What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5378308?

The tribunal order states: Angela Rosa Woods must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agents for Kelly,

How much money was awarded in case 5378308?

Cleaning: $236.14 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,146.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $753.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $545.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Door Handles: $425.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13037635-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5378308?

The tribunal order states: Angela Rosa Woods must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agents for Kelly,

How much money was awarded in case 5378308?

Cleaning: $236.14 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,146.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $753.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $545.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Door Handles: $425.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13037635-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Paul Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378308 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5378308 — net $1,071.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 September 2026	$545.00	Rent arrears to 10 September 2026
Carpet Cleaning and missing lightbulbs	$236.14	Carpet Cleaning and missing lightbulbs
Repair & replace doors	$1,146.65	Repair & replace doors
Replace door handles	$425.50	Replace door handles
Repairs to bedroom walls	$753.82	Repairs to bedroom walls
Repairs bathroom wall	$316.25	Repairs bathroom wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,071.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,071.36

Ms McCurdy and Ms Tamblyn appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The tenancy commenced on 16 August 2024 and was periodic. The landlord gave 90 days’ notice, and the tenancy ended on 10 September 2025. On 31 October 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears and compensation. Prior to filing the application, the landlord made a unilateral request for the release of the bond, which was subsequently released by the Bond Centre. This amount will be offset against the amount ordered. Rent arrears.

The landlord provided an up-to-date rent summary which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition and failed to account for three missing light bulbs.

The property was constructed in the 1960s and consists of three bedrooms, a toilet, bathroom, kitchen/dining room, lounge, laundry, and garage. The photographs show that the property retains most of its original features, notably the bathroom and kitchen.

The landlord has produced pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, both of which include photographs showing the carpet and the light bulbs at the commencement and at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord states that the carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy.

The landlord is claiming $236.14 to clean the carpet and replace the missing light bulbs. The invoice is not itemised. The landlord states the carpet cleaning accounts for about $200.00 of the invoice, with the remainder for the bulbs. 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.

Light bulbs are chattels, which subject to fair wear and tear should be accounted for by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are not in my view liable for bulbs that are blown but left in place. Decision

There is staining and soiling to the carpet in the lounge and one of the bedrooms that was not present at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence also shows three missing light bulbs.

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean and is liable for the missing light bulbs. The compensation claimed is awarded. Damage claims

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage occurring during the tenancy which they state is more than fair wear and tear. 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 is 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 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. Walls

The landlord is claiming $793.50 to repair damage to walls in each of the three bedrooms.

The end-of-tenancy photographs show ripped wallpaper and a partly repaired hole in one bedroom, at least five partly repaired holes in a second bedroom, and a hole in the wall of the third bedroom.

Apart from some areas of lifting wallpaper, no other damage was present at the commencement of the tenancy. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

I consider the damage to have been the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for this type of damage, with an excess of $400.00 per claim. The amount claimed is less than the excesses that would have applied.

However, I must also consider the principle of betterment. There is no evidence that the walls had been recently renovated prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Although they were in reasonably good condition, the evidence indicates there was some existing wear and tear.

Allowing for betterment, I reduce the claim by 5% and award the landlord $753.82 for wall damage. Internal doors

The landlord has produced photographs showing three internal doors which they state have been damaged during the tenancy that could not be repaired and required replacement.

The evidence shows that one door has a split down its outside edge, a wardrobe door has a large hole in it, and a third internal room door has a small hole.

The landlord is claiming $788.90 to replace each door, totalling $2,366.70.

I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Based on the evidence I find it likely the result of carelessness.

However, while I accept that two of the doors were damaged to the extent that they required replacement, I am not satisfied that the small hole in the third door justified full replacement. In my view that door could have been reasonably repaired.

As stated, the landlord has insurance, with an excess of $400.00 per claim. The replacement of each door is greater than the excess that would have applied. For the doors replaced I take as a starting point the insurance excess of $400.00 plus GST. For the third door, which I find could have been repaired rather than replaced, I award $250.00 plus GST.

As with the walls I must also consider the principle of betterment. Although the doors were in a reasonably good condition at the commencement, the evidence indicates they were approximately 20 - 30 years old.

Allowing for betterment I reduce the claim by 5% and award the landlord $ 1,146.65 for door damage ( $460.00 + $287.50 = $1,207.50 – 5% = $1,477.13). Doorknobs and mechanisms

The landlord has produced photographs showing four internal doors which they state have been damaged during the tenancy.

The evidence shows that one doorknob has come away from the door, another door has a missing doorknob with the internal mechanism still present, and two doors have both the doorknob and locking mechanism missing.

The landlord is claiming $425.50 to repair the loose doorknobs and replace those missing.

The pre-tenancy inspection report shows none of the doorknobs were damaged at the commencement of the tenancy.

I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the missing doorknobs and locking mechanisms are more than fair wear and tear. However, I am not satisfied that the doorknob which has come away from the door is more than fair wear and tear.

The amount claimed is reasonable. I award the full amount claimed. The doorknobs and mechanisms were missing and required replacement. There has been no betterment. The labour involved in repairing the loose doorknob would have been minimal, and I make no deduction. Hole in bathroom wall.

The landlord has produced photographs showing a medium-sized hole in the formica wall above the bathroom vanity, which they state occurred during the tenancy.

The landlord is claiming $316.25 to repair the wall. The landlord patched the hole and installed a mirror over the repaired area, stating this was considerably cheaper than replacing the affected panel.

The pre-tenancy inspection report shows the wall was not damaged at the commencement of the tenancy.

I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is reasonable. In my view, the steps taken by the landlord to mitigate their loss weigh against any deduction for betterment, and I make no deduction. Costs

Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agents for Kelly, Cameron McMonagle, McCormack has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5378308 — net $1,071.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 September 2026	$545.00	Rent arrears to 10 September 2026
Carpet Cleaning and missing lightbulbs	$236.14	Carpet Cleaning and missing lightbulbs
Repair & replace doors	$1,146.65	Repair & replace doors
Replace door handles	$425.50	Replace door handles
Repairs to bedroom walls	$753.82	Repairs to bedroom walls
Repairs bathroom wall	$316.25	Repairs bathroom wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,071.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,071.36