What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413376 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Miniclean Limited As Agent For Warren Saul

How much money was awarded in case 5413376?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $718.75 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $1,544.55 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $573.02 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $427.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $433.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413376?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13987062-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413376 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Miniclean Limited As Agent For Warren Saul

How much money was awarded in case 5413376?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $718.75 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $1,544.55 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $573.02 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $427.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $433.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413376?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13987062-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Eversham Road, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga 3116 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413376 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413376 — net $4,624.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$573.02	Window repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electricity	$1,544.55	76 from the amount claimed for the credit card fees and ordered the tenant pay $1,544.55 for electricity use. Is the tenant responsible for cleaning and rubbis…
Carpet replacement	$200.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs: Wall damage	$400.00	ing this tenancy based on the photographs provided. I will order the tenant pay $400 of the amount claimed, being below the maximum that may be awarded for car…
Cleaning	$718.75	Cleaning
Repairs: Bathroom	$427.03	Repairs: Bathroom
Rubbish removal	$433.55	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	sful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. 12 Suppression
Net award	$4,624.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,624.90

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The tenant was phoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

The tenancy commenced on 9 September 2024 and ended on 29 October 2025. Two tenants originally signed the tenancy agreement, and the landlord explained there was a verbal variation to the tenancy agreement, removing the other named tenant from the tenancy with the tenant accepting liability for power.

The landlord claims: a. Electricity costs - $1,557.31 b. Glass repairs - $573.02 c. Floor replacement- $3,588: i. Kitching and dining room vinyl flooring - $2,955.50 ii. Bedroom carpet - $632.50 d. Carpet cleaning - $300 e. Repairs, cleaning and rubbish removal - $5,493.55: i. Wall repairs - $1,221.30 ii. Kitchen repairs, labour and materials $1,121.25 + $1,070.65 iii. Oven replacement - $287.50 iv. Cleaning costs - $718.75 v. Bathroom repairs - $640.55 vi. Rubbish removal - $433.55 Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[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.”

In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for electricity?

The tenant is responsible for electricity charges. 2 The landlord provided electricity invoices and the bill payment history which prove the amount paid by the landlord for electricity to 3 September 2025 was $1,557.31.

The amount paid includes credit card fees for which the tenant is not liable for. I have deducted $12.76 from the amount claimed for the credit card fees and ordered the tenant pay $1,544.55 for electricity use.

Is the tenant responsible for cleaning and rubbish removal?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to show that general cleaning and rubbish removal was required. The amounts ordered for general cleaning is $718.75 and rubbish removal is $433.55.

The landlord said that carpet cleaning was required. One photograph shows the carpet appears grimy and one other photograph shows there was tar in the carpet. I consider carpet cleaning was likely required. I have therefore ordered the full amount claimed for carpet cleaning of $300, being the amount invoiced to the landlord. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 RTA, s 39. 3 RTA, 40(1)(e).

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4

Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6

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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9

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. 10 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. 11

In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I must take into account the 4 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 5 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 8 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 9 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 10 RTA s 49B(1). 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord’s insurance excess was $750. The landlord said they did not make any insurance claim for the damage. Wall repairs

The landlord says that wall repairs were required and seeks compensation from the tenant. The invoice provided in support of the claim says that the following tasks were undertaken: • To undertake the required patch repair to the hole punched into the hallway wall and the dent in the lounge wall. • Touch-up multiple areas of wall chips, scratches, dings and marks throughout the complete interior

The amount claimed for wall repairs is $1,221.30.

No pre-tenancy inspection report was submitted by the landlord. The landlord provided an inspection report from the previous tenancy in July 2024 and an exit inspection report which shows some wall damage throughout the premises.

The evidence indicates that there was some damage to the walls at the time of the previous tenancy and I am unclear if the damage was repaired before this tenancy commenced or repaired under the work done in respect of this claim.

I also consider that some of the repairs were for fair wear and tear and some of the wall damage appears to be careless damage.

In taking into account those matters I must award a reasonable amount of compensation for the careless damage likely caused during this tenancy based on the photographs provided. I will order the tenant pay $400 of the amount claimed, being below the maximum that may be awarded for careless damage. Kitchen repairs

The landlord said the kitchen joinery was damaged during the tenancy.

The invoice provided in support of the claim says that the following tasks were undertaken: • Remove and replace the damaged/ swollen kitchen joinery items; • Toe kick under the side bench area, • Complete front panel under the breakfast bar area, • Two tall end panels either side of the fridge, • One of the side panels beside the dishwasher, • One of the side panels beside the oven, • Repair and re-stick the clash ends to the bench-tops beside the oven,

I have reviewed the photographs provided and the oral evidence and I am not satisfied the landlord has proven this claim. I am unable to see clearly in the photographs if there was damaged or swollen kitchen joinery and panel damage that required replacement. In both the July 2024 inspection (during the previous tenancy) and the post-tenancy photographs in relation to this tenancy there is very minor swelling to side panels, however that does not appear to be damage beyond fair wear and tear and I am not satisfied that the minor damage is solely attributable to this tenancy.

Because the landlord has not proven that the tenant has caused damage to the kitchen joinery, during this tenancy, that is beyond fair wear and tear I consider the claim is unproven.

However, if I am wrong in that finding, I note that the claim may have been limited to the insurance excess being the statutory cap on careless damage in any event. Glass repairs

Two windows were damaged during the tenancy. I accept that the window damage likely occurred during this tenancy.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord provided an invoice and post-tenancy photographs in support of the claim. The amount ordered of $573.02 is proved. Oven replacement

The landlord claims $250 to replace the oven. The landlord says the oven was damaged with a hole in it from something exploding in it.

The landlord does not know the age of the oven; therefore, I am unable to properly take into account betterment and depreciation. It may be that the damage is fair wear and tear, and the damage is the result of the oven’s useful lifespan expiring. I am therefore not satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear and this claim is dismissed. Bathroom repairs

The landlord said the bathrooms had various areas of damage which was caused during the tenancy. The invoice provided in support of the claim says that the following tasks were undertaken: • Repair the ensuite cabinet, • Replace one missing toilet roll holder, • Replace one hand towel rail in the bathroom, • Repair and re-hang the curtains, • Repair the shower door, • Repair the bathroom light/ vent cover,

The landlord explained that three of the four the cabinet draws rollers were damaged could not easily open and close. I accept on the oral evidence and the photographs provided, that the draws were slightly out of alignment and this damage is more than fair wear and tear, likely due to careless or rough use during this tenancy.

The landlord said the toilet roll holder was missing, a handrail was broken, and the lights were broken. I accept these claims as proven on the balance of probabilities because the landlord provided photographs in support of the claim.

Photographs were not provided of the curtains and shower door; therefore, I cannot be satisfied that this damage was more than fair wear and tear.

The invoice does not itemise all of the costs separately. In the absence of this detailed evidence, I must make a broad assessment of what constitutes fair compensation for this damage. I will order 4/6 of the amount claimed, being $427.03 which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the damage in the bathroom. Carpet replacement

The landlord claims $632.50 for the replacement of carpet in the master bedroom. An invoice was provided in support of the claim. The post-tenancy photograph in support of the claim appears to show a substance, possibly tar, in the carpet. I accept that it is more likely than not that the substance became present on the carpet during this tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.

I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The invoice indicates that the flooring was laid in 2019.

The carpet was therefore 6 years old at the end of this tenancy. IR265 general depreciation rates provides that carpet has an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years. I will order $200 in respect of this claim, which reflects a deduction for betterment and depreciation.

The amount ordered is proved. Kitchen / Dining room flooring replacement

The landlord claims $2,955.50 for flooring replacement in the kitchen and dining room. The landlord says the vinyl flooring was damaged with a depression by the oven, small holes and staining. An invoice was provided in support of the claim.

The photographs taken from the previous tenancy in July 2024 show that the vinyl flooring was already damaged with staining and the depression by the oven at that time. The post tenancy photographs show that there is some damage in a gap in the kitchen, which is where a fridge would normally be placed. There is a fridge in place in the July 2024 inspection and I cannot rule out, in the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report, that this damage was caused by the fridge being moved by the previous tenants.

The remaining damage was clearly present at the commencement of this tenancy. I therefore consider the tenant is not liable for the flooring replacement and this claim is dismissed. Bond

There is no bond held for this tenancy. Filing Fee

Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. 12 Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413376 — net $4,624.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$573.02	Window repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electricity	$1,544.55	76 from the amount claimed for the credit card fees and ordered the tenant pay $1,544.55 for electricity use. Is the tenant responsible for cleaning and rubbis…
Carpet replacement	$200.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs: Wall damage	$400.00	ing this tenancy based on the photographs provided. I will order the tenant pay $400 of the amount claimed, being below the maximum that may be awarded for car…
Cleaning	$718.75	Cleaning
Repairs: Bathroom	$427.03	Repairs: Bathroom
Rubbish removal	$433.55	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	sful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. 12 Suppression
Net award	$4,624.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,624.90