What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389012 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5389012?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen - Tiled Splashback: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389012?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13804541-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389012 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5389012?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen - Tiled Splashback: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389012?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13804541-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Browne Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389012 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

49 Browne Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389012 — 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 5389012 — net $1,753.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback	$600.00	Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback
Repairs: Bathroom wall	$400.00	Repairs: Bathroom wall
Repairs: Other wall repairs	$600.00	Repairs: Other wall repairs
Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters	$50.00	Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,753.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,753.00

Claims and awards for application 5389012 — net $1,753.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback

Repairs: Bathroom wall

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bathroom wall

Repairs: Other wall repairs

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Other wall repairs

Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is proven. Success Realty Limited and KC Trust is to retain the sum of $1,120 which has already been sent to them by the Bond Centre. This sum is for rent arrears to 10 November 2025.
The landlord’s claim for lawn work and rubbish disposal costs is dismissed.
[The party] must pay $1,753.00 calculated as shown in table below. This sum is to be paid immediately as follows: a. A sum of $103.00 (for cleaning and filing fee) paid to Success Realty Limited and KC's Trust - Patricia Davison as trustee; and 5389012 2 b. A sum of $1,650 (for damage including disposal of panel heaters) paid to KC's Trust - Patricia Davison as trustee

Reasons

Only the landlord parties attended the hearing. I heard from Mr Belgrave (Belgrave Ventures Limited Ltd T/A Property Scouts - who I will call Property Scouts in this decision) and Ms Kimi (Success Realty Limited - who I will call Success Realty in this decision).

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

Very shortly before the hearing commenced, the tenant sought an adjournment on the basis of her health. This request was declined, as no supporting evidence and not enough detail was provided. This is also the second occasion on which the tenant has sought an adjournment on health grounds without evidential support. On the previous occasion, the application related to the health of the tenant’s child and was also declined (although the hearing was adjourned for unrelated reasons).
The tenant did not attend the hearing which proceeded in her absence.

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: 5389012 3 … [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.

THE TENANT CLAIMS

The tenant bought a number of claims.
These are detailed in an earlier case management order of the Tribunal. The tenant bears the burden of proof in relation to her claims and must attend the hearing to persuade me why I should grant her application including why she should be granted compensation/exemplary damages.
Given that the tenant did not attend the hearing to bring her case, her application is accordingly dismissed.

THE LANDLORD CLAIMS

Rent arrears

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $1,120.00.
Ms Kimi advises that Success Realty has now been sent this sum from the Bond Centre so they hold it already. They are unsure why this has happened.
I have confirmed with the Bond Centre that $1120.00 was refunded to the landlord on 24 February 2026 and that the tenant received the remaining bond of $400.00 as a refund on 29 January 2026.
The landlord provided rent records from the start of the tenancy until the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that Success Realty (as the more recent property manager who was acting as landlord when this debt accrued) and the owner, KC Trust, have proven the sum sought was owed to them at the end of the tenancy as rent arrears.
However, that sum is now in their possession. So that the matter is closed and certain, I record that Success Realty and KC Trust may retain the sum of $1,120 which has been sent to them by the Bond Centre in respect of rent arrears. Cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy
Success Realty and KC Trust claim $300 for cleaning costs. 5389012 4
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 (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition but only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I accept that the photographs presented to support this part of the application show that some areas of the property required additional attention, so it was not reasonably clean and tidy. However, the photographs do not support the extent of the sum sought. On the basis of the evidence before me, primarily on the basis that I accept that some kitchen units needed additional cleaning and some areas of the floor needed attention and a particular area on a bedroom ceiling needed attention, I consider the sum of $75.00 to be reasonable.
In making this award, because of information filed by the tenant and information put forward by the landlord, I record that I have considered the fact that the premises were presented to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a condition that the landlord considered not to be up to their standard.
However, on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that at that earlier time there was an agreement between the tenant and Property Scouts (the property manager at the time) about this issue. I accept that the tenant was compensated for her cleaning time after she invoiced the landlord and that the landlord also provided a skip bin and arranged gardening work to be done.
I note that the requirement in the RTA is not that a tenant returns the property in the same or better condition as it was at the start of the tenancy, but that the property must be reasonably clean and tidy. If the tenant had an issue with the level of cleanliness at property at the outset and how that was handled between the parties she could have pursued this at that time.
The sum ordered is proven. Lawns and rubbish disposal 5389012 5
The landlord does not want to pursue its claim for lawn work and rubbish disposal costs so this claim is dismissed. Damage claims
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. Panel heaters
The landlord says that the tenant damaged 4 panel heaters which they had to dispose of and seeks $100 in relation to disposal costs. An invoice provided sets out that this work was done but there is no specific breakdown to inform me of the precise charge for this work. 5389012 6
I accept that two panel heaters were broken during the course of the tenancy – I can see from photographs that the corner in each is physically broken. One of those heaters was still on the wall and another placed in a cupboard.
I accept that the damage to those heaters was done during the course of the tenancy and I accept that the nature of the break makes it more likely than not to be more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I therefore accept the tenant is liable in respect of two of the heaters.
There are two other panel heaters that the landlord says were also damaged by the tenant because they were found in a cupboard at the end of the tenancy and did not work. There is no evidence as to the age of the heaters. Given the length of the tenancy and the fact the only identified issue in relation to these heaters is that they do not work, I am not satisfied that this is anything other than fair wear and tear. I do not consider that the tenant has worsened the landlord’s position by removing the non-working panel heaters from the wall (because the heaters were disposed of so they would have needed removing from the wall anyway). Therefore, I make no award in relation to these.
I consider the sum of $50 to be reasonable for disposal costs for the physically broken heaters. Tile damage
The landlord says that the tenant damaged a tile splashback during the course of the tenancy. I accept that a number of tiles in a narrow splashback above the kitchen bench were damaged in this tenancy. Photographs were provided to support this. I accept that the nature of the break means that it is more likely than not that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord seeks the costs of retiling the splashback. Again, these costs were not specifically set out in the contractor’s invoice but formed part of a larger sum which also related to other work.
I have considered the sum that is to be awarded further below. Damage to walls and doors
The landlord seeks $10,000 for remedying damage to walls and doors. The landlord says that during the course of the tenancy damage was done to three doors and that damage was done in numerous places to the walls. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that damage was done to walls and doors at various times during the course of the tenancy. 5389012 7
However, I also note that the property had existing damage when the tenancy started. The report from the very start of the tenancy notes in relation to walls and doors: “Bedroom 1 – Wallpaper peeling marks and patch repairs”, “Bedroom 2 wallpaper peeling. Marks”, “Bedroom 3 Marks on walls patch repairs”, “Hallway “wear and tear noted”, “Lounge wear and tear noted. Wallpaper peeling” “Bathroom fairly good”. Damage referred to can be observed in the photographs taken at that time.
In addition to the descriptions, the larger defects pictured (but not all) shown by the entry photographs can generally be described as being: a) In the living room: white painted patch on the living room sliding door, large marks behind sliding door to kitchen, rough wallpapered patch to right of door looking into kitchen (by heat pump remote), large square patch (wallpapered over) and smaller square patch paper lifting from wall. The wallpaper appears to be lifting in parts. b) In bedroom 1: significant white patch x 1 and other scuffs/paper damage. c) In bedroom 3: Large L shaped patch with separate very poorly papered patched in small square.
Therefore, I cannot accept that any of this damage was caused during the course of the tenancy and this is not damage for which the tenant is liable.
During the course of the tenancy the tenant told Property Scouts that she had damaged the wall in the lounge, putting a hole in it, while moving furniture. I also heard how the landlord understood the additional damage was the result of a domestic violence incident.
I heard how Property Scouts issued a 14 day notice to repair and this was given to the tenant on 17 July 2024. I was provided with a full property inspection report from that date which set out the damage. This report notes: The patch repairs aren't flush, rubbing my hand over them they're not smooth. One of the patches have fallen through already. None of them have been painted or re-wall papered. The tenant has found a matching roll of wall paper from the op shop. She tried to re-wall paper one area and didn't do a very good job. I've asked her not to do any more as this will waste the matching wall paper and I want it saved for someone to put up who knows what they're doing.
I have carefully considered the evidence both orally from the property managers attending and the photographic evidence.
In the living room, as I have mentioned above, the door to the kitchen was already damaged. The damage to the other sliding door is not proven as occurring during the course of the tenancy. This is because the entry report notes existing wear and tear, and given the extent of the wear and tear across the house at the start of this tenancy, I cannot be sufficiently certain that this 5389012 8 damage was not preexisting. Therefore, I do not accept it is proven that the tenant is liable for damage to the doors.
I do not consider the more limited wallpaper damage that I was shown by the landlord in the lounge as being anything more than fear wear and tear given the recorded condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy and the subsequent length of the tenancy. A hole was apparent by the hall door during the course of the tenancy but in the final photographs appears remedied (albeit with a different shade of wallpaper). Given the landlord’s claim in this room is just for patching (not papering or painting) therefore there is no established claim for this hole.
Therefore, in the living area I accept that the damage the landlord has proven occurred during the tenancy is that under the window. I accept this is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
In a bedroom 1 I was referred to two patches. I am not satisfied that the square patch is not the same square patch as that in the entry report. It is in the same location and appear to be the same shape and size.
In this room there is also a hole behind the door. This appears to have been caused by a handle going into the door.
Therefore, in this bedroom I accept that damage has occurred during the tenancy behind the door. I accept this is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
For bedroom 2 (in the entry inspection this is labelled bedroom 3) as set out above I do not accept the tenant has any liability for the L shaped patch nor the wallpaper that is in poor condition next to it. The patch job here pre-tenancy was not going to be sustainable.
I accept that the landlord has proven that the wardrobe door was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. There is a hole in it and the handle is missing.
I also accept that other damage in this room occurred during the tenancy being: a) small pink patch by the wardrobe; a small unfilled hole (about 4cm across) and some poor patchwork with wallpaper that does not match above an electrical socket. I accept that this is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
In bedroom 3 (in the entry inspection this room is labelled bedroom 2 and also referred to on an invoice as the “Master bedroom”) I accept that there is evidence of two poor patch repairs and a small dent in the wall which I accept took place during the course of the tenancy as well as a rip to then wallpaper by 5389012 9 a moisture trap. I also accept that the tenant put up and did not take down a moisture trap. The trap was put up with a hook and the landlord says that the ceiling needed to be repaired.
I consider the wallpaper rip by the trap to be fair wear and tear given the condition of the wallpaper generally. I also consider the addition of the hook to be fair wear and tear. The other damage identified above for this room is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage and essentially the costs of redecorating the room.
In the kitchen I accept that two areas to the wall were damaged and poorly patched by the tenant during the course of the tenancy and that this is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
In the bathroom I accept that two holes were made and poorly patched in a wall during the course of the tenancy which was of hardy board type construction with vinyl on it. This is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of replacing the wall with an IBS shower liner product and the reattaching of bathroom fixings (such as the towel rail) as the wall could not be repaired.
For the sake of completeness, I accept that during the course of the tenancy the tenant hung some wallpaper in the hallway that was not a match (it would appear the tenant was attempting a repair here). However, it is not clear what remedy was needed here and what repair work was undertaken at the end of the tenancy that the landlord is claiming for (it is not detailed in the tradesperson’s invoice). I was not shown any patch or hole in the hallway or poor patchwork remining at the end of the tenancy on the property inspection (I was only shown a hole in a July 2024 inspection but that is not the same as the condition at the end of the tenancy especially when the tenant was seeking assistance to undertake repair work). The only comment on the final inspection report in relation to the hall walls related to cleaning. Therefore, no claim is proven in respect of the hallway.
The landlord says that the two sliding doors needed new sliding mechanisms. I am not satisfied that it is proven that any such damage is anything other than fair wear and tear in a tenancy which began in 2021 and ended in 2025.
Overall, I accept that the landlord has proven that the tenant is liable for limited damage to the walls as identified above and a wardrobe door. While efforts to patch in some places have been made I accept the landlord’s evidence that the patching was not of a sufficient quality – This can be plainly observed in a number of the photographs. 5389012 10 How much is the tenant liable to pay to remedy the proven damage to the walls, the door and the tiles?
I must now turn to the sum that the landlord seeks for this damage.
The difficulty for the landlord is that they have presented one large invoice with some itemisation but not a complete breakdown.
That makes it very difficult for the Tribunal to assess the reasonableness of the charges claimed or the costs associated with repair of the different items of claimed damage. Without any more detailed evidence, the Tribunal will have to make a generalised assessment of what appears to be fair compensation for damage proved to have been caused during the tenancy and which is more than fair wear and tear.
As this is the landlord’s claim to prove, any areas of doubt must favour the tenant.
All the Tribunal can responsibly do is assess what damage is proved to have been caused during the tenancy, that is beyond fair wear and tear and make an estimate of what would represent fair compensation to the landlord for the cost of repairing that damage. For the reasons given the estimate will need to be conservative in terms of the amounts awarded.
Further, depreciation is an important factor when assessing compensation for damage to property. The Tribunal generally recognises that items such as wallpaper and paint and decoration naturally lose value over time through normal use and ageing. A landlord should not be placed in a better position than they were before the damage occurred. The Tribunal may consider the age and expected lifespan, condition when determining the appropriate amount of compensation, ensuring that any award reflects the depreciated value of the affected item.
The first sum on the invoice provided as proof of loss is for bathroom repairs for $3,738.30.
This invoiced sum also accounts for much work that I consider the tenant is not liable for (and that despite claiming for the invoice the landlord did not argue the tenant was responsible for).
I heard how the landlord had to replace a wall with IBS shower liner it is this together with the refixing of the items on the wall that the tenant is liable for. I consider that this should be subject to depreciation. There is no information about the age of the decoration in the bathroom. The walls were simply described as “fairly good” in the entry report. Taking into account the lack of evidence about the precise repair cost and taking into account depreciation on the basis that the wall appears to be dated but in “fairly good” condition at the 5389012 11 start of the tenancy I award the landlord the sum of $400 in respect of this damage.
In respect of the other holes in the walls the relevant extract of the invoice provided to prove loss seeks $2090. The landlord said $100 of that related to disposal of the heaters and I have accounted for that above. The remaining $1990 includes installing door stops, fixing a window latch and removing/disposing of blind (so items the tenant is not liable for – no claim is made). The sum also includes the retiling of the splashback which I have found the tenant liable for. Further, the landlord has not proven that the tenant is liable for all of the areas that needed to be patched so this also needs to be taken into account.
I have disregarded the unproven claims and award the landlord $600 in respect of patching repairs to walls and door.
The remaining claim relating to the invoice sum of $2090 relates to the tiled splashback. In the absence of evidence about age but noting that the condition of this appears to be good at the start of the tenancy, I award the landlord $600 in respect of this damage.
I decline to award any sum in relation to the preparation and painting of the master bedroom as a whole. Given the comments about the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy, the photographs at the start of the tenancy showing condition and the absence of any information about when the property was last decorated and the length of the tenancy it would appear that the decoration in this room, had fully depreciated and was in need of a refresh.
For the sake of completeness, I note that it appears from the documents filed that the tenant disputes having to remedy damage due to representations made to her about this about it. I am not satisfied that this is sufficiently proven but I also I note that to the extent her case is that she was told that she did not have to wallpaper and paint, the landlord did not claim for any such costs other than in the master bedroom, and that part of the case has not been proven in any case, so no award has been made in respect of this.
The final part of the invoice provided to prove loss related to miscellaneous work. the only part of the claim that relates to that is the sliding doors and that has not been proven.

PAYMENT

I have made the order for retaining the rent arrears and payment for cleaning and the filing fee to KC Trust and Success Realty. I am satisfied that they were both landlords at the time the tenant’s liability for these sums arose. The tenant is liable to either party in respect of these sums. 5389012 12
In relation to the sums awarded in respect of damage (including disposal of panel heaters), the amount ordered payable here is to KC Trust only. This is because this is the entity who I consider the tenant is liable to account to for this damage. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the time KC Trust was a landlord. I am not satisfied it occurred when Success Realty was a landlord because they only became a landlord very recently. The tenant is liable to KC Trust in respect of these sums.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award the filing fee.
The landlord does not seek suppression of their identifying details. I see no reason to award the tenant suppression, she has not been substantially successful, and I see no other reason to do so (see section 95A RTA)

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 5389012 — net $1,753.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback	$600.00	Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback
Repairs: Bathroom wall	$400.00	Repairs: Bathroom wall
Repairs: Other wall repairs	$600.00	Repairs: Other wall repairs
Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters	$50.00	Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,753.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,753.00

Claims and awards for application 5389012 — net $1,753.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen - tiled splashback

Repairs: Bathroom wall

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bathroom wall

Repairs: Other wall repairs

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Other wall repairs

Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Removing x2 damaged panel heaters

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is proven. Success Realty Limited and KC Trust is to retain the sum of $1,120 which has already been sent to them by the Bond Centre. This sum is for rent arrears to 10 November 2025.
The landlord’s claim for lawn work and rubbish disposal costs is dismissed.
[The party] must pay $1,753.00 calculated as shown in table below. This sum is to be paid immediately as follows: a. A sum of $103.00 (for cleaning and filing fee) paid to Success Realty Limited and KC's Trust - Patricia Davison as trustee; and 5389012 2 b. A sum of $1,650 (for damage including disposal of panel heaters) paid to KC's Trust - Patricia Davison as trustee

Reasons

Only the landlord parties attended the hearing. I heard from Mr Belgrave (Belgrave Ventures Limited Ltd T/A Property Scouts - who I will call Property Scouts in this decision) and Ms Kimi (Success Realty Limited - who I will call Success Realty in this decision).

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

Very shortly before the hearing commenced, the tenant sought an adjournment on the basis of her health. This request was declined, as no supporting evidence and not enough detail was provided. This is also the second occasion on which the tenant has sought an adjournment on health grounds without evidential support. On the previous occasion, the application related to the health of the tenant’s child and was also declined (although the hearing was adjourned for unrelated reasons).
The tenant did not attend the hearing which proceeded in her absence.

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: 5389012 3 … [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.

THE TENANT CLAIMS

The tenant bought a number of claims.
These are detailed in an earlier case management order of the Tribunal. The tenant bears the burden of proof in relation to her claims and must attend the hearing to persuade me why I should grant her application including why she should be granted compensation/exemplary damages.
Given that the tenant did not attend the hearing to bring her case, her application is accordingly dismissed.

THE LANDLORD CLAIMS

Rent arrears

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $1,120.00.
Ms Kimi advises that Success Realty has now been sent this sum from the Bond Centre so they hold it already. They are unsure why this has happened.
I have confirmed with the Bond Centre that $1120.00 was refunded to the landlord on 24 February 2026 and that the tenant received the remaining bond of $400.00 as a refund on 29 January 2026.
The landlord provided rent records from the start of the tenancy until the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that Success Realty (as the more recent property manager who was acting as landlord when this debt accrued) and the owner, KC Trust, have proven the sum sought was owed to them at the end of the tenancy as rent arrears.
However, that sum is now in their possession. So that the matter is closed and certain, I record that Success Realty and KC Trust may retain the sum of $1,120 which has been sent to them by the Bond Centre in respect of rent arrears. Cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy
Success Realty and KC Trust claim $300 for cleaning costs. 5389012 4
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 (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition but only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I accept that the photographs presented to support this part of the application show that some areas of the property required additional attention, so it was not reasonably clean and tidy. However, the photographs do not support the extent of the sum sought. On the basis of the evidence before me, primarily on the basis that I accept that some kitchen units needed additional cleaning and some areas of the floor needed attention and a particular area on a bedroom ceiling needed attention, I consider the sum of $75.00 to be reasonable.
In making this award, because of information filed by the tenant and information put forward by the landlord, I record that I have considered the fact that the premises were presented to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a condition that the landlord considered not to be up to their standard.
However, on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that at that earlier time there was an agreement between the tenant and Property Scouts (the property manager at the time) about this issue. I accept that the tenant was compensated for her cleaning time after she invoiced the landlord and that the landlord also provided a skip bin and arranged gardening work to be done.
I note that the requirement in the RTA is not that a tenant returns the property in the same or better condition as it was at the start of the tenancy, but that the property must be reasonably clean and tidy. If the tenant had an issue with the level of cleanliness at property at the outset and how that was handled between the parties she could have pursued this at that time.
The sum ordered is proven. Lawns and rubbish disposal 5389012 5
The landlord does not want to pursue its claim for lawn work and rubbish disposal costs so this claim is dismissed. Damage claims
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. Panel heaters
The landlord says that the tenant damaged 4 panel heaters which they had to dispose of and seeks $100 in relation to disposal costs. An invoice provided sets out that this work was done but there is no specific breakdown to inform me of the precise charge for this work. 5389012 6
I accept that two panel heaters were broken during the course of the tenancy – I can see from photographs that the corner in each is physically broken. One of those heaters was still on the wall and another placed in a cupboard.
I accept that the damage to those heaters was done during the course of the tenancy and I accept that the nature of the break makes it more likely than not to be more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I therefore accept the tenant is liable in respect of two of the heaters.
There are two other panel heaters that the landlord says were also damaged by the tenant because they were found in a cupboard at the end of the tenancy and did not work. There is no evidence as to the age of the heaters. Given the length of the tenancy and the fact the only identified issue in relation to these heaters is that they do not work, I am not satisfied that this is anything other than fair wear and tear. I do not consider that the tenant has worsened the landlord’s position by removing the non-working panel heaters from the wall (because the heaters were disposed of so they would have needed removing from the wall anyway). Therefore, I make no award in relation to these.
I consider the sum of $50 to be reasonable for disposal costs for the physically broken heaters. Tile damage
The landlord says that the tenant damaged a tile splashback during the course of the tenancy. I accept that a number of tiles in a narrow splashback above the kitchen bench were damaged in this tenancy. Photographs were provided to support this. I accept that the nature of the break means that it is more likely than not that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord seeks the costs of retiling the splashback. Again, these costs were not specifically set out in the contractor’s invoice but formed part of a larger sum which also related to other work.
I have considered the sum that is to be awarded further below. Damage to walls and doors
The landlord seeks $10,000 for remedying damage to walls and doors. The landlord says that during the course of the tenancy damage was done to three doors and that damage was done in numerous places to the walls. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that damage was done to walls and doors at various times during the course of the tenancy. 5389012 7
However, I also note that the property had existing damage when the tenancy started. The report from the very start of the tenancy notes in relation to walls and doors: “Bedroom 1 – Wallpaper peeling marks and patch repairs”, “Bedroom 2 wallpaper peeling. Marks”, “Bedroom 3 Marks on walls patch repairs”, “Hallway “wear and tear noted”, “Lounge wear and tear noted. Wallpaper peeling” “Bathroom fairly good”. Damage referred to can be observed in the photographs taken at that time.
In addition to the descriptions, the larger defects pictured (but not all) shown by the entry photographs can generally be described as being: a) In the living room: white painted patch on the living room sliding door, large marks behind sliding door to kitchen, rough wallpapered patch to right of door looking into kitchen (by heat pump remote), large square patch (wallpapered over) and smaller square patch paper lifting from wall. The wallpaper appears to be lifting in parts. b) In bedroom 1: significant white patch x 1 and other scuffs/paper damage. c) In bedroom 3: Large L shaped patch with separate very poorly papered patched in small square.
Therefore, I cannot accept that any of this damage was caused during the course of the tenancy and this is not damage for which the tenant is liable.
During the course of the tenancy the tenant told Property Scouts that she had damaged the wall in the lounge, putting a hole in it, while moving furniture. I also heard how the landlord understood the additional damage was the result of a domestic violence incident.
I heard how Property Scouts issued a 14 day notice to repair and this was given to the tenant on 17 July 2024. I was provided with a full property inspection report from that date which set out the damage. This report notes: The patch repairs aren't flush, rubbing my hand over them they're not smooth. One of the patches have fallen through already. None of them have been painted or re-wall papered. The tenant has found a matching roll of wall paper from the op shop. She tried to re-wall paper one area and didn't do a very good job. I've asked her not to do any more as this will waste the matching wall paper and I want it saved for someone to put up who knows what they're doing.
I have carefully considered the evidence both orally from the property managers attending and the photographic evidence.
In the living room, as I have mentioned above, the door to the kitchen was already damaged. The damage to the other sliding door is not proven as occurring during the course of the tenancy. This is because the entry report notes existing wear and tear, and given the extent of the wear and tear across the house at the start of this tenancy, I cannot be sufficiently certain that this 5389012 8 damage was not preexisting. Therefore, I do not accept it is proven that the tenant is liable for damage to the doors.
I do not consider the more limited wallpaper damage that I was shown by the landlord in the lounge as being anything more than fear wear and tear given the recorded condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy and the subsequent length of the tenancy. A hole was apparent by the hall door during the course of the tenancy but in the final photographs appears remedied (albeit with a different shade of wallpaper). Given the landlord’s claim in this room is just for patching (not papering or painting) therefore there is no established claim for this hole.
Therefore, in the living area I accept that the damage the landlord has proven occurred during the tenancy is that under the window. I accept this is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
In a bedroom 1 I was referred to two patches. I am not satisfied that the square patch is not the same square patch as that in the entry report. It is in the same location and appear to be the same shape and size.
In this room there is also a hole behind the door. This appears to have been caused by a handle going into the door.
Therefore, in this bedroom I accept that damage has occurred during the tenancy behind the door. I accept this is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
For bedroom 2 (in the entry inspection this is labelled bedroom 3) as set out above I do not accept the tenant has any liability for the L shaped patch nor the wallpaper that is in poor condition next to it. The patch job here pre-tenancy was not going to be sustainable.
I accept that the landlord has proven that the wardrobe door was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. There is a hole in it and the handle is missing.
I also accept that other damage in this room occurred during the tenancy being: a) small pink patch by the wardrobe; a small unfilled hole (about 4cm across) and some poor patchwork with wallpaper that does not match above an electrical socket. I accept that this is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
In bedroom 3 (in the entry inspection this room is labelled bedroom 2 and also referred to on an invoice as the “Master bedroom”) I accept that there is evidence of two poor patch repairs and a small dent in the wall which I accept took place during the course of the tenancy as well as a rip to then wallpaper by 5389012 9 a moisture trap. I also accept that the tenant put up and did not take down a moisture trap. The trap was put up with a hook and the landlord says that the ceiling needed to be repaired.
I consider the wallpaper rip by the trap to be fair wear and tear given the condition of the wallpaper generally. I also consider the addition of the hook to be fair wear and tear. The other damage identified above for this room is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage and essentially the costs of redecorating the room.
In the kitchen I accept that two areas to the wall were damaged and poorly patched by the tenant during the course of the tenancy and that this is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of the proper patching of this damage (not wallpaper or paint).
In the bathroom I accept that two holes were made and poorly patched in a wall during the course of the tenancy which was of hardy board type construction with vinyl on it. This is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The landlord seeks the costs of replacing the wall with an IBS shower liner product and the reattaching of bathroom fixings (such as the towel rail) as the wall could not be repaired.
For the sake of completeness, I accept that during the course of the tenancy the tenant hung some wallpaper in the hallway that was not a match (it would appear the tenant was attempting a repair here). However, it is not clear what remedy was needed here and what repair work was undertaken at the end of the tenancy that the landlord is claiming for (it is not detailed in the tradesperson’s invoice). I was not shown any patch or hole in the hallway or poor patchwork remining at the end of the tenancy on the property inspection (I was only shown a hole in a July 2024 inspection but that is not the same as the condition at the end of the tenancy especially when the tenant was seeking assistance to undertake repair work). The only comment on the final inspection report in relation to the hall walls related to cleaning. Therefore, no claim is proven in respect of the hallway.
The landlord says that the two sliding doors needed new sliding mechanisms. I am not satisfied that it is proven that any such damage is anything other than fair wear and tear in a tenancy which began in 2021 and ended in 2025.
Overall, I accept that the landlord has proven that the tenant is liable for limited damage to the walls as identified above and a wardrobe door. While efforts to patch in some places have been made I accept the landlord’s evidence that the patching was not of a sufficient quality – This can be plainly observed in a number of the photographs. 5389012 10 How much is the tenant liable to pay to remedy the proven damage to the walls, the door and the tiles?
I must now turn to the sum that the landlord seeks for this damage.
The difficulty for the landlord is that they have presented one large invoice with some itemisation but not a complete breakdown.
That makes it very difficult for the Tribunal to assess the reasonableness of the charges claimed or the costs associated with repair of the different items of claimed damage. Without any more detailed evidence, the Tribunal will have to make a generalised assessment of what appears to be fair compensation for damage proved to have been caused during the tenancy and which is more than fair wear and tear.
As this is the landlord’s claim to prove, any areas of doubt must favour the tenant.
All the Tribunal can responsibly do is assess what damage is proved to have been caused during the tenancy, that is beyond fair wear and tear and make an estimate of what would represent fair compensation to the landlord for the cost of repairing that damage. For the reasons given the estimate will need to be conservative in terms of the amounts awarded.
Further, depreciation is an important factor when assessing compensation for damage to property. The Tribunal generally recognises that items such as wallpaper and paint and decoration naturally lose value over time through normal use and ageing. A landlord should not be placed in a better position than they were before the damage occurred. The Tribunal may consider the age and expected lifespan, condition when determining the appropriate amount of compensation, ensuring that any award reflects the depreciated value of the affected item.
The first sum on the invoice provided as proof of loss is for bathroom repairs for $3,738.30.
This invoiced sum also accounts for much work that I consider the tenant is not liable for (and that despite claiming for the invoice the landlord did not argue the tenant was responsible for).
I heard how the landlord had to replace a wall with IBS shower liner it is this together with the refixing of the items on the wall that the tenant is liable for. I consider that this should be subject to depreciation. There is no information about the age of the decoration in the bathroom. The walls were simply described as “fairly good” in the entry report. Taking into account the lack of evidence about the precise repair cost and taking into account depreciation on the basis that the wall appears to be dated but in “fairly good” condition at the 5389012 11 start of the tenancy I award the landlord the sum of $400 in respect of this damage.
In respect of the other holes in the walls the relevant extract of the invoice provided to prove loss seeks $2090. The landlord said $100 of that related to disposal of the heaters and I have accounted for that above. The remaining $1990 includes installing door stops, fixing a window latch and removing/disposing of blind (so items the tenant is not liable for – no claim is made). The sum also includes the retiling of the splashback which I have found the tenant liable for. Further, the landlord has not proven that the tenant is liable for all of the areas that needed to be patched so this also needs to be taken into account.
I have disregarded the unproven claims and award the landlord $600 in respect of patching repairs to walls and door.
The remaining claim relating to the invoice sum of $2090 relates to the tiled splashback. In the absence of evidence about age but noting that the condition of this appears to be good at the start of the tenancy, I award the landlord $600 in respect of this damage.
I decline to award any sum in relation to the preparation and painting of the master bedroom as a whole. Given the comments about the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy, the photographs at the start of the tenancy showing condition and the absence of any information about when the property was last decorated and the length of the tenancy it would appear that the decoration in this room, had fully depreciated and was in need of a refresh.
For the sake of completeness, I note that it appears from the documents filed that the tenant disputes having to remedy damage due to representations made to her about this about it. I am not satisfied that this is sufficiently proven but I also I note that to the extent her case is that she was told that she did not have to wallpaper and paint, the landlord did not claim for any such costs other than in the master bedroom, and that part of the case has not been proven in any case, so no award has been made in respect of this.
The final part of the invoice provided to prove loss related to miscellaneous work. the only part of the claim that relates to that is the sliding doors and that has not been proven.

PAYMENT

I have made the order for retaining the rent arrears and payment for cleaning and the filing fee to KC Trust and Success Realty. I am satisfied that they were both landlords at the time the tenant’s liability for these sums arose. The tenant is liable to either party in respect of these sums. 5389012 12
In relation to the sums awarded in respect of damage (including disposal of panel heaters), the amount ordered payable here is to KC Trust only. This is because this is the entity who I consider the tenant is liable to account to for this damage. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the time KC Trust was a landlord. I am not satisfied it occurred when Success Realty was a landlord because they only became a landlord very recently. The tenant is liable to KC Trust in respect of these sums.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award the filing fee.
The landlord does not seek suppression of their identifying details. I see no reason to award the tenant suppression, she has not been substantially successful, and I see no other reason to do so (see section 95A RTA)

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389012 — Property damage at 49 Browne Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389012 — Property damage at 49 Browne Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

THE TENANT CLAIMS

THE LANDLORD CLAIMS

PAYMENT

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

THE TENANT CLAIMS

THE LANDLORD CLAIMS

PAYMENT

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions