What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5409009?

The tribunal order states: Stephen James Macfarlane to pay Eves Realty Limited $263.46, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5409009?

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 5409009?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13159124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5409009?

The tribunal order states: Stephen James Macfarlane to pay Eves Realty Limited $263.46, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5409009?

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 5409009?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13159124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

89A Mallard Drive, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409009 — Rent arrears

Order

Stephen James Macfarlane to pay Eves Realty Limited $263.46, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount Rent arrears to 24 October 2025$1,414.27 General cleaning$200.00 Grounds maintenance$60.00 General repairs (incl. key, wardrobe items etc.)$120.00 Window repairs$119.19 Lighting repairs (reduced from claim)$300.00 Wall and cupboard repairs (depreciated)$250.00 Total Awarded$2,463.46 Less bond$2,200.00 Tenant to pay$263.46
The bond centre is to pay the full bond to Eves Realty Limited.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a fixed terms tenancy ending in October 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 October 2025. The landlord produced a rent summary showing arrears to that date of $1,414.27. The tenant did not dispute the rent calculation.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $350 for cleaning and $140 for carpet cleaning. The evidence was that the premises had not been vacuumed or fully cleaned, lawns were long, and mould and staining were present on windowsills. The tenant disputed aspects of the cleaning claim and said some staining pre-dated the tenancy and he left it how he found it. The tenant did concede, however, that he was taken into custody before the end of the tenancy and the premises may not have been left as tidy as he would have wanted to be at the time of the exit inspection.
I accept that additional cleaning was required beyond a reasonable standard. However, the evidence did not establish that all work claimed was attributable to the tenant, particularly where mould and staining were said to have existed previously.
I allow $200 for general cleaning. I am not satisfied the landlord has proved that professional carpet cleaning was required beyond reasonable cleaning. The claim for carpet cleaning of $140 is declined.
The landlord claimed $60 for grounds maintenance. The tenant accepted that the lawns were left long. I allow $60 as fair and reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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.
The landlord claimed $304.71 for general repairs. The evidence included: a. A broken toilet window described as wear and tear. b. A security stay requiring maintenance. c. Wardrobe doors removed from rails. d. Missing back bedroom wardrobe door handle and spindle. e. Curtains throughout the property had broken glides and hooks. f. A key broken off in a lock (which the tenant accepted was caused by the children).
I find the broken toilet window and security stay issues amount to maintenance and/or fair wear and tear. Those aspects are declined.
The tenant explained the wardrobe doors came out and could be easily slotted back in. It think it is quite possible the doors were removed when the tenant’s family moved out of the premises, but it took a contractor time to put the doors back in.
The tenant did not know the back bedroom wardrobe door handle and spindle were missing. The photographs show that they were.
I am not satisfied the Landlord’s evidence show the damage to multiple curtain rails, and I accept the tenant’s evidence that the main bedroom curtain rail was broken at taped at the start of his tenancy.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the broken key. I allow the reasonable cost of repair within the general repairs claim attributable to that item.
I allow $120 under this heading.
The landlord claimed $119.19 for window repairs. The tenant accepted that a window was damaged when moving out. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. I allow $119.19.
The landlord claimed $484.10 for repairs to lights at the premises with broken clips. I think this invoice is considerable for the amount of work itemised on the invoice and the photographs provided. I award $300.00 because I do not think the jobs that were done should have taken 2.5 hours. I would want more detail from the technician about the time taken for each individual task.
The landlord claimed $460 for repairs and painting of walls, including: a. Holes in the master bedroom wall said to be caused by a door without a doorstop. b. Damage in the master bedroom wardrobe. c. Damage to a kitchen cupboard when moving the fridge (accepted by the tenant). d. Hooks installed in the lounge (accepted by the tenant).
The Landlord does not have pre-tenancy evidence to support holes in the master bedroom wall and the Tenant says there was damage behind that door before his tenancy and he put a shoe behind the door to stop further damage.
The Tenant is not aware of damage inside the bedroom wardrobe, and the Landlord does not have a pre-tenancy photograph.
I am satisfied that some wall damage and cupboard damage exceeded fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. However, allowance must be made for depreciation and betterment. The landlord did not provide evidence of the age or condition of the painted surfaces at the start of the tenancy.
Doing the best I can on the available evidence, I allow $250 under this heading to reflect reasonable repair costs after depreciation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409009 — Rent arrears at 89A Mallard Drive, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409009 — Rent arrears at 89A Mallard Drive, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management