Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5412184 — Property damage at 4 Middlesex Street, Patea, Patea 4520
Decided 19 March 2026 · Published 19 March 2026 · Application 5412184
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Patea
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Kemp
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,801.02
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,801.02
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent and rent in lieu of notice to 2/12/25 | $822.86 | Rent and rent in lieu of notice to 2/12/25 | |
| Lock/key replacement | $142.66 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Cleaning and rubbish removal (including cost of flea bomb | $300.00 | Cleaning and rubbish removal (including cost of flea bomb | |
| Repairs: To walls | $300.00 | Repairs: To walls | |
| Repairs: Curtains | $155.00 | Repairs: Curtains | |
| Repairs: Hole in door | $52.50 | Repairs: Hole in door | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,801.02 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,801.02 |
Claims and awards for application 5412184 — net $1,801.02 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent and rent in lieu of notice to 2/12/25
- Amount
- $822.86
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent and rent in lieu of notice to 2/12/25
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $142.66
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and rubbish removal (including cost of flea bomb
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning and rubbish removal (including cost of flea bomb
Repairs: To walls
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: To walls
Repairs: Curtains
- Amount
- $155.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Curtains
Repairs: Hole in door
- Amount
- $52.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Hole in door
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,801.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,801.02
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Wendy Jones to pay Man About The House (Properties) Ltd. $1,801.02 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,801.02 (5089051-012) to Man About The House (Properties) Ltd. immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $118.98 (5089051-012) to Wendy Jones immediately.
- The landlord’s claim for lawn mowing is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent in lieu of notice, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent in lieu of notice
- The tenant told the landlord by telephone on 11 November that she would be leaving the property on 21 November 2025. The parties have treated the tenant as giving notice in this phone call.
- The landlord says this is not the required 21 days’ notice required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (see section 51(2A)).
- There is no evidence that the landlord waived the 21-day notice period or that formal written notice was given by the tenant as required under section 51(3) RTA.
- I accept that the tenant was required under RTA to give the landlord 21 days’ notice but she did not do this.
- The parties agree rent has been paid up to and including 20 November 2025.
- The landlord’s loss is the rent the tenant would have paid during those 21 days if she had given proper notice. The notice period is only 21 days, and the tenant did give some notice. The landlord was selling the property (it remained on the market as at 7 December) and it would be unrealistic to expect a landlord to find and move in a new tenant that quickly, especially if they're selling.
- The date the landlord claims rent to is not specified but given the parties agreed that the tenant has paid her rent up to and including the 20 November and the landlord is seeking an additional 2 weeks rent this would take the landlord’s rent claim to 4 December 2025.
- Given that the parties have treated the tenant as giving notice in a phone call on 11 November 2025 I consider that the tenant should pay rent for the day of 21 December when she actually remained in occupation and then she should pay rent in lieu of notice from then until 2 December 2025 (that date being 21 days from 11 November).
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. Lawns
- The landlord claimed costs of mowing the lawn but there is insufficient evidence to support this claim and so it is dismissed. Cleaning costs and rubbish removal
- The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. 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 evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant says her ex went to the property at the weekend after the tenancy ended undertaking this work but the work he did and when he is alleged to have done it is unclear. I prefer the landlord’s evidence about the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy because they were there and did the work themselves. They were also very thorough at the hearing recalling precisely what things had been taken (even making sure I understood for example that even a small item like a hammer had been taken).
- That said the rubbish left was not extensive and the level of cleaning proven does not justify the hours claimed and the sum sought.
- The landlord did the work themselves through a separate maintenance company owned in part by at least one of the directors of the landlord. An invoice was raised and provided to the Tribunal.
- I award the landlord $300 which is the sum I consider to be reasonable based on the evidence. In that sum I have allowed the claim for $32.96 for the flea bomb. The tenant did have cats and although the tenant says she did flea bomb the property there is no reason to doubt the landlord’s position that additional flea treatment was necessary after their estate agent told them that prospective purchasers were bitten at the house. Locks
- The landlord claims that the tenant failed to return the keys and so the locks were changed. The tenant says she expected her ex to leave the keys at the property but there is no evidence that this was done.
- The landlord claims labour time for the fitting of the locks ($52.50), travel costs (at $1.17 per/km) from the property to a suitable local shop to purchase the lock ($70.20), and the cost of two locks ($9.98 each). The total claimed is therefore $142.66.
- I find that the tenant failed to return the keys and that the sum sought is reasonable. The claim is proven and the sum awarded in full.
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 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 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 are relevant factors.
- The landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy a. Damage to various walls; and b. Damage to a door; and c. Damage to curtains x 3
- I am satisfied that the damage to the walls was done during the course of the tenancy. This is supported by the written pre-tenancy inspection report and the photographs that support it. The nature of the damage individually is relatively minor, but the damage goes beyond a few isolated chips or scuffs. It is reasonably widespread particularly in the bedroom and living room. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord claims 7 hours’ time for the repair and the landlord claims this at $35 per hour.
- The landlord also claims 10 hours were spent travelling from their home to the property.
- I decline to award the travel costs and time save for an award of $100 towards these costs. The landlord lives some distance from the property (I heard this was a 2 or 2.5 hour drive away). The landlord has made a commercial decision to let a property in a different area to that where it lives. It was therefore inevitable that there would be travel costs associated with that decision. If such costs were awarded it would effectively penalise tenants for renting a property which is owned by people who do not live in the region. That said I do recognise that had a local tradesperson been employed to undertake the work the landlord would have likely been charged for some travel time by that tradesperson and costs could have been passed onto the tenant here. Therefore, subject the adjustment below, I award the landlord $100 towards travel costs to reflect this. I consider this sum to be reasonable and fair.
- The amount awarded is less than the insurance excess on the basis that the damage to each room would attract the $1,000.00 excess.
- I have no reason to doubt that the walls were painted just before the tenancy began in April 2024. I therefore reduce the overall sum of $345 (being both travel and labour) to $300 to account for depreciation
- The landlord says the curtains were damaged during the course of the tenancy. The tenant admits to one curtain being damaged.
- The landlord provided evidence in the form of a pre tenancy inspection and photographs of the curtains at the start and end of the tenancy. They show curtains in an excellent condition at the start (extensive photographs were taken) and photographs of damaged curtains were provided to show condition at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant suggested that the damage to the curtain she admitted to damaging was caused by the rubbing of furniture.
- The photographs show curtains that all appear to be damaged in the same way.
- I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is below the insurance excess.
- The claim is for $192.00. The landlord says the curtains were new in 2024. I consider the average lifespan of curtains to be around 8 years and therefore I award the landlord $155 for the replacement of the curtains to take into account depreciation.
- The landlord says that the tenant damaged a door because it has a hole in it. The tenant says it was not there when she left. She says her ex, who was at the property later on, saw the landlord putting his finger on it pushing at it.
- The landlord says there was no hole when he came to the property on the last day of the tenancy and found the tenant and many other people moving her things. The landlord says he pushed it with his finger later on to simply to assess the damage that could be seen.
- There is no dispute there was no hole just before the tenancy ended on 20 November. The tenant had a photograph of this. However, the tenant did not leave the home on that day and I heard how her ex continued to return to the property to do more of a clean up the weekend after the tenancy had ended (even using the shower).
- I find it more likely than not that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. I find it more likely than not that this damage occurred while the tenant (or her helpers) were moving out of the property. I do not find it credible that the landlord caused this hole by pushing at the door with his finger. It is not fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The sum claimed does not include the cost of paint and is limited to $52.50. The sum is reasonable and I consider the landlord has experienced no benefit in fixing the hole so I award this in full. Filing fee and suppression
- Because Man About The House (Properties) Ltd. Garry Ferguson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- Neither party seeks suppression of their identifying details.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s10, s18, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s51(2A), s51(3), s7
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- Man About The House (Properties) Ltd. (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5412184?
The tribunal order states: Wendy Jones to pay Man About The House (Properties) Ltd. $1,801.02 from
How much money was awarded in case 5412184?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $142.66 awarded to landlord; Rent And Rent In Lieu Of Notice To 2…: $822.86 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Door: $52.50 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412184?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412184?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13240113-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.