What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378763 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Kirstyn Margaret

How much money was awarded in case 5378763?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Removing Television Cabling: $566.95 awarded to landlord; Sanding And Re-Oiling Deck: $552.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378763?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13273660-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378763 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Kirstyn Margaret

How much money was awarded in case 5378763?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Removing Television Cabling: $566.95 awarded to landlord; Sanding And Re-Oiling Deck: $552.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378763?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13273660-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 3, 1 Hewitts Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378763 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Flat 3, 1 Hewitts Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378763 — 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 5378763 — net $1,594.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck	$552.00	Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet patch repair	$287.50	Carpet patch repair
Removing television cabling	$566.95	Removing television cabling
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,594.45
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,594.45

Claims and awards for application 5378763 — net $1,594.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Carpet patch repair

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet patch repair

Removing television cabling

Amount: $566.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Removing television cabling

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Kirstyn Margaret Mclellan $1,594.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17267331) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Kirstyn Margaret Mclellan $1,594.45 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $385.55

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
Courtney Brown and Diane Colgan attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant did not attend the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and returning the premises to its original condition following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 28 April 2023 and ended on 30 July 2025. The parties have been unable to settle these minor matters. Deck discolouration
During the tenancy, the landlord gave the tenant permission to have a spa pool on the Kwila east-facing deck. When the tenant removed the spa pool at the end of the tenancy, the deck was left with spatters of white discolouration. The cause of the discolouring is not clear - possibly, a chemical beneath the spa interacted with the deck’s stain was involved – but that is speculative. What is clear, is that the spa pool caused the issue because the damage was not there before the spa pool was installed.
The deck required sanding and re-oiling to remove the unsightly specks and restore the deck to a relatively consistent hue.
I am satisfied that the discolouring was damage that occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven they were not careless in ensuring the deck was not damaged. 1
The landlord paid a contractor $920.00 to restore the deck. I order the tenant to pay three-fifths of that amount to account for betterment. Only a portion of the deck was damaged, but the entire deck has been re-oiled. If the deck had not been re-oiled the deck would have had a degree of colour difference because the spa protected the deck stain from sun bleaching. Carpet stain 1 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The landlord claims for the cost of carpet cleaning and replacing a section of carpet.
The living room carpet had a coffee stain (or similar) at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s carpet cleaner could not remove the stain. The landlord had a carpet contractor patch the affected area by scavenging a section of carpet from another part of the house.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved their liability.
The Tribunal awards the landlord the amounts sought, which are merely what it cost the landlord to return the carpet to an unstained condition. Television fittings
The landlord gave the tenant permission to install a television on the wall, but not to run cables into the wall cavity as the tenant did. The tenant removed the television brackets and remediated the wall but did not remove the cables.
The installation of the cabling was an unconsented alteration to the premises. The tenant is liable for returning the premises to its original condition.
The landlord submitted its invoices for reinstating the premises of $164.45 for removing the cabling, and $402.50 for paintwork.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord $566.95. Bond
The Bond Centre is directed to pay the amount ordered out of the bond.
The remainder is to be returned to the tenant.

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 5378763 — net $1,594.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck	$552.00	Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet patch repair	$287.50	Carpet patch repair
Removing television cabling	$566.95	Removing television cabling
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,594.45
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,594.45

Claims and awards for application 5378763 — net $1,594.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: sanding and re-oiling deck

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Carpet patch repair

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet patch repair

Removing television cabling

Amount: $566.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Removing television cabling

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Kirstyn Margaret Mclellan $1,594.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17267331) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Kirstyn Margaret Mclellan $1,594.45 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $385.55

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
Courtney Brown and Diane Colgan attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant did not attend the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and returning the premises to its original condition following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 28 April 2023 and ended on 30 July 2025. The parties have been unable to settle these minor matters. Deck discolouration
During the tenancy, the landlord gave the tenant permission to have a spa pool on the Kwila east-facing deck. When the tenant removed the spa pool at the end of the tenancy, the deck was left with spatters of white discolouration. The cause of the discolouring is not clear - possibly, a chemical beneath the spa interacted with the deck’s stain was involved – but that is speculative. What is clear, is that the spa pool caused the issue because the damage was not there before the spa pool was installed.
The deck required sanding and re-oiling to remove the unsightly specks and restore the deck to a relatively consistent hue.
I am satisfied that the discolouring was damage that occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven they were not careless in ensuring the deck was not damaged. 1
The landlord paid a contractor $920.00 to restore the deck. I order the tenant to pay three-fifths of that amount to account for betterment. Only a portion of the deck was damaged, but the entire deck has been re-oiled. If the deck had not been re-oiled the deck would have had a degree of colour difference because the spa protected the deck stain from sun bleaching. Carpet stain 1 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The landlord claims for the cost of carpet cleaning and replacing a section of carpet.
The living room carpet had a coffee stain (or similar) at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s carpet cleaner could not remove the stain. The landlord had a carpet contractor patch the affected area by scavenging a section of carpet from another part of the house.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved their liability.
The Tribunal awards the landlord the amounts sought, which are merely what it cost the landlord to return the carpet to an unstained condition. Television fittings
The landlord gave the tenant permission to install a television on the wall, but not to run cables into the wall cavity as the tenant did. The tenant removed the television brackets and remediated the wall but did not remove the cables.
The installation of the cabling was an unconsented alteration to the premises. The tenant is liable for returning the premises to its original condition.
The landlord submitted its invoices for reinstating the premises of $164.45 for removing the cabling, and $402.50 for paintwork.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord $566.95. Bond
The Bond Centre is directed to pay the amount ordered out of the bond.
The remainder is to be returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378763 — Property damage at Flat 3, 1 Hewitts Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378763 — Property damage at Flat 3, 1 Hewitts Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.