What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5385580 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 5385580?

Lawns and Garden Work: $451.17 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $462.57 awarded to landlord; Exterior Cladding: $2,760.87 awarded to landlord; Patch and paint walls and door + rep…: $2,001.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Curtains: $38.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13245391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5385580 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 5385580?

Lawns and Garden Work: $451.17 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $462.57 awarded to landlord; Exterior Cladding: $2,760.87 awarded to landlord; Patch and paint walls and door + rep…: $2,001.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Curtains: $38.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13245391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

65 Pohutukawa Drive, Pukete, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5385580 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

65 Pohutukawa Drive, Pukete, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5385580 — 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 5385580 — net $6,274.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (3 October 2025	$462.57	Rent arrears (3 October 2025
Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees	$560.00	Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation	$451.17	Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation
Replace missing curtains	$38.72	Replace missing curtains
Repairs: Patch and paint walls and door + replace two doors	$2,001.00	Repairs: Patch and paint walls and door + replace two doors
Repairs: Exterior cladding	$2,760.87	Repairs: Exterior cladding
Net award	$6,274.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,274.33

Claims and awards for application 5385580 — net $6,274.33 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (3 October 2025

Amount: $462.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (3 October 2025

Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees

Amount: $560.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees

Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation

Amount: $451.17
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation

Replace missing curtains

Amount: $38.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace missing curtains

Repairs: Patch and paint walls and door + replace two doors

Amount: $2,001.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Did the tenant leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Carpet Cleaning

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Millijem Property Holdings Ltd $6,274.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The bond has been refunded to the landlord in full and is to be used to offset the tenant’s debt as specified in order [2].

Reasons

On 20 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Ms McCurdy and Ms Moulden, Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
At the commencement of the hearing the landlord confirmed they had withdrawn their claim for compensation for vinyl replacement costs. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 16 May 2019 with the fixed term ending on 15 May 2020, there after the tenancy became periodic.
On 25 May 2022 Lodge City Rentals took over the management of the property.
The tenancy ended on 3 October 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $462.57. The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 Act.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $610.00 after paying a contractor to remove rubbish and items left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states their contractor was required to remove and dump the following items: a. A garden shed and pool ladder. b. A large, smashed mirror and glass coffee tabletop. c. A strip of fake grass and sticky floor tiles. d. Temporary fencing and bamboo screens. e. Red chairs. f. Rubbish located in the council provided rubbish and recycling bins and rubbish located outside the property. g. A bar leaner and a dart board
The tenant acknowledged leaving rubbish and a garden shed behind at the end of the tenancy but said that bar leaner and dart board were present in the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord could not prove the bar leaner and dart board had been left behind by the tenants.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove all items mentioned in para [15 (a) – (f)] at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is responsible to pay for the removal and dumping costs for the bar leaner and dart board. The Tribunal deducts $50.00 from the amount claimed to reflect this. The Tribunal orders $560.00 in rubbish removal costs.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $644.00 after paying a contractor to commercially clean the carpets in the living areas, four bedrooms, hallway and landing, and flea treat the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states that an exit inspection was completed at the property at 4pm on 3 October 2025. At the time they noticed a pet odour. The landlord said that this odour was evident during later visits to the property (dates of those visits were not provided to the Tribunal) and it was on that basis they arranged professional carpet cleaning.
The landlord said the decision was made to flea treat the property as the tenant had pets. The landlord said that this was a preventative measure and there was no evidence of a flea infestation.
The tenant disputes the carpet cleaning costs stating her pets lived outside, with the exception of one occasion where she kept them inside due to agent of the landlord coming to the property. The tenant said that at no time during or following any routine inspection had she been told there was a pet odour nor were they served with a breach notice to remedy pet odour in the property.
The Tenant provided the Tribunal with an invoice from a Swift Property Services proving they paid to have the carpet professionally cleaned and stain treated at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said the carpet cleaning was concluded at
20pm on 3 October 2025, just prior to the landlord completing the exit inspection. The tenant provided the Tribunal with photographs showing an area of carpet that had been successfully stain treated by their contractor.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that they had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s invoice for carpet cleaning does not record the property had a pet odour and required deodorisation or stain treatment. The Tribunal finds it likely that the odour at the exit inspect was likely caused by the carpet being wet following the earlier clean. There was no evidence the carpet needed to be treated for a flea infestation. On that basis the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning and flea treatment is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $1,035.00 after paying a contractor to undertake a general tidy up, remove wate on the compost pile, trim north fence line, trees and shrubs, mow lawns, line trim and blow paths and remove all green waste from the property. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
During the hearing, the landlord accepted that the amount claimed included costs for general garden maintenance which was not the responsibility of the tenant.
The landlord also accepted they could not disprove the tenant’s assertion that the plant material in the compost pile had been placed there by their contractors who had been called to the property to remedy storm damage in the garden on two separate occasions.
The landlord amended their claim for compensation for lawn remediation totalling $501.17 and relied on a quote which detailed the scope of work included: rake compacted soil, replace soil and sow lawn seed, lawn mowing, weed spraying and edges.
The tenant accepted their pool (4.5m x 2.3m) had been sitting on the ground compacting the soil and killed the grass. The tenant said that they did resow the lawn and can not explain why the grass didn’t grow. The Tribunal was not provided with an invoice for the cost of the lawn seed or photographs showing the area had been resown.
With respect to the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing costs the tenant said that the lawn was mowed two days before the end of the tenancy, and they should not be liable for the cost of a lawn mow that was required two weeks after the tenancy ended.
The pre-tenancy inspection report records the grounds were provided in a clean and tidy condition. The end of tenancy photographs shows the lawn was mown and tidy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants failed to return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of remediating damage to lawn in the area where the pool was located. The Tribunal deducts $50.00 for the cost of the lawn mowing from the landlord’s quote to remediate the lawn and order the amount of $451.17. Did the tenant return all curtains at the end of the tenancy
At the hearing, the landlord amended their claim for compensation for replacement curtains they say were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord initially sought $457.60 but amended that to $309.75.
The landlord states that lounge curtains, dining room blind and small curtain in the master bedroom were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that she removed, laundered, and returned some of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that she removed some of the curtains (because of their poor condition) during the tenancy and stored them in a box in the garage. The tenant takes issue with the amount claimed stating the tenancy was afoot for six years and the curtains were not in brand new condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy inspection report indicates that: a. the lounge had eight curtains, with some marking on the back, but were in otherwise good condition. b. the dining room had one brown blind and two brown curtains in good condition; and c. the bedroom had master bedroom had three tan curtains in good condition.
The exit inspection report and photographs show these curtains are missing at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to return all curtains at the end of the tenancy. 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 likely age of the curtains which I have taken to be around seven years (the tenancy was afoot for six years and there was some previous wear and tear noted) and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan which the Inland Revenue Department sets as eight years. On that basis the Tribunal calculates the amount of $38.72 to be appropriate for the replacement cost of the curtains.

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 of the Act.
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 Act.
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) of the Act. 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 Act.
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 Act.
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. Interior damage
The landlord seeks compensation in the amount of $2001.00 after paying a contractor to repair and paint damaged walls and doors and replace two broken doors during the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy and provided exit inspection photographs showing the following: a. The hallway door by the door handle had a large crack. b. There was a large plaster patch in a hallway door and the door was split on the other side requiring the door to be replaced. c. Screw holes left by a first aid box fixed to the wall needed to be patched and painted. d. There was a plaster patch in the door of bedroom one which required painting. e. There was a plaster patch in the wardrobe door of bedroom two that required painting. f. The hole in bedroom three from the interior through to the exterior left by the removal of a security camera required remediation.
The tenant accepted liability for the replacement of the door, remediation of the screw holes caused by the first aid kit and remediation of the hole caused by the removal of the security camera. The tenant challenged the landlord’s ability to seek compensation for painting the plaster patches saying they were not brought to her attention during any routine inspections and her previous property manager had not required her to complete the repairs.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The pre- tenancy inspection report was detailed and included comments about areas showing signs of wear and tear, damage, swelling, cracking, scuffing, holes, chipping and lifting. The damage identified in paragraph [45 a- f] were not identified as being present in the pre-tenancy inspection report. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant responsible for the damage listed in paragraph [45 a – f]. The Tribunal finds the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved. Exterior damage
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,680.00 after paying a contractor to undertake repairs to the exterior cladding following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs and specifically drew the Tribunals attention to the following: a. A missing fibre cement bottom board and corner capping that was concealed by a pallet. b. Paint drawings on an exterior wall. c. Damaged and missing fibre cement boards exposing insulation – caused by the removal of a dog fence. d. Damage to the bottom two fibre cement boards between the two garage doors on the driveway. The landlord said the amount claimed included materials and labour costs for the repairs. The cost also includes patch painting to hide the repairs.
The tenant accepted that in removing the dog gate the fibre cement boards were cracked and damaged. The tenant also accepted damaging the bottom board between the garages but disputes the rest of the amount claimed. The tenant denied being responsible for the paint drawing on an exterior walls saying they were present at the commencement of the tenancy. In addition the tenant said the exterior cladding was cracked in other places and was not in good condition. The tenant provided a photograph showing another area of cracking in the external cladding. The tenant argues they should not have to bare the cost of the landlord’s refurbishment of the property.
The Tribunal again considered the pre-tenancy inspection report, exit inspection report and photographs. The exterior cladding of the property was noted to be in good condition and no damage was identified. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
The landlord was unable to advise the age of the cladding or when the property was last repainted. The Tribunal deducts 25% from the amount claimed for betterment and depreciation to reflect the age of the cladding and condition of the paint finish shown in the photographs. Other matters
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Millijem Property Holdings Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful but did not seek name suppression.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

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 5385580 — net $6,274.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (3 October 2025	$462.57	Rent arrears (3 October 2025
Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees	$560.00	Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation	$451.17	Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation
Replace missing curtains	$38.72	Replace missing curtains
Repairs: Patch and paint walls and door + replace two doors	$2,001.00	Repairs: Patch and paint walls and door + replace two doors
Repairs: Exterior cladding	$2,760.87	Repairs: Exterior cladding
Net award	$6,274.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,274.33

Claims and awards for application 5385580 — net $6,274.33 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (3 October 2025

Amount: $462.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (3 October 2025

Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees

Amount: $560.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees

Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation

Amount: $451.17
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: Lawn remediation

Replace missing curtains

Amount: $38.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace missing curtains

Repairs: Patch and paint walls and door + replace two doors

Amount: $2,001.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Did the tenant leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Carpet Cleaning

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Millijem Property Holdings Ltd $6,274.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The bond has been refunded to the landlord in full and is to be used to offset the tenant’s debt as specified in order [2].

Reasons

On 20 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Ms McCurdy and Ms Moulden, Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
At the commencement of the hearing the landlord confirmed they had withdrawn their claim for compensation for vinyl replacement costs. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 16 May 2019 with the fixed term ending on 15 May 2020, there after the tenancy became periodic.
On 25 May 2022 Lodge City Rentals took over the management of the property.
The tenancy ended on 3 October 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $462.57. The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 Act.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $610.00 after paying a contractor to remove rubbish and items left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states their contractor was required to remove and dump the following items: a. A garden shed and pool ladder. b. A large, smashed mirror and glass coffee tabletop. c. A strip of fake grass and sticky floor tiles. d. Temporary fencing and bamboo screens. e. Red chairs. f. Rubbish located in the council provided rubbish and recycling bins and rubbish located outside the property. g. A bar leaner and a dart board
The tenant acknowledged leaving rubbish and a garden shed behind at the end of the tenancy but said that bar leaner and dart board were present in the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord could not prove the bar leaner and dart board had been left behind by the tenants.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove all items mentioned in para [15 (a) – (f)] at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is responsible to pay for the removal and dumping costs for the bar leaner and dart board. The Tribunal deducts $50.00 from the amount claimed to reflect this. The Tribunal orders $560.00 in rubbish removal costs.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $644.00 after paying a contractor to commercially clean the carpets in the living areas, four bedrooms, hallway and landing, and flea treat the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states that an exit inspection was completed at the property at 4pm on 3 October 2025. At the time they noticed a pet odour. The landlord said that this odour was evident during later visits to the property (dates of those visits were not provided to the Tribunal) and it was on that basis they arranged professional carpet cleaning.
The landlord said the decision was made to flea treat the property as the tenant had pets. The landlord said that this was a preventative measure and there was no evidence of a flea infestation.
The tenant disputes the carpet cleaning costs stating her pets lived outside, with the exception of one occasion where she kept them inside due to agent of the landlord coming to the property. The tenant said that at no time during or following any routine inspection had she been told there was a pet odour nor were they served with a breach notice to remedy pet odour in the property.
The Tenant provided the Tribunal with an invoice from a Swift Property Services proving they paid to have the carpet professionally cleaned and stain treated at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said the carpet cleaning was concluded at
20pm on 3 October 2025, just prior to the landlord completing the exit inspection. The tenant provided the Tribunal with photographs showing an area of carpet that had been successfully stain treated by their contractor.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that they had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s invoice for carpet cleaning does not record the property had a pet odour and required deodorisation or stain treatment. The Tribunal finds it likely that the odour at the exit inspect was likely caused by the carpet being wet following the earlier clean. There was no evidence the carpet needed to be treated for a flea infestation. On that basis the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning and flea treatment is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $1,035.00 after paying a contractor to undertake a general tidy up, remove wate on the compost pile, trim north fence line, trees and shrubs, mow lawns, line trim and blow paths and remove all green waste from the property. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
During the hearing, the landlord accepted that the amount claimed included costs for general garden maintenance which was not the responsibility of the tenant.
The landlord also accepted they could not disprove the tenant’s assertion that the plant material in the compost pile had been placed there by their contractors who had been called to the property to remedy storm damage in the garden on two separate occasions.
The landlord amended their claim for compensation for lawn remediation totalling $501.17 and relied on a quote which detailed the scope of work included: rake compacted soil, replace soil and sow lawn seed, lawn mowing, weed spraying and edges.
The tenant accepted their pool (4.5m x 2.3m) had been sitting on the ground compacting the soil and killed the grass. The tenant said that they did resow the lawn and can not explain why the grass didn’t grow. The Tribunal was not provided with an invoice for the cost of the lawn seed or photographs showing the area had been resown.
With respect to the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing costs the tenant said that the lawn was mowed two days before the end of the tenancy, and they should not be liable for the cost of a lawn mow that was required two weeks after the tenancy ended.
The pre-tenancy inspection report records the grounds were provided in a clean and tidy condition. The end of tenancy photographs shows the lawn was mown and tidy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants failed to return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of remediating damage to lawn in the area where the pool was located. The Tribunal deducts $50.00 for the cost of the lawn mowing from the landlord’s quote to remediate the lawn and order the amount of $451.17. Did the tenant return all curtains at the end of the tenancy
At the hearing, the landlord amended their claim for compensation for replacement curtains they say were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord initially sought $457.60 but amended that to $309.75.
The landlord states that lounge curtains, dining room blind and small curtain in the master bedroom were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that she removed, laundered, and returned some of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that she removed some of the curtains (because of their poor condition) during the tenancy and stored them in a box in the garage. The tenant takes issue with the amount claimed stating the tenancy was afoot for six years and the curtains were not in brand new condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy inspection report indicates that: a. the lounge had eight curtains, with some marking on the back, but were in otherwise good condition. b. the dining room had one brown blind and two brown curtains in good condition; and c. the bedroom had master bedroom had three tan curtains in good condition.
The exit inspection report and photographs show these curtains are missing at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to return all curtains at the end of the tenancy. 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 likely age of the curtains which I have taken to be around seven years (the tenancy was afoot for six years and there was some previous wear and tear noted) and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan which the Inland Revenue Department sets as eight years. On that basis the Tribunal calculates the amount of $38.72 to be appropriate for the replacement cost of the curtains.

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 of the Act.
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 Act.
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) of the Act. 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 Act.
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 Act.
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. Interior damage
The landlord seeks compensation in the amount of $2001.00 after paying a contractor to repair and paint damaged walls and doors and replace two broken doors during the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy and provided exit inspection photographs showing the following: a. The hallway door by the door handle had a large crack. b. There was a large plaster patch in a hallway door and the door was split on the other side requiring the door to be replaced. c. Screw holes left by a first aid box fixed to the wall needed to be patched and painted. d. There was a plaster patch in the door of bedroom one which required painting. e. There was a plaster patch in the wardrobe door of bedroom two that required painting. f. The hole in bedroom three from the interior through to the exterior left by the removal of a security camera required remediation.
The tenant accepted liability for the replacement of the door, remediation of the screw holes caused by the first aid kit and remediation of the hole caused by the removal of the security camera. The tenant challenged the landlord’s ability to seek compensation for painting the plaster patches saying they were not brought to her attention during any routine inspections and her previous property manager had not required her to complete the repairs.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The pre- tenancy inspection report was detailed and included comments about areas showing signs of wear and tear, damage, swelling, cracking, scuffing, holes, chipping and lifting. The damage identified in paragraph [45 a- f] were not identified as being present in the pre-tenancy inspection report. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant responsible for the damage listed in paragraph [45 a – f]. The Tribunal finds the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved. Exterior damage
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,680.00 after paying a contractor to undertake repairs to the exterior cladding following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs and specifically drew the Tribunals attention to the following: a. A missing fibre cement bottom board and corner capping that was concealed by a pallet. b. Paint drawings on an exterior wall. c. Damaged and missing fibre cement boards exposing insulation – caused by the removal of a dog fence. d. Damage to the bottom two fibre cement boards between the two garage doors on the driveway. The landlord said the amount claimed included materials and labour costs for the repairs. The cost also includes patch painting to hide the repairs.
The tenant accepted that in removing the dog gate the fibre cement boards were cracked and damaged. The tenant also accepted damaging the bottom board between the garages but disputes the rest of the amount claimed. The tenant denied being responsible for the paint drawing on an exterior walls saying they were present at the commencement of the tenancy. In addition the tenant said the exterior cladding was cracked in other places and was not in good condition. The tenant provided a photograph showing another area of cracking in the external cladding. The tenant argues they should not have to bare the cost of the landlord’s refurbishment of the property.
The Tribunal again considered the pre-tenancy inspection report, exit inspection report and photographs. The exterior cladding of the property was noted to be in good condition and no damage was identified. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
The landlord was unable to advise the age of the cladding or when the property was last repainted. The Tribunal deducts 25% from the amount claimed for betterment and depreciation to reflect the age of the cladding and condition of the paint finish shown in the photographs. Other matters
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Millijem Property Holdings Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful but did not seek name suppression.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385580 — Property damage at 65 Pohutukawa Drive, Pukete, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385580 — Property damage at 65 Pohutukawa Drive, Pukete, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy 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