What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5387485?

The tribunal order states: Shiree Ngaroma McAndrew must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5387485?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387485?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13453367-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5387485?

The tribunal order states: Shiree Ngaroma McAndrew must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5387485?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387485?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13453367-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

650 Gibraltar Road, Aramoana, RD 1, Omakere 4271 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387485 — Rent arrears

Order

Shiree Ngaroma McAndrew must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited as Agent for Robert and Jane Eagles as Trustees for R J M and J M Eagles Family Trust $7,283.42 immediately, calculated as shown below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-17502128) to Inspire Real Estate Limited as Agent for Robert and Jane Eagles as Trustees for R J M and J M Eagles Family Trust, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant didn’t attend.
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 was ended on 18 July 2025 by a 90 day notice of termination given by the landlord.
The tenant was unable to fully vacate until 6 August so is responsible for rent until that date. 1
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. 2
The tenant had not been living in the premises for some time. A major rat infestation resulted, which caused significant damage to the premises and to furniture and chattels provided by the landlord as part of the tenancy.
Exit inspection photos provided by the landlord show that the premises were left in a poor state of cleanliness.
A large quantity of rubbish was left, including some very bulky items like a car body and damaged furniture.
The power supply to the premises had been disconnected, causing further issues with rotting food in the refrigerator.
The owners essentially decided that nothing left in the premises could safely remain there because of the rat damage and contamination.
Contractors were engaged to empty out the premises, take rubbish to the dump and do some basic cleaning. The cost of that work, as proved by the invoice provided, was $3,350.00.
I am satisfied that for the most part, that cost was caused by breach of the tenant’s obligations. 1 S.60 RTA 2 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
It is not proved that the tenant was responsible for the power disconnection. That may have caused of the need for removal and replacement of the refrigerator. The costs for that work are therefore not proved to be the tenant’s responsibility and the compensation awarded is less than the amount of the invoice for that reason, having regard to the $1,150.00 charged for wiping out the fridge and taking it and the stove outside.

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. 3
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). 4 Carpets
The carpets were stained and damaged. The owners made an insurance claim and the insurer agreed that the carpet required replacement. Two excesses of $650.00 were charged to the owners. They are entitled to compensation for that cost. Stove
The property manager’s evidence is that food had been left in the stove, which had become rat infested and unsanitary and needed to be replaced. I accept that evidence.
The landlord had the stove replaced and installed at a total cost of $1,868.09.
Allowance needs to be made for 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.
There is no direct evidence showing the age of the stove. It is noted as being in good condition in the entry inspection report. From entry inspection photos in 3 S.40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 4 S.49B(3)(a) RTA. June 2024, it appears an older model in reasonable condition. Allowance for another year’s depreciation needs to made since then.
The IRD depreciation tables give an expected useful life for ovens in residential rental properties of 8 years.
Taking those considerations into account I award compensation equal to 40% of the replacement and installation cost. Window repairs
The exit inspection photos show a broken window and glass door panel. In the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, I must take that as being the tenant’s responsibility. The repair costs are proved by the invoice provided. The landlord should be compensated for that cost. Furniture and chattels
The landlord claims compensation for the cost of replacing missing and damaged furniture and chattels.
There is no chattels list attached to the agreement. The agreement does however say, “The owner has agreed to leave furniture, appliances, whiteware (and other items as listed in the entry inspection report) for the tenant, the tenant understands and agrees that these items WILL NOT be replaced should they stop working during the tenancy”
The chattels are not listed in the entry inspection report either, but some are identifiable in the entry inspection photographs.
The owners have provided a comprehensive list of the chattels and furniture said to have been provided with the tenancy, what they say happened to those items and replacement cost. Evidence of replacement cost has been provided in catalogue form.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for losses actually and reasonably incurred due to the tenant’s breach of her obligations.
It is for the landlord to bring evidence to prove the claims.
In assessing these claims the Tribunal can only order compensation: a. where loss is proved (ie. on the basis of receipts proving replacement cost incurred – not quotes or pricing evidence for items that might not in fact be replaced). My caution about that is reinforced by the indication in the agreement that replacement may not be intended. b. where there is clear evidence of furniture/ chattels having: i. been provided with the tenancy; and ii. been removed during the tenancy; or iii. damaged during the tenancy to the extent that replacement was required.
Again, due allowance would need to be made for depreciation.
The claims are determines as follows: a. fridge – as noted it is not proved that the need for it to be replaced was other than due to disconnection of the power which is not proved to have been the tenant’s responsibility; b. I accept the owners’ evidence of the following costs having been incurred to repair/ replace items damaged during the tenancy; i. light shades - $4.00 ii. window latch - $79.00 iii. shower curtain- $14.00 iv. toilet seat - $32.98
The owners’ schedule notes the information about the replacement cost for all other items but not as costs that have been incurred.
I do not award compensation in respect of the other items for the reasons given.
It would be unfair though to dismiss those claims altogether. If the landlord can bring evidence to prove the matters noted in paragraph 31, it should be allowed to bring a further application seeking compensation for those losses.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387485 — Rent arrears at 650 Gibraltar Road, Aramoana, RD 1, Omakere 4271

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387485 — Rent arrears at 650 Gibraltar Road, Aramoana, RD 1, Omakere 4271

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?

Property management

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?

Property management