What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400488 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant must pay the Landlord $9,102.35 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5400488?

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 5400488?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13902872-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400488 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant must pay the Landlord $9,102.35 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5400488?

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 5400488?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13902872-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400488 — Property damage

Order

The Tenant must pay the Landlord $9,102.35 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount Rent arrears to 13 November 2025$1,380.00 General cleaning$1,552.50 Lawn mowing and dump fees$97.75 Replacement of locks following termination$235.75 Replacement of broken bedroom window$236.85 Repair of garage door mechanism and motor$1,104.00 Replacement of internal door and handle$977.50 Carpet damage – dimunition in value and cleaning$2,434.00 DescriptionAmount Burnt laminate flooring – insurance excess only$750.00 Burnt kitchen vinyl – insurance excess only$750.00 Missing curtains and window coverings – insurance excess$1,250.00 Reimbursement of filing fee$28.00 Total$10,796.35 Less bond($2,760.00) Amount payable by the Tenant$8,036.35
The Bond Centre must pay the general bond of $2,760.00 to the Landlord.
The name and identifying details for the Tenant party are not to be published. Name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the reconvened hearing. The Tenant did not attend.
The Tenant had previously attended and participated. She was aware that the matter had been adjourned and why. The Landlord served its further material on the Tenant at her last known email address. The Tenant did not provide any further evidence or explanation for her non-attendance.
Attempts were made to contact the Tenant. In the absence of any response, I determined the application on the evidence before the Tribunal.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the earlier hearing, the Tenant admitted the rent arrears. She disputed liability for the remaining claims. She said that damage and other problems arose during a period of acute mental distress, when unauthorised third parties entered and remained in the property and held her hostage against her will.
The earlier hearing was adjourned so the parties could provide further evidence. The Landlord complied with those directions. The Tenant did not provide any further evidence.

How much rent is owed?

The Tenant admitted rent arrears of $1,380.00 at the earlier hearing.
The Landlord’s rent summary proves the amount owing. Rent arrears of $1,380.00 are ordered.

Did the Tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

At the end of a tenancy, a tenant must remove their goods, leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave the Landlord’s chattels at the premises: s 40(1)(e)(ii)–(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The entry inspection dated 3 October 2024 records only minor pre-existing wear, including some garage wall marks, picture-hook holes, soap-scum build- up and rust in the laundry cupboard. The Tenant was provided with two front- door keys and one garage-door remote.
The inspection dated 11 February 2025 records that the home was “lovely, clean and tidy”. The only maintenance issues recorded were a toilet cistern and an unhinged kitchen cupboard door.
In contrast, the photographs taken following the Tenant’s eviction show extensive clutter and rubbish throughout the house, dirty floors and surfaces, personal items left throughout several rooms, and rubbish and discarded items outside. The property was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
After the remaining items had been dealt with, the Landlord incurred 30 hours of cleaning at $45 per hour plus GST, totalling $1,552.50. The cleaning included the cupboards, bathrooms, kitchen, walls and other internal surfaces.
The Landlord also incurred $97.75 for lawn mowing and dump fees.
Those amounts are supported by the invoices and are reasonable having regard to the condition shown in the exit photographs. They are ordered.

Did the Tenant return the keys and security devices?

The Tenant did not return the front-door keys or garage-door remote at the end of the tenancy.
It was therefore reasonably necessary to change the locks after the eviction. The cost of $235.75 is proved and is ordered.
The Landlord also claims $464.49 for changing the locks earlier in the tenancy. That work was undertaken when the Tenant was admitted to hospital and asked that the locks be changed because unauthorised persons had access to the property.
The evidence does not establish that the Tenant agreed to reimburse the Landlord. I am concerned that this had occurred around the time of the Tenant’s hospitalisation, while the tenancy was still current and neither party had taken steps to end it. I have been unable to find sufficient evidence to support the Tenant’s claim she was, following her mental health episode and hospitalisation, kept captive at the premises against her will. I accept the property manager’s evidence that the Tenant asked to change the locks to stop people from entering her home without her authorisation, but I think at that stage, that was not the Landlord’s problem to solve, and the Landlord should have involved the Tribunal at that stage. The claim for $464.49 is therefore dismissed. Did the Tenant leave the Landlord’s chattels at the premises?
The entry photographs show curtains and other window coverings installed at the premises. The exit evidence shows that the curtains had been removed.
The Tenant was required to leave the Landlord’s chattels at the premises at the end of the tenancy. See s 40(1)(e)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The replacement cost was $1,474.43. The insurer paid $224.43, leaving the Landlord to meet an excess of $1,250.00.
The replacement curtains were basic, cost-effective replacements. I am satisfied that the amount claimed does not provide the Landlord with any material betterment. Compensation of $1,250.00 is ordered.

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. Once that is established, the tenant must prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. A tenant may also be responsible for the actions of persons at the premises with their permission. See ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where careless damage is covered by the Landlord’s insurance, the Tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the applicable insurance excess or four weeks’ rent. Where the damage is not insured, liability for careless damage is limited to four weeks’ rent.
Tenants remain fully liable for intentional damage and damage resulting from an act or omission constituting an imprisonable offence.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause the damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. It may also be intentional where a person allows a situation to continue knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The entry and interim inspection reports, together with the before-and-after photographs, establish that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. a broken bedroom window; b. damage to the garage-door mechanism and motor; c. substantial damage to the internal door and door handle between the garage and hallway; d. multiple stains and burns to the carpet; e. burning and damage to the laminate flooring; and f. burning and damage to the kitchen vinyl.
Those matters are plainly more than fair wear and tear.
I have considered the Tenant’s explanation that she was acutely unwell and that third parties entered and remained at the property without her meaningful consent. I accept that she was experiencing significant personal difficulties, and that other people may have been present. The Landlord’s evidence is clear about other people being present at the home.
However, the Tenant’s general explanation does not identify who caused each item of damage, when it occurred, or what reasonable steps she took to prevent those people from entering or to have them leave. Despite being given the opportunity to do so, she did not provide the Police, medical or other contemporaneous evidence on which she said she relied.
The Tenant has therefore not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred without a careless or intentional act or omission by her or by a person for whose actions she was responsible, as set out at [24] above. Broken Window, Garage Door Mechanism and Motor and Internal Door
The evidence is not sufficiently specific to establish that the individual damage items were intentional. I therefore assess the claims as careless damage and apply the statutory limitations: a. The broken window cost $236.85 to replace. I approve this claim. b. The garage-door mechanism and motor cost $1,104.00 to repair. The Landlord has submitted a quote, and I understand the repair has been completed. I award this amount. c. The internal door and handle cost $977.50 to replace.

What compensation is payable for the carpet damage?

The Landlord claims for professional carpet treatment and further compensation arising from the insurer’s approval of replacement carpet.
The entry inspection does not record staining, burning or other damage to the carpet. The inspection of 11 February 2025 records that the home was “lovely, clean and tidy”. I am satisfied the carpet was serviceable and in reasonably good condition during the tenancy.
The exit evidence shows stains and marks in the entrance, three bedrooms, the lounge and hallway. The damage was more than fair wear and tear. The Tenant has not proved that it was not caused carelessly by her or by a person for whose actions she was responsible.
The Landlord engaged JAE to attempt to remediate the carpet. JAE pre- vacuumed the carpet, treated the individual stains and steam cleaned the remaining carpet so that the treated areas would blend in. JAE also carried out further treatment and rinsing later that day.
The JAE invoice records that all brown stains in bedroom 2 were eliminated, that two pink stains and two burn marks in bedroom 3 were eliminated, and that most of the black stains in the entrance were eliminated. Brown stains remained visible in bedroom 1. Brown staining and a burn mark remained visible in the lounge.
I am satisfied that this was a reasonable attempt to remove the damage and limit the Landlord’s loss: s 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The fact that the treatment did not remove every mark does not make its cost irrecoverable. The treatment was reasonably undertaken in an effort to avoid the substantially greater cost of replacement. Compensation of $1,234.50 is ordered for that expense.
The insurer subsequently approved replacement of the carpet, at a cost of $6,050.85. The insurer’s approval is relevant, but it does not answer the Tenant’s liability from the Tribunal’s perspective.
As was made clear in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8, reasonableness is of central importance when selecting the appropriate measure of damages. Where the cost of cure is disproportionate to the benefit obtained, the appropriate measure may instead be diminution in value.
I am not satisfied that wholesale replacement of the carpet was reasonably necessary. The photographs show carpet that remains intact and generally serviceable, certainly for a residential tenancy. The remaining stains and marks are localised and are not particularly prominent in the photographs.
There is no evidence that matching carpet was unavailable, that the property could not reasonably be re-tenanted in its existing condition, or that wholesale replacement was technically necessary.
The property managers did not know the age of the carpet. Although its condition before the damage is relevant, the Tribunal does not have sufficient evidence to calculate a depreciated replacement award reliably.
I therefore decline to award either the full replacement cost or the insurance excesses associated with replacement.
The remaining stains nevertheless diminished the visual appeal and value of the carpet. I accept that the stains and a remaining burn mark are losses to the Landlord, even though they do not justify replacing all of the carpet.
There is no evidence of a market value for used carpet in its undamaged and damaged conditions. The assessment must therefore be made broadly, having regard to: a. the reasonable treatment already undertaken; b. the number and location of the residual marks; c. the otherwise serviceable condition of the carpet; d. the fact that most stains were successfully removed; e. the absence of evidence that replacement was necessary; and f. the whole-house replacement quotation of $6,050.85, used only as a reference point.
I assess the diminution in value caused by the remaining stains and burn mark at $1,200.00.
The total compensation for the carpet damage and cleaning is therefore $2,434.00. Flooring – Intentional Damage Established – Excesses Awarded
The laminate flooring was burnt and required replacement at a cost of $4,362.20. The applicable insurance excess was $750.00, which is ordered.
The kitchen vinyl was also burnt and required replacement at a cost of $2,407.55. The applicable insurance excess was $750.00, which is ordered.
I have taken betterment and depreciation into account. The entry and interim evidence shows that the damaged items were serviceable and in materially better condition before the damage occurred.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

The Landlord has substantially succeeded and is entitled to reimbursement of the $28.00 filing fee.

Should name suppression be granted to the Tenant?

Yes. The Tenant’s non-attendance at the hearing and acknowledged mental health concerns are noted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400488 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400488 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owed?

Did the Tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the Tenant return the keys and security devices?

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

What compensation is payable for the carpet damage?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should name suppression be granted to the Tenant?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owed?

Did the Tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the Tenant return the keys and security devices?

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

What compensation is payable for the carpet damage?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should name suppression be granted to the Tenant?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.