What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383122 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 5383122?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Hooks: $412.34 awarded to landlord; Front And Back Doors Replaced: $877.59 awarded to landlord; Walls throughout plaster, re-gib, re…: $4,623.16 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,268.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $41.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383122?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13860173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383122 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 5383122?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Hooks: $412.34 awarded to landlord; Front And Back Doors Replaced: $877.59 awarded to landlord; Walls throughout plaster, re-gib, re…: $4,623.16 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,268.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $41.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383122?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13860173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48 Papanui Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5383122 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5383122 — net $8,015.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,268.36	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$540.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$225.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Curtains and hooks	$412.34	Repairs: Curtains and hooks
Repairs: Front and back doors replaced	$877.59	Repairs: Front and back doors replaced
Window repairs: Glass	$41.31	Window repairs: Glass
Repairs: Walls throughout plaster, re-gib, repaint	$4,623.16	Repairs: Walls throughout plaster, re-gib, repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,015.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,015.76

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant did not appear. The notice of hearing was sent to the email address provided by the tenant as an address for service in the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy began on 29 March 2021 and ended on 19 December 2023.

The application to the Tribunal was filed on 6 November 2025 and I find that the notice of hearing has been served by email, as the email address was still a valid address for service at this date.

The full bond had been previously refunded to the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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) 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 tenant did not remove all rubbish. A significant amount was claimed for rubbish removal. Four waste management receipts were provided, an invoice from Bunnings for bags, gloves and masks, and a breakdown of 16 hours labour to complete this work.

Photographs provided showed a large number of items outside including a table bikes, fridge, metal, work out equipment, furniture, wood, children’s toys, rubbish bags and tarpaulin.

Inside there were at least 3 couches, 5 mattress, beds, chairs, bedroom furniture, side units, cupboards and another fridge. There was clothing, boxes of items, dressers and kitchen appliances. The amount claimed for rubbish removal is awarded.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. Due to the large amounts of items at the premises and that needed to be removed it was apparent that there had been no cleaning. Photographs of the oven, laundry and kitchen supported this claim.

The carpet cleaning claim is awarded and evidence from an inspection on 17 December 2021 showed severe stains in one of the rooms.

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 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 did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report instead providing a copy of a valuation report conducted on 18 February 2021 which included photographs of the premises.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) 7 pairs of curtains were missing or damaged. b) The front and back doors had been removed and door jams damaged. The tenant had replaced them with different doors. c) A window in a bedroom was broken. d) Throughout the premises every wall was damaged by either a badly patched holes, drawings, scrapes and dents or painting.

I find the damages to the premises intentional as so many walls were damaged this was a behaviour that was allowed to continue. The removal of doors and curtains are also intentional acts.

Most of the curtains were removed and the pair left were damaged. The amount awarded has been adjusted for depreciation based on an 8-year useful life for curtains in a tenancy as stated in the inland revenue IR265.

There were clear damages to the front and back door jams and the replacements that occurred during the tenancy were different from the original doors.

The window in bedroom 2 had been boarded up and the tenant was not present to explain how this occurred.

The walls in the premises were damaged. Photographs were provided of dents in the hallway scrapes and gouges in the kitchen and paint removed, unfinished patching in the lounge.

All the bedrooms had walls damaged from items that had been stuck there or nailed to the wall. Many of the walls had areas of paint removed. Some internal doors had writing on them.

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

The landlord provided a quote for repairs from SKR Construction as a comparison because they used their own Housing Operations Team to complete repairs and their costs came in less that the builders quote from SKR Construction.

The landlord said the walls looked freshly painted at the start of the tenancy but had no evidence to support this. The claim for the wall repairs and redecorating has been depreciated slightly based on 15-year useful life, and approximate 5- year-old internal paint work.

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. a

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5383122 — net $8,015.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,268.36	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$540.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$225.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Curtains and hooks	$412.34	Repairs: Curtains and hooks
Repairs: Front and back doors replaced	$877.59	Repairs: Front and back doors replaced
Window repairs: Glass	$41.31	Window repairs: Glass
Repairs: Walls throughout plaster, re-gib, repaint	$4,623.16	Repairs: Walls throughout plaster, re-gib, repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,015.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,015.76