What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380306?

The tribunal order states: Andrew James Willets and Harley Dean Weir must pay Property Brokers

How much money was awarded in case 5380306?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $445.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380306?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380306?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009311-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380306?

The tribunal order states: Andrew James Willets and Harley Dean Weir must pay Property Brokers

How much money was awarded in case 5380306?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $445.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380306?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380306?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009311-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Stanley Street, Kenmure, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380306 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380306 — net $1,773.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to lounge door	$525.00	Repairs to lounge door
Insurance excess for vanity damage	$650.00	Insurance excess for vanity damage
Rubbish removal & replacement light bulbs	$445.00	Rubbish removal & replacement light bulbs
Cleaning of bathroom	$125.00	Cleaning of bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,773.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,773.00

Order

Andrew James Willets and Harley Dean Weir must pay Property Brokers Limited Otago Southland On Behalf Of Catherine O'donnell, Christopher Sutherland & Shona Cummings As Trustees For Bg Foley No2 Trust $1,773.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages and further compensation of $1,413.45 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and one tenant attended the hearing.
On 4/11/2025 the landlord applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant having made a one person application to Tenancy Services for the bond when they knew the bond was in dispute.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 21/6/2024 and rolled over to a periodic tenancy at the end of the term at $540.00 rent per week.
The tenancy ended on 14/9/2025.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord originally sought compensation of $1,005.00 as follows: a. $755.00 for rubbish removal, replacement light bulbs, removal of picture hooks, rehanging lounge door and resealing around the shower, b. $250.00 for cleaning the oven and bathroom.
At the hearing the landlord added a further claim of $610.00 for carpet cleaning.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices and entry and exit reports dated 19/6/2024 and 17/9/2025 respectively.
The tenant did not dispute that rubbish needed removing and light bulbs replacing.
However, the tenant believed some of the work undertaken by the property maintenance contractor was for fair wear and tear issues.
The tenant also agreed the bathroom needed cleaning, but the oven did not, as he had cleaned the latter and the exit report noted it was “fine”.
Further the tenant provided evidence from a carpet cleaner that the carpets had been professionally cleaned on 13 September and again at the request of the owner on 3 November before a further clean by a different carpet cleaner on 6/11/2025.
I am persuaded by the evidence of both parties that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
However, I have reduced the property maintenance claim to reflect that some work such as replacing bathroom sealant is due to wear and tear and rehanging the lounge door has been charged for twice by different contractors.
Based on the exit report on the oven condition being “fine” I have reduced the cleaning costs by half.
The claim for carpet cleaning fails because the tenant had the carpets professionally cleaned, there is insufficient evidence to support the long term presence of a cat and the entry report notes two marks on the kitchen carpet, existing stains in the lounge and bedroom 2 and discolouration in the lounge and bedroom 1 carpets.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord originally sought compensation as follows: a. $650.00 insurance excess for damage to a bathroom vanity, b. $650.00 insurance for damage to a laundry vanity, c. $328.45 for previous damage to a lamp.
As the insurance had declined to cover the replacement of the bathroom vanity and the landlord provided no evidence of costs this claim was withdrawn at the hearing.
In support of the claim for the laundry vanity the landlord provided a photograph in the exit report and a quote for the expected costs of replacement.
The tenant did not dispute the damage to the vanity which had been caused accidentally when an incense cone had fallen over.
The tenant suggested that the functionality of the vanity was not affected.
The landlord was unable to provide any evidence to support the claim for previous damage to a lamp and suggested that the amount was inaccurate.
The tenant disputed he had damaged the lamp.
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) 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.
I am persuaded that the laundry vanity was damaged during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
An award has been made for the insurance excess.
The claim for the previous damage fails due to lack of supporting evidence.

Are exemplary damages available to the landlord?

Section 22A sets out the requirements for applications to the chief executive for payment of the bond without the agreement of the other party.
There is no dispute that the tenant sought a refund of the bond knowing it was in dispute.
The tenant suggested this was to speed up the process of settling the dispute and that when the landlord objected, they had unsuccessfully contacted the Bond Centre to extend the timeframe to give the property manger more time.
The landlord does not dispute that she failed to contact the Bond Centre to dispute the release of the bond.
I find the tenant did not breach section 22A(2) because there is no time limit for a tenant to apply for the bond after termination of the tenancy.
Moreover, even if the tenant had breached section 22A exemplary damages would not have been available to the landlord because it is not an unlawful act to breach this section.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.
As Property Brokers Limited Otago Southland On Behalf Of Catherine O'donnell, Christopher Sutherland & Shona Cummings As Trustees For Bg Foley No2 Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not want suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380306 — net $1,773.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to lounge door	$525.00	Repairs to lounge door
Insurance excess for vanity damage	$650.00	Insurance excess for vanity damage
Rubbish removal & replacement light bulbs	$445.00	Rubbish removal & replacement light bulbs
Cleaning of bathroom	$125.00	Cleaning of bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,773.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,773.00

Order

Andrew James Willets and Harley Dean Weir must pay Property Brokers Limited Otago Southland On Behalf Of Catherine O'donnell, Christopher Sutherland & Shona Cummings As Trustees For Bg Foley No2 Trust $1,773.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages and further compensation of $1,413.45 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and one tenant attended the hearing.
On 4/11/2025 the landlord applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant having made a one person application to Tenancy Services for the bond when they knew the bond was in dispute.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 21/6/2024 and rolled over to a periodic tenancy at the end of the term at $540.00 rent per week.
The tenancy ended on 14/9/2025.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord originally sought compensation of $1,005.00 as follows: a. $755.00 for rubbish removal, replacement light bulbs, removal of picture hooks, rehanging lounge door and resealing around the shower, b. $250.00 for cleaning the oven and bathroom.
At the hearing the landlord added a further claim of $610.00 for carpet cleaning.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices and entry and exit reports dated 19/6/2024 and 17/9/2025 respectively.
The tenant did not dispute that rubbish needed removing and light bulbs replacing.
However, the tenant believed some of the work undertaken by the property maintenance contractor was for fair wear and tear issues.
The tenant also agreed the bathroom needed cleaning, but the oven did not, as he had cleaned the latter and the exit report noted it was “fine”.
Further the tenant provided evidence from a carpet cleaner that the carpets had been professionally cleaned on 13 September and again at the request of the owner on 3 November before a further clean by a different carpet cleaner on 6/11/2025.
I am persuaded by the evidence of both parties that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
However, I have reduced the property maintenance claim to reflect that some work such as replacing bathroom sealant is due to wear and tear and rehanging the lounge door has been charged for twice by different contractors.
Based on the exit report on the oven condition being “fine” I have reduced the cleaning costs by half.
The claim for carpet cleaning fails because the tenant had the carpets professionally cleaned, there is insufficient evidence to support the long term presence of a cat and the entry report notes two marks on the kitchen carpet, existing stains in the lounge and bedroom 2 and discolouration in the lounge and bedroom 1 carpets.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord originally sought compensation as follows: a. $650.00 insurance excess for damage to a bathroom vanity, b. $650.00 insurance for damage to a laundry vanity, c. $328.45 for previous damage to a lamp.
As the insurance had declined to cover the replacement of the bathroom vanity and the landlord provided no evidence of costs this claim was withdrawn at the hearing.
In support of the claim for the laundry vanity the landlord provided a photograph in the exit report and a quote for the expected costs of replacement.
The tenant did not dispute the damage to the vanity which had been caused accidentally when an incense cone had fallen over.
The tenant suggested that the functionality of the vanity was not affected.
The landlord was unable to provide any evidence to support the claim for previous damage to a lamp and suggested that the amount was inaccurate.
The tenant disputed he had damaged the lamp.
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) 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.
I am persuaded that the laundry vanity was damaged during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
An award has been made for the insurance excess.
The claim for the previous damage fails due to lack of supporting evidence.

Are exemplary damages available to the landlord?

Section 22A sets out the requirements for applications to the chief executive for payment of the bond without the agreement of the other party.
There is no dispute that the tenant sought a refund of the bond knowing it was in dispute.
The tenant suggested this was to speed up the process of settling the dispute and that when the landlord objected, they had unsuccessfully contacted the Bond Centre to extend the timeframe to give the property manger more time.
The landlord does not dispute that she failed to contact the Bond Centre to dispute the release of the bond.
I find the tenant did not breach section 22A(2) because there is no time limit for a tenant to apply for the bond after termination of the tenancy.
Moreover, even if the tenant had breached section 22A exemplary damages would not have been available to the landlord because it is not an unlawful act to breach this section.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.
As Property Brokers Limited Otago Southland On Behalf Of Catherine O'donnell, Christopher Sutherland & Shona Cummings As Trustees For Bg Foley No2 Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not want suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380306 — Property damage at 3 Stanley Street, Kenmure, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380306 — Property damage at 3 Stanley Street, Kenmure, Dunedin 9011

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?

Are exemplary damages available to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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?

Are exemplary damages available to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions