years since the last redecoration and the length of the tenancy.
As the landlord knew about and paid for the installation of the television cable, I do not consider the tenant is liable for the removal.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary damages are not available to the landlord because I consider the tenant had the tacit approval of the landlord to have a dog inside the premises.
This is supported by the text to the landlord of 26/2/2024.
Moreover, even if the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement by having a dog inside the premises such a breach would not amount to an unlawful act.
As I have found some damage was caused to the carpet during the tenancy I consider it is reasonable to award compensation.
However, I do not consider it reasonable to automatically award the 7 insurance excesses claimed by the landlord.
There is no objective evidence by way of photographs or a fully completed entry inspection report to support the state of the carpets at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord was unable to provide the full copy of the report from the technician who inspected the carpet.
The email from the carpet company noted that two of the carpeted areas, the downstairs hallway and downstairs bedroom/office were not damaged.
The landlord confirmed that the carpet was twelve years old and full replacement was needed due in part to the need to have matching carpets throughout. The age and condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy needs to be considered and their likely useful lifespan.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Taking all the circumstances into account, I consider an award in the form of the bond is reasonable compensation to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute from the tenant as their contribution to the damage to the carpets.
The renting of premises is a business and should be treated as such by landlords, including those who formerly resided in what are now rental properties.
I note with some concern that it took the landlord six months to file their claim with the Tribunal, and they did so only after the tenant had filed their application. This effectively means that the bond, which is tenants’ money until proven otherwise, was not available to be used to mitigate the loss of either party.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because they were largely successful with the proceedings.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364562 — Property damage at 40 Liverpool Street, Hampden, Hampden 9410, House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364562 — Property damage at 40 Liverpool Street, Hampden, Hampden 9410, House

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 the damage to the premises?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

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 the damage to the premises?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions