What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373061 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6455753-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5373061?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $296.82 awarded to landlord; Excess: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Invoice: $425.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373061?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13840972-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373061 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6455753-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5373061?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $296.82 awarded to landlord; Excess: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Invoice: $425.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373061?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13840972-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Pohutukawa Drive, Cable Bay, Northland 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5373061 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

6 Pohutukawa Drive, Cable Bay, Northland 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5373061 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373061. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Excess	$550.00	Repairs: Excess
Repairs: Invoice	$425.00	Repairs: Invoice
Lock/key replacement	$296.82	Lock/key replacement

Claims and awards for application 5373061. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $149.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Excess

Repairs: Invoice

Amount: $425.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Invoice

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $296.82
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6455753-002) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended on 13 October 2025 by way of 28 days' notice given by the tenant.
The tenant seeks: a) the return of the bond; b) $1,500 compensation for the landlord's delay in returning the bond; c) $13,912.81 for relocation costs and various other expenses allegedly incurred as a result of the non-return of the bond; d) $1,500 compensation for stress and inconvenience arising from the delay in the return of the bond; and e) reimbursement of the $28 filing fee.
The landlord seeks: a) $550 for damage to the kitchen bench and cabinetry; b) $299 for carpet cleaning following the tenant's vacating the premises; c) $296.82 for locksmith costs; d) $425 for repairing a hole in the wall; and e) $2,500 for methamphetamine decontamination and associated repair costs excess. f) reimbursement of the $28 filing fee. Is the landlord liable to pay $1,500 compensation for the delay in the refund of the bond?
Bonds remain the property of the tenant and are held in trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. At the end of a tenancy, disputes commonly arise regarding the proper apportionment of the bond. The correct process for resolving those disputes is by application to the Tenancy Tribunal, which both parties have done in this case.
That process inevitably takes time and may be stressful. However, the Tribunal does not award compensation merely because the statutory dispute resolution process delays the release of the bond.
The tenant's claim for $1,500 compensation arising from the delay in the release of the bond is therefore dismissed.

Is the landlord liable for the tenant's relocation costs?

The tenant says that, around October 2025, damage occurred at the property as a result of an incident of family violence. Following notification of that incident, the landlord commenced investigating repairs, including arranging for an insurance assessor to inspect the property.
The tenant says that, because of the resulting uncertainty and her anticipation that she might receive notice to vacate, she chose to give 28 days' notice herself. She subsequently relocated to Queenstown and later returned to Auckland, incurring various costs and experiencing stress.
I am not satisfied there is any causal connection between those expenses and any act or omission of the landlord. The tenant chose to give notice of her own volition in order to obtain certainty for herself. The relocation costs were the consequence of that decision rather than any breach by the landlord.
The tenant's claim for relocation costs is therefore dismissed. Is the landlord liable for compensation for stress arising from the relocation and subsequent events?
As discussed above, there is an established statutory process for resolving disputes regarding the bond.
While I accept that the tenant experienced stress, it appears that much of that stress resulted from decisions she made following the uncertainty surrounding the tenancy. Although regrettable, there is no causal connection between that stress and any breach or shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The tenant's claim for $1,500 compensation for stress and inconvenience is therefore dismissed. Is the tenant liable for $550 for damage to the kitchen bench and cabinetry?
The tenant notified the landlord that there had been an incident of family violence at the property involving her former partner, whom she described as an unauthorised trespasser.
The landlord produced an insurance assessor's report recording extensive dents, marking to the kitchen bench cabinetry and surrounding walls.
The tenant submits that the insurance assessor's report reflects discussions at the time that her former partner caused the damage during an incident of family violence. However, there is nothing in the report suggesting the damage was caused by an unauthorised person for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Following the conclusion of the tenancy, after the landlord advised that an insurance claim would be made, the tenant made a retrospective family harm report on 22 October 2025. In that report she alleged that, on 12 July 2025, her former partner, who is also the father of her children, attended the property and caused the damage.
The insurance assessor's photographs show numerous dents, knife marks and cut marks throughout the cabinetry. The nature, quantity and distribution of the damage indicate conduct that was, at the very least, careless and, more likely than not, intentional and is not consistent with the type of impact damage the Tribunal commonly observes in cases involving violence. Instead, it is consistent with repeated careless or deliberate damage.
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was careless damage for which the tenant is liable.
The landlord is awarded $550.

Is the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning?

The landlord claims $299 for carpet cleaning.
The tenant produced evidence that the carpets were not in excellent condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord's ingoing inspection report also shows some pre-existing staining.
The tenant provided evidence that she arranged for carpet cleaning before vacating. However, the exit inspection report clearly demonstrates that the extent of staining had increased by the end of the tenancy and the photographs were taken after the tenants carpet cleaner attended. As such, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to engage further carpet cleaning.
Given the evidence of pre-existing staining, it is appropriate to apportion responsibility.
Accordingly, I award one-half of the claimed amount, being $149.50.

Is the tenant liable for the lock change costs?

The landlord says the tenant changed the locks during the tenancy and failed to return the replacement keys at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that she did not return the keys when the tenancy ended. She says she simply forgot and was willing to return them on 14 October 2025, the day after the tenancy ended. By that time, however, the landlord had already replaced the locks.
Section 40(1)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires a tenant, at the conclusion of a tenancy, to return all keys to the landlord.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with that obligation. An offer to return the keys after the tenancy had already ended is not a defence. The landlord was entitled to replace the locks when possession was returned without all keys.
The landlord is awarded $296.82.

Is the tenant liable for the hole repair invoice?

The photographs show a hole in the wall near floor level.
The tenant says the damage occurred during the incident of family violence. However, given the location of the hole, on the balance of probabilities, I do not accept that explanation.
The damage is more consistent with the overall condition of the property at the conclusion of the tenancy, which reflects a lack of reasonable care, and is consistent with the other careless damage found throughout the premises.
The landlord is awarded $425. Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine decontamination and associated repair costs?
The landlord produced evidence that, on 17 November 2025, more than one month after the tenant vacated the premises, methamphetamine testing was carried out.
The testing recorded an average methamphetamine residue of 1.79 micrograms per 100 square centimetres across 10 locations and a theoretical maximum of
9 micrograms.
The landlord then commissioned additional testing of appliances installed during the tenancy in an attempt to establish that the contamination originated during the tenancy. Those results recorded significantly lower readings of 0.02, 0.09, and 0.09 micrograms per 100 square centimetres.
The landlord acknowledged that no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing had been undertaken.
Baseline testing is required before liability for methamphetamine contamination, or any resulting remediation costs, can be established. This principle is well established in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210, Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, and Landlord v Reardon [2022] NZTT 4322786.
As such the landlords claim cannot succeed.
Even if I were satisfied that the contamination was attributable to the tenant, I would not have awarded the remediation costs. The recorded levels were low and, having regard to the New Zealand Standards, the Gluckman Report, and the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, the level of intervention undertaken was disproportionate.
The claim for methamphetamine decontamination and associated repair costs is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Given the dismissal of the tenants application an award of the filing fee is declined.
I do not consider the landlord to have been wholly or substantially successful in their application and therefore they must also bear their own filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373061. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Excess	$550.00	Repairs: Excess
Repairs: Invoice	$425.00	Repairs: Invoice
Lock/key replacement	$296.82	Lock/key replacement

Claims and awards for application 5373061. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $149.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Excess

Repairs: Invoice

Amount: $425.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Invoice

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $296.82
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6455753-002) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended on 13 October 2025 by way of 28 days' notice given by the tenant.
The tenant seeks: a) the return of the bond; b) $1,500 compensation for the landlord's delay in returning the bond; c) $13,912.81 for relocation costs and various other expenses allegedly incurred as a result of the non-return of the bond; d) $1,500 compensation for stress and inconvenience arising from the delay in the return of the bond; and e) reimbursement of the $28 filing fee.
The landlord seeks: a) $550 for damage to the kitchen bench and cabinetry; b) $299 for carpet cleaning following the tenant's vacating the premises; c) $296.82 for locksmith costs; d) $425 for repairing a hole in the wall; and e) $2,500 for methamphetamine decontamination and associated repair costs excess. f) reimbursement of the $28 filing fee. Is the landlord liable to pay $1,500 compensation for the delay in the refund of the bond?
Bonds remain the property of the tenant and are held in trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. At the end of a tenancy, disputes commonly arise regarding the proper apportionment of the bond. The correct process for resolving those disputes is by application to the Tenancy Tribunal, which both parties have done in this case.
That process inevitably takes time and may be stressful. However, the Tribunal does not award compensation merely because the statutory dispute resolution process delays the release of the bond.
The tenant's claim for $1,500 compensation arising from the delay in the release of the bond is therefore dismissed.

Is the landlord liable for the tenant's relocation costs?

The tenant says that, around October 2025, damage occurred at the property as a result of an incident of family violence. Following notification of that incident, the landlord commenced investigating repairs, including arranging for an insurance assessor to inspect the property.
The tenant says that, because of the resulting uncertainty and her anticipation that she might receive notice to vacate, she chose to give 28 days' notice herself. She subsequently relocated to Queenstown and later returned to Auckland, incurring various costs and experiencing stress.
I am not satisfied there is any causal connection between those expenses and any act or omission of the landlord. The tenant chose to give notice of her own volition in order to obtain certainty for herself. The relocation costs were the consequence of that decision rather than any breach by the landlord.
The tenant's claim for relocation costs is therefore dismissed. Is the landlord liable for compensation for stress arising from the relocation and subsequent events?
As discussed above, there is an established statutory process for resolving disputes regarding the bond.
While I accept that the tenant experienced stress, it appears that much of that stress resulted from decisions she made following the uncertainty surrounding the tenancy. Although regrettable, there is no causal connection between that stress and any breach or shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The tenant's claim for $1,500 compensation for stress and inconvenience is therefore dismissed. Is the tenant liable for $550 for damage to the kitchen bench and cabinetry?
The tenant notified the landlord that there had been an incident of family violence at the property involving her former partner, whom she described as an unauthorised trespasser.
The landlord produced an insurance assessor's report recording extensive dents, marking to the kitchen bench cabinetry and surrounding walls.
The tenant submits that the insurance assessor's report reflects discussions at the time that her former partner caused the damage during an incident of family violence. However, there is nothing in the report suggesting the damage was caused by an unauthorised person for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Following the conclusion of the tenancy, after the landlord advised that an insurance claim would be made, the tenant made a retrospective family harm report on 22 October 2025. In that report she alleged that, on 12 July 2025, her former partner, who is also the father of her children, attended the property and caused the damage.
The insurance assessor's photographs show numerous dents, knife marks and cut marks throughout the cabinetry. The nature, quantity and distribution of the damage indicate conduct that was, at the very least, careless and, more likely than not, intentional and is not consistent with the type of impact damage the Tribunal commonly observes in cases involving violence. Instead, it is consistent with repeated careless or deliberate damage.
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was careless damage for which the tenant is liable.
The landlord is awarded $550.

Is the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning?

The landlord claims $299 for carpet cleaning.
The tenant produced evidence that the carpets were not in excellent condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord's ingoing inspection report also shows some pre-existing staining.
The tenant provided evidence that she arranged for carpet cleaning before vacating. However, the exit inspection report clearly demonstrates that the extent of staining had increased by the end of the tenancy and the photographs were taken after the tenants carpet cleaner attended. As such, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to engage further carpet cleaning.
Given the evidence of pre-existing staining, it is appropriate to apportion responsibility.
Accordingly, I award one-half of the claimed amount, being $149.50.

Is the tenant liable for the lock change costs?

The landlord says the tenant changed the locks during the tenancy and failed to return the replacement keys at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that she did not return the keys when the tenancy ended. She says she simply forgot and was willing to return them on 14 October 2025, the day after the tenancy ended. By that time, however, the landlord had already replaced the locks.
Section 40(1)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires a tenant, at the conclusion of a tenancy, to return all keys to the landlord.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with that obligation. An offer to return the keys after the tenancy had already ended is not a defence. The landlord was entitled to replace the locks when possession was returned without all keys.
The landlord is awarded $296.82.

Is the tenant liable for the hole repair invoice?

The photographs show a hole in the wall near floor level.
The tenant says the damage occurred during the incident of family violence. However, given the location of the hole, on the balance of probabilities, I do not accept that explanation.
The damage is more consistent with the overall condition of the property at the conclusion of the tenancy, which reflects a lack of reasonable care, and is consistent with the other careless damage found throughout the premises.
The landlord is awarded $425. Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine decontamination and associated repair costs?
The landlord produced evidence that, on 17 November 2025, more than one month after the tenant vacated the premises, methamphetamine testing was carried out.
The testing recorded an average methamphetamine residue of 1.79 micrograms per 100 square centimetres across 10 locations and a theoretical maximum of
9 micrograms.
The landlord then commissioned additional testing of appliances installed during the tenancy in an attempt to establish that the contamination originated during the tenancy. Those results recorded significantly lower readings of 0.02, 0.09, and 0.09 micrograms per 100 square centimetres.
The landlord acknowledged that no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing had been undertaken.
Baseline testing is required before liability for methamphetamine contamination, or any resulting remediation costs, can be established. This principle is well established in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210, Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, and Landlord v Reardon [2022] NZTT 4322786.
As such the landlords claim cannot succeed.
Even if I were satisfied that the contamination was attributable to the tenant, I would not have awarded the remediation costs. The recorded levels were low and, having regard to the New Zealand Standards, the Gluckman Report, and the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, the level of intervention undertaken was disproportionate.
The claim for methamphetamine decontamination and associated repair costs is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Given the dismissal of the tenants application an award of the filing fee is declined.
I do not consider the landlord to have been wholly or substantially successful in their application and therefore they must also bear their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373061 — Property damage at 6 Pohutukawa Drive, Cable Bay, Northland 0420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373061 — Property damage at 6 Pohutukawa Drive, Cable Bay, Northland 0420

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for the tenant's relocation costs?

Is the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning?

Is the tenant liable for the lock change costs?

Is the tenant liable for the hole repair invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for the tenant's relocation costs?

Is the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning?

Is the tenant liable for the lock change costs?

Is the tenant liable for the hole repair invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions