How much money was awarded in case 5379205?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; LPG Bottle: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $254.75 awarded to landlord; Fence And Porch: $727.77 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $22.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379205?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379205?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5379205?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; LPG Bottle: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $254.75 awarded to landlord; Fence And Porch: $727.77 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $22.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379205?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379205?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379205 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379205 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379205 — net $263.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$45.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Smoke alarm replacement	$22.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Switchbox repair	$77.00	Switchbox repair
Repairs: bathroom door	$254.75	Repairs: bathroom door
Repairs: fence and porch	$727.77	Repairs: fence and porch
Oven replacement	$149.00	Oven replacement
LPG bottle	$100.00	LPG bottle
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$263.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$263.52

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Cole John Walker must pay [The landlord/s] $263.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representatives], attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the tenant still did not attend. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.

This tenancy began on 10 November 2022 and ended on 11 September 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).

The landlord claims cleaning and rubbish removal costs. The landlord has produced evidence, including photographs showing the condition of the premises. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord disposed of the rubbish, including the damaged door and broken fence panels, but only claims for the council tipping fee of $45.00.

The landlord undertook the cleaning and claims $300.00, based on 10 hours labour, at a rate of $30.00 per hour, which is considered reasonable. The landlord has explained that considerably more time was spent, but this is not claimed.

The smoke alarm was removed and had to be replaced, at a cost of $22.00.

The condition of the oven was such that the landlord considered it more economic to replace it, at a cost of $149.00, as shown in the invoice.

The tenant did not refill the LPG bottle as required, and so the landlord claims $100.00 to fill it.

The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage

The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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 RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.

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 RTA.

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.

When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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 depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the landlord’s evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:

Switch box: this was damaged, had come off the wall and had to be replaced. The landlord claims $77.00, which includes the cost of a new switchbox and labour to replace it.

Bathroom door: the landlord’s evidence shows this door was damaged and had to be replaced. The landlord seeks the replacement cost of the door, paint, and labour to remove the old door and fit the new one ($254.75).

Fence and porch: the landlord undertook the repairs of the fence and porch, which the tenant damaged, and seeks compensation of $727.77. The amount sought includes the cost of materials, paint, labour and travel. The landlord has also provided a quotation for comparison, the amount sought being considerably less than the quoted price of $1,661.75 (for repairs of the door, fence and porch).

The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. In ordering the above amounts, I have taken into account the principle of betterment and depreciation. Filing fee and name suppression

The tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.

Being the successful party, the landlord is entitled to name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379205 — net $263.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$45.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Smoke alarm replacement	$22.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Switchbox repair	$77.00	Switchbox repair
Repairs: bathroom door	$254.75	Repairs: bathroom door
Repairs: fence and porch	$727.77	Repairs: fence and porch
Oven replacement	$149.00	Oven replacement
LPG bottle	$100.00	LPG bottle
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$263.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$263.52

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Cole John Walker must pay [The landlord/s] $263.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representatives], attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the tenant still did not attend. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This tenancy began on 10 November 2022 and ended on 11 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims cleaning and rubbish removal costs. The landlord has produced evidence, including photographs showing the condition of the premises. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord disposed of the rubbish, including the damaged door and broken fence panels, but only claims for the council tipping fee of $45.00.
The landlord undertook the cleaning and claims $300.00, based on 10 hours labour, at a rate of $30.00 per hour, which is considered reasonable. The landlord has explained that considerably more time was spent, but this is not claimed.
The smoke alarm was removed and had to be replaced, at a cost of $22.00.
The condition of the oven was such that the landlord considered it more economic to replace it, at a cost of $149.00, as shown in the invoice.
The tenant did not refill the LPG bottle as required, and so the landlord claims $100.00 to fill it.
The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
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 RTA.
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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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 depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the landlord’s evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Switch box: this was damaged, had come off the wall and had to be replaced. The landlord claims $77.00, which includes the cost of a new switchbox and labour to replace it.
Bathroom door: the landlord’s evidence shows this door was damaged and had to be replaced. The landlord seeks the replacement cost of the door, paint, and labour to remove the old door and fit the new one ($254.75).
Fence and porch: the landlord undertook the repairs of the fence and porch, which the tenant damaged, and seeks compensation of $727.77. The amount sought includes the cost of materials, paint, labour and travel. The landlord has also provided a quotation for comparison, the amount sought being considerably less than the quoted price of $1,661.75 (for repairs of the door, fence and porch).
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. In ordering the above amounts, I have taken into account the principle of betterment and depreciation. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
Being the successful party, the landlord is entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379205 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379205 — Property damage

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions