Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5374862 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 125 Knighton Road, Hillcrest, hamilton 3216
Published 26 February 2026 · Application 5374862
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Smoke alarms
Order
The table in the previous order omitted the filing fee. The table is amended adding the filing fee. There are no other changes made.
- Charayne Matenga must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as The Agent for SG Hill Ltd $3,157.11, immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (BN-00007161) to Utrust Property Management Limited as The Agent for SG Hill Ltd immediately.
Reasons
- Ms Liang, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
- The tenancy commenced on 13 December 2024 and was periodic. The tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 01 October 2025. On 25 October 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, re keying locks, missing chattels, and for damage to curtains, kitchen cabinetry, and walls.
- 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 produced an up-to-date rent summary which they state records all of the rent payments received. The rent arrears are proved. The amount claimed is awarded. Cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, missing chattels, key replacement
- The property comprises of three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen / dining area, lounge, and garage. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report and photographs, and photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has produced invoices in support of the amounts claimed. 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.
- The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
- I have viewed the photographs. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean, in particular the bathrooms, kitchen, toilet, and bedrooms. I am also satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all of their rubbish. Both the council supplied waste and recycling bins are shown as being full. If the end of the tenancy coincided with collection day, the bins should have been placed on the curb or if not, arrangement made for the contents to be removed.
- The tenancy agreement recorded the keys provided at the commencement. There is also a photograph of the keys and the agreement together. Two keys were provided to the front door. Only one was returned. In order to properly secure the property for incoming occupants the landlord had the lock re keyed. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return all keys.
- The pre tenancy inspection report and photographs show a smoke alarm in the hallway and a carbon monoxide alarm in the lounge. These chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for their replacement.
- The compensation claimed is reasonable and awarded in full.
- In relation to the carpet cleaning. The pre tenancy inspection report and photographs show pre-existing staining to some areas of carpet. Based on the end of tenancy photographs I am satisfied that there has been staining and soiling over and above that already present. I am satisfied the tenant has failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean. However, because of the pre-existing stains I reduce the amount awarded for carpet cleaning to $250.00. Damage – curtains, kitchen cabinetry, walls, window.
- The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to a curtain in a bedroom, kitchen cabinet, and walls in two bedrooms, which occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis and decision Curtain
- The back of a curtain in one of the bedrooms is torn. Having viewed the pre tenancy and end of tenancy photographs I am satisfied that this damage has occurred during the tenancy. The nature of the damage suggests that it is more than fair wear and tear, and likely the result of carelessness.
- The landlord has insurance for damage, however, the amount claimed is less than the excess that would have applied. I must take into account betterment. Curtains in residential rental properties have an expected lifespan of approximately eight years. The landlord states the curtains were in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy, and around three years old. I therefore reduce the claim by one third for betterment and award the landlord $124. 20. Kitchen cabinet
- The landlord produced a photograph showing damage to the bottom hinge area of a kitchen cabinet door and cupboard. The door has three hinges. At the commencement of the tenancy, the middle hinge had suffered similar damage, as shown in the pre-tenancy inspection photographs.
- The landlord states that the damage to the middle hinge was repaired during the tenancy and claims that the tenant is liable for the damage to the bottom hinge. I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable. Although the damage occurred during the tenancy, the nature of the damage is the same as that to the middle hinge. I am not satisfied that it is more than fair wear and tear.
- The kitchen cabinetry is not new, is a high-use area, and shows other signs of fair wear and tear. I decline the claim for damage as it relates to the kitchen cabinet. Walls
- During the tenancy, the tenant hung a plastic creeper plant on the walls in two of the bedrooms for decorative purposes. The creeper was attached using strings or wires that were nailed into the wall. When these were removed, multiple nail holes were left in the affected walls. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is intentional. The amount claimed is reasonable and is awarded in full. Only the damaged areas have been repaired, and there has been no betterment. Window
- During the tenancy, the tenant removed a small window near the front door to gain access to the property. The landlord produced a photograph showing the window in place at the commencement of the tenancy and missing at the end. The window could not be located.
- The landlord stated that the tenant admitted removing the window to gain entry after losing their key. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is intentional. I award the amount claimed. Costs
- Because Utrust Property Management Limited as The Agent for SG Hill Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
- Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression, and no orders are made.