What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400630 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 5400630?

Break Lease Fee: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Report: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Bleaching: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $264.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $456.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $557.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400630?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653382-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400630 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 5400630?

Break Lease Fee: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Report: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Bleaching: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $264.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $456.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $557.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400630?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653382-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400630 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400630 — net $4,138.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6.11.2025	$557.14	Rent arrears to 6.11.2025
Break lease fee	$700.00	Break lease fee
Lawns and garden work	$264.27	Lawns and garden work
Window repairs	$456.37	Window repairs
Carpet cleaning	$365.00	Carpet cleaning
Carpet report	$230.00	Carpet report
Floor bleaching	$138.00	Floor bleaching
Carpet replacement	$4,000.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,138.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,138.78

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of the first tenant.
[The tenant/s] must pay All Property Management NZ Limited as agent for M Butters $4,138.78 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to All Property Management NZ Limited as agent for M Butters immediately.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted by videoconference and was attended by Ms Lapwood representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1]. The other tenant, Mr Adams- Noda, did not attend at the appointed time, either by video or telephone.
An earlier videoconference hearing was held on 26 March 2026. However, after the hearing had concluded, it was adjourned, as the tenants reported technical difficulties joining the meeting. The hearing was then re-scheduled, so the tenants could participate in the hearing.
This tenancy began on 19 July 2025 and was for a fixed term, due to end on 19 November 2026. The tenancy ended before the end of the fixed term, on 6 November 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records, documentary and oral evidence, which the tenant accepts. Therefore, the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is awarded above.
The landlord states the tenants also agreed to payment of the early termination fee (break lease fee), and refers to the emails provided in support. The tenant accepts the $700.00 break lease fee claimed by the landlord, which is awarded.

Did the tenants 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims lawnmowing and gardening costs, which are supported by photographic evidence and an invoice. The tenant accepts that the lawns needed mowing at the end of the tenancy, but noted she had mowed the lawn two weeks prior to the tenancy ending. In view of the evidence showing the condition of the lawn, I find the landlord’s claim has been established, and the amount claimed is awarded above. Compensation for tenant damage Legal framework
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful in such 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Windows and curtains
The tenant accepts liability for the cost of repairing a window ($456.37), which is awarded above.
The landlord withdraws its claim for costs arising from damage to curtains. Carpet
The landlord claims compensation for damage to carpet from dog urine, and seeks the following costs: • Carpet cleaning: $365.00 • Carpet report: $230.00 • Floor bleaching: $138.00 • Carpet replacement: insurance excess of $4,000.00
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet was brand new, and the property had just been repainted and renovated prior to the start of the tenancy. At a viewing on 7 October 2025 (soon after notice was received on 6 October 2025) the landlord noticed multiple stains, and was told these were coffee stains. At the final inspection on 29 October 2025, the odour from dog urine was evident, and there was urine all through the carpet, in every room. The landlord confirmed that a dog was permitted under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord states that the carpet had to be uplifted and replaced, due to the extent of damage from urine. The cleaners also had to bleach the floor underneath. The landlord provided a report regarding the condition of the carpet. The landlord notes that the owner had to replace the carpet four months after it was installed.
The landlord’s evidence is that the brand new carpet was installed on 9 July 2025. Altogether 4 bedrooms and the lounge/conservatory area were carpeted. An invoice for the replacement carpet, dated 17 November 2025, was provided. This invoice shows that the replacement cost of the carpet was $5,160.93. The landlord states the insurance excess is $800.00 per room.
On the basis of the landlord’s evidence, which includes photographs and documentary evidence, I am satisfied that the carpet damage was caused during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it reasonable for the landlord to claim the cost of the initial carpet cleaning ($365.00), which was undertaken to address the carpet stains and odour.
As the carpet cleaning did not resolve the issues, the landlord arranged for a professional opinion on whether more extensive carpet cleaning measures would address it, or whether the carpet ought to be replaced. A report was completed on 4 November 2025. The cost of this report ($230.00), which was reasonably incurred, is also awarded.
The landlord has explained there was a further cost of $138.00, as shown in the invoice, for floor bleaching, which had to occur before the new carpet could be installed. This is awarded.
The landlord is also entitled to the insurance excess of $4,000.00 for replacement of the carpet. This amount is less than the full cost of replacing the carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
The tenant who attended the hearing has requested name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of this tenant’s name and identifying details only. Name suppression for the other tenant is declined. The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400630 — net $4,138.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6.11.2025	$557.14	Rent arrears to 6.11.2025
Break lease fee	$700.00	Break lease fee
Lawns and garden work	$264.27	Lawns and garden work
Window repairs	$456.37	Window repairs
Carpet cleaning	$365.00	Carpet cleaning
Carpet report	$230.00	Carpet report
Floor bleaching	$138.00	Floor bleaching
Carpet replacement	$4,000.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,138.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,138.78

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of the first tenant.
[The tenant/s] must pay All Property Management NZ Limited as agent for M Butters $4,138.78 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to All Property Management NZ Limited as agent for M Butters immediately.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted by videoconference and was attended by Ms Lapwood representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1]. The other tenant, Mr Adams- Noda, did not attend at the appointed time, either by video or telephone.
An earlier videoconference hearing was held on 26 March 2026. However, after the hearing had concluded, it was adjourned, as the tenants reported technical difficulties joining the meeting. The hearing was then re-scheduled, so the tenants could participate in the hearing.
This tenancy began on 19 July 2025 and was for a fixed term, due to end on 19 November 2026. The tenancy ended before the end of the fixed term, on 6 November 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records, documentary and oral evidence, which the tenant accepts. Therefore, the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is awarded above.
The landlord states the tenants also agreed to payment of the early termination fee (break lease fee), and refers to the emails provided in support. The tenant accepts the $700.00 break lease fee claimed by the landlord, which is awarded.

Did the tenants 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims lawnmowing and gardening costs, which are supported by photographic evidence and an invoice. The tenant accepts that the lawns needed mowing at the end of the tenancy, but noted she had mowed the lawn two weeks prior to the tenancy ending. In view of the evidence showing the condition of the lawn, I find the landlord’s claim has been established, and the amount claimed is awarded above. Compensation for tenant damage Legal framework
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful in such 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Windows and curtains
The tenant accepts liability for the cost of repairing a window ($456.37), which is awarded above.
The landlord withdraws its claim for costs arising from damage to curtains. Carpet
The landlord claims compensation for damage to carpet from dog urine, and seeks the following costs: • Carpet cleaning: $365.00 • Carpet report: $230.00 • Floor bleaching: $138.00 • Carpet replacement: insurance excess of $4,000.00
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet was brand new, and the property had just been repainted and renovated prior to the start of the tenancy. At a viewing on 7 October 2025 (soon after notice was received on 6 October 2025) the landlord noticed multiple stains, and was told these were coffee stains. At the final inspection on 29 October 2025, the odour from dog urine was evident, and there was urine all through the carpet, in every room. The landlord confirmed that a dog was permitted under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord states that the carpet had to be uplifted and replaced, due to the extent of damage from urine. The cleaners also had to bleach the floor underneath. The landlord provided a report regarding the condition of the carpet. The landlord notes that the owner had to replace the carpet four months after it was installed.
The landlord’s evidence is that the brand new carpet was installed on 9 July 2025. Altogether 4 bedrooms and the lounge/conservatory area were carpeted. An invoice for the replacement carpet, dated 17 November 2025, was provided. This invoice shows that the replacement cost of the carpet was $5,160.93. The landlord states the insurance excess is $800.00 per room.
On the basis of the landlord’s evidence, which includes photographs and documentary evidence, I am satisfied that the carpet damage was caused during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it reasonable for the landlord to claim the cost of the initial carpet cleaning ($365.00), which was undertaken to address the carpet stains and odour.
As the carpet cleaning did not resolve the issues, the landlord arranged for a professional opinion on whether more extensive carpet cleaning measures would address it, or whether the carpet ought to be replaced. A report was completed on 4 November 2025. The cost of this report ($230.00), which was reasonably incurred, is also awarded.
The landlord has explained there was a further cost of $138.00, as shown in the invoice, for floor bleaching, which had to occur before the new carpet could be installed. This is awarded.
The landlord is also entitled to the insurance excess of $4,000.00 for replacement of the carpet. This amount is less than the full cost of replacing the carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
The tenant who attended the hearing has requested name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of this tenant’s name and identifying details only. Name suppression for the other tenant is declined. The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400630 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400630 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions