What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5382422 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5382422?

Cleaning: $713.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,570.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Repainting: $3,782.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,122.13 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench t…: $1,782.94 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $567.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382422?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13338807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5382422 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5382422?

Cleaning: $713.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,570.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Repainting: $3,782.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,122.13 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench t…: $1,782.94 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $567.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382422?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13338807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5382422 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5382422 — net $8,605.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 December 2025	$1,570.00	Rent arrears to 02 December 2025
Rubbish removal	$567.15	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$713.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$2,122.13	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench top & rangehood	$1,782.94	Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench top & rangehood
Repairs: Walls and repainting	$3,782.58	Repairs: Walls and repainting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,605.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,605.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [the landlord/s] name and identifying details.
Sarah Burgess must pay [The landlord/s] $8,605.80 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 02 December 2025$1,570.00 Rubbish removal$567.15 Cleaning$713.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet$2,122.13 Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench top & rangehood$1,782.94 Repairs: Walls and repainting$3,782.58 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,565.80 Bond$1,960.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,605.80

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.
[The property manager], the property manager, attended the hearing via video conference on an audio-only basis.
Ms Burgess, the tenant, did not attend the hearing, nor did she contact the Registry to provide any explanation for her absence or seek an adjournment. I attempted to contact Ms Burgess on the cellular number ending in 2227 on three occasions, without success. My three attempts were: a. On the first occasion, the call went unanswered, and I left a voicemail message identifying myself, the purpose of my call, and advising that the hearing would proceed in her absence if I was unable to reach her. b. On the second occasion, the call did not connect for unknown reasons. c. On the third occasion, the call did not connect for unknown reasons.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 02 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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) 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 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) 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) 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.
The landlord seeks orders for carpet replacement, kitchen replacement (including bench top and rangehood), and repairs to walls, doors, and painting.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant left the premises in a significantly damaged state. The damage was not caused carelessly. They were intentional.
The photographic evidence and oral evidence of [the property manager] support that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In particular, there was evidence of damage to the kitchen benchtop, walls and doors, and significant contamination of the carpet from dog faeces, urine, and odour. Kitchen bench top and rangehood
The landlord seeks the full cost of replacing the kitchen bench top and rangehood. The evidence shows there was damage to the kitchen, including a hole in the bench top and other deterioration.
[The property manager] confirmed that the landlord elected to replace the kitchen components. She also acknowledged that, while there was significant damage, there had been discussion about the condition and expectations of the kitchen, including that it had been relatively new at the start of the tenancy and the landlord was disappointed with its condition at the end. She accepted that some components may have been capable of repair rather than full replacement.
There is no evidence before me that repair options were adequately explored before replacement was undertaken. The Tribunal’s role is to place the landlord in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, not to provide a betterment.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the full replacement costs are reasonable. The Tribunal’s role is to compensate for loss, not to provide a betterment. I therefore reduce the claim for the kitchen bench top and rangehood by 70%, from $5,943.13 to $1,782.94, to reflect that repair or partial remediation may have been sufficient. Carpet replacement
The carpet was approximately three years old at the end of the tenancy. The evidence establishes that the carpet was heavily contaminated with dog faeces, urine, and a strong odour such that the premises were unpleasant to enter.
I am satisfied that the carpet sustained significant damage, including contamination from dog faeces, urine, and odour, such that replacement was necessary. However, the carpet was not new and an allowance must be made for depreciation.
Accordingly, I reduce the carpet replacement cost by 30%, from $3,031.62 to $2,122.13, to reflect its age and ordinary depreciation. Walls, doors, and painting
The landlord also claims for wall repairs, doors, and painting. The evidence establishes that there was extensive damage throughout the property, including holes, gouges, and damage to fixtures.
However, I note that the scope of work undertaken involved repainting and repairs beyond the directly damaged areas. While efforts were made to apportion the work, the photographic evidence and the contractor’s descriptions do not clearly distinguish between tenant-caused damage and general maintenance or improvement.
In addition, repainting can result in a degree of betterment, particularly where it refreshes the overall condition of the property. For example, the repainting is not confined to the areas where the damage occurred but extends more broadly across unaffected areas.
Taking these factors into account, I consider it appropriate to reduce the claim for wall repairs, doors, and painting by 40%, from $6,304.30 to $3,782.58, to reflect both evidential uncertainty and betterment.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I have granted the landlord’s application for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5382422 — net $8,605.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 December 2025	$1,570.00	Rent arrears to 02 December 2025
Rubbish removal	$567.15	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$713.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$2,122.13	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench top & rangehood	$1,782.94	Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench top & rangehood
Repairs: Walls and repainting	$3,782.58	Repairs: Walls and repainting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,605.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,605.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [the landlord/s] name and identifying details.
Sarah Burgess must pay [The landlord/s] $8,605.80 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 02 December 2025$1,570.00 Rubbish removal$567.15 Cleaning$713.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet$2,122.13 Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench top & rangehood$1,782.94 Repairs: Walls and repainting$3,782.58 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,565.80 Bond$1,960.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,605.80

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.
[The property manager], the property manager, attended the hearing via video conference on an audio-only basis.
Ms Burgess, the tenant, did not attend the hearing, nor did she contact the Registry to provide any explanation for her absence or seek an adjournment. I attempted to contact Ms Burgess on the cellular number ending in 2227 on three occasions, without success. My three attempts were: a. On the first occasion, the call went unanswered, and I left a voicemail message identifying myself, the purpose of my call, and advising that the hearing would proceed in her absence if I was unable to reach her. b. On the second occasion, the call did not connect for unknown reasons. c. On the third occasion, the call did not connect for unknown reasons.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 02 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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) 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 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) 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) 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.
The landlord seeks orders for carpet replacement, kitchen replacement (including bench top and rangehood), and repairs to walls, doors, and painting.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant left the premises in a significantly damaged state. The damage was not caused carelessly. They were intentional.
The photographic evidence and oral evidence of [the property manager] support that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In particular, there was evidence of damage to the kitchen benchtop, walls and doors, and significant contamination of the carpet from dog faeces, urine, and odour. Kitchen bench top and rangehood
The landlord seeks the full cost of replacing the kitchen bench top and rangehood. The evidence shows there was damage to the kitchen, including a hole in the bench top and other deterioration.
[The property manager] confirmed that the landlord elected to replace the kitchen components. She also acknowledged that, while there was significant damage, there had been discussion about the condition and expectations of the kitchen, including that it had been relatively new at the start of the tenancy and the landlord was disappointed with its condition at the end. She accepted that some components may have been capable of repair rather than full replacement.
There is no evidence before me that repair options were adequately explored before replacement was undertaken. The Tribunal’s role is to place the landlord in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, not to provide a betterment.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the full replacement costs are reasonable. The Tribunal’s role is to compensate for loss, not to provide a betterment. I therefore reduce the claim for the kitchen bench top and rangehood by 70%, from $5,943.13 to $1,782.94, to reflect that repair or partial remediation may have been sufficient. Carpet replacement
The carpet was approximately three years old at the end of the tenancy. The evidence establishes that the carpet was heavily contaminated with dog faeces, urine, and a strong odour such that the premises were unpleasant to enter.
I am satisfied that the carpet sustained significant damage, including contamination from dog faeces, urine, and odour, such that replacement was necessary. However, the carpet was not new and an allowance must be made for depreciation.
Accordingly, I reduce the carpet replacement cost by 30%, from $3,031.62 to $2,122.13, to reflect its age and ordinary depreciation. Walls, doors, and painting
The landlord also claims for wall repairs, doors, and painting. The evidence establishes that there was extensive damage throughout the property, including holes, gouges, and damage to fixtures.
However, I note that the scope of work undertaken involved repainting and repairs beyond the directly damaged areas. While efforts were made to apportion the work, the photographic evidence and the contractor’s descriptions do not clearly distinguish between tenant-caused damage and general maintenance or improvement.
In addition, repainting can result in a degree of betterment, particularly where it refreshes the overall condition of the property. For example, the repainting is not confined to the areas where the damage occurred but extends more broadly across unaffected areas.
Taking these factors into account, I consider it appropriate to reduce the claim for wall repairs, doors, and painting by 40%, from $6,304.30 to $3,782.58, to reflect both evidential uncertainty and betterment.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I have granted the landlord’s application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5382422 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5382422 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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