What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416853 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay North Island Community Services Limited T/[The landlord/s] $7,339.98

How much money was awarded in case 5416853?

Cleaning: $325.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $570.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace HRV Control Panel: $521.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $705.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $240.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416853?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13612221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416853 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay North Island Community Services Limited T/[The landlord/s] $7,339.98

How much money was awarded in case 5416853?

Cleaning: $325.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $570.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace HRV Control Panel: $521.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $705.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $240.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416853?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13612221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 McMillan Avenue, Te Kamo, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416853 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416853 — net $7,339.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$240.48	Water rates
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$325.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$570.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$705.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Replace HRV control panel	$521.00	Repairs: Replace HRV control panel
Repairs: Bath: insurance excess	$750.00	Repairs: Bath: insurance excess
Repairs: Wall remediation	$3,550.00	Repairs: Wall remediation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,339.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,339.98

On 18 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking outstanding water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Kennedy, Property Manager appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absences.

At the hearing the landlord sought to amend their claim to include compensation and exemplary damages for abandonment. The Tribunal declined to amend the claim. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. The tenant has not been fully informed of the landlord’s intention to expand their claim and has been afforded the opportunity to prepare to answer these claims. History of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 12 March 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 11 March 2026.

On 30 September 2025 the Tribunal issued a consent order 1 ordering the following: a. The tenancy was changed from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy. At any point before the end of the tenancy the tenant may give 28 days’ notice terminating the tenancy. b. The tenancy will end no later than 11:59 on Monday 29 December 2025 being 90 days from the date of the order. c. The landlord was granted possession of the premises at 22 McMillan Avenue, Te Kamo, Whangarei, at 11:59 on Monday 29 December 2025.

On 1 December 2025 the Tribunal issued a further order 2 after the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. In that order the Tribunal: a. Terminated the tenancy and granted immediate possession to the landlord. b. Ordered the bond be refunded in full to the landlord. 1 North Island Community Services Limited As Agent For Chanelle Stoyanov v Lahquetta Lovie Lea Thomas [2025] NZTT 5333280. 2 North Island Community Services Limited As Agent For Chanelle Stoyanov v Lahquetta Lovie Lea Thomas [2025] NZTT 5363350 c. Ordered the tenant to pay rent arrears to 1 December 2025

How much is owed water rates?

The landlord seeks water rates totalling $240.48 for the period 31 May 2025 to 1 December 2025. A water rates bill detailing the amount claimed was provided.

Under section 39(3) of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”), tenants are responsible for all outgoing in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. Section 39(4)(c) of the Act specifically states tenants are responsible for charges for water consumption.

The landlord has proved the tenant is liable for the amount claimed and that is what is ordered.

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) of the Act.

The landlord states the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and seeks the following costs after paying contractors to complete the work following the end of the tenancy: a. Cleaning - $815.00 b. Carpet Cleaning - $325.50 c. Lawn mowing and weed spraying - $570.00 d. Rubbish removal costs - $705.00 Invoices for the amounts claimed were provided.

The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which proved the property was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish at the commencement of the tenancy.

The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy it took two men two days to clean the property after it was left in “quite a state”. The Tribunal heard that every surface needed to be wiped clean to remove dirt, food smears, stickiness, drawing and scribbles.

The property comprised of three bedrooms open plan kitchen/dining/living room, bathroom and toilet. The lounge, bedrooms and hallway were all carpeted. At the end of the tenancy the carpets were extensively stained with red, black, and brown stains.

The end of tenancy photographs showed: a. Marks on the walls, including food smears in a bedroom. b. The kitchen cupboards had not been completely emptied or wiped clean. c. The kitchen bench and oven needed to be cleaned and wiped down. d. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped and the carpet was extensively stained in all rooms. e. The toilet had not been cleaned and the bowl was soiled. f. The bathroom sink, vanity, and shower over the bath had not been cleaned or wiped down. g. A small amount of household rubbish had been left inside the property. h. Outside the property the tenant had overfilled a large orange rubbish flexi- bag with refuse. Plastic grocery crates, a large steel spring, children’s toys and broken wood had been left in the garage and household refuse had been left outside the property. i. The lawns were extensively overgrown (about knee length) and the gardens were untidy and full of weeds. Analysis and decision

The Act 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 requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person 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.

The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all items were removed.

Based on the photographs, the size of the property and the work undertaken the Tribunal orders the following costs: a. Cleaning – having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the ceilings required washing and windows required cleaning and the sum of $165.00 is deducted from the amount claimed. Cleaning costs totalling $650.00 are ordered. b. Carpet cleaning – the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has proved the carpets were left extensively stained at the end of the tenancy and required steam cleaning and stain treatment. The amount claimed is ordered. c. Lawn mowing and weed spraying – the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has proved the lawns and gardens were left very overgrow at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. d. Rubbish removal costs – the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances.

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 of the Act.

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 Act.

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 Act. 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 Act.

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 Act.

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 seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused by the tenant, during the tenancy: a. Damage to the HRV control panel - $521.00 b. Hole in the bathtub - $750.00 insurance excess c. Wall remediation - $4,650.00

Invoices in the amounts claimed were provided.

At the end of the tenancy the HRV control panel was not operable. An email from the landlord’s contractors states: “The control panel damage was not from ordinary everyday use. Basic functions on the control panel could not be used because of the buttons being at a guess deliberately pushed in and damaged. After years of use the labels on the buttons themselves would wear out in chanelles [sic] case there were clearly pushed in to the point where the panel had to be replaced”.

Pre-tenancy photographs show the HRV panel to be in good working condition. No age-related wear and tear was visible on the labels and the display screen was in good condition. There were no end of tenancy photograph showing the condition of the HRV control panel at the end of the tenancy.

At the commencement of the tenancy the bathtub was provided in a good clean condition free from damage. This was confirmed by the pre-tenancy inspection photographs. The end of tenancy inspection photographs show a hole in the tub two thirds of the way up the bath, near the taps. The hole has caused the coating to flake away and the tub to crack.

An insurance claim was successfully made to replace the bath, and the landlord seeks $750.00 for the insurance excess.

The pre-tenancy photographs prove the walls were provided in good condition free from damage. The paint work was in very good condition and showed no signs of wear and tear. The landlord produced end of tenancy photographs and drew the Tribunal’s attention to the following damage they say the tenant caused: a. Four round impact holes in the wall in the lounge under the heat pump – possibly caused by a hammer. b. A large hole/split in the wall between the dining room and lounge. c. Food smear marks in the bedroom which had to be repainted due to staining. d. A round impact hole in a bedroom. e. Splits in wood in two door frames. f. A large hole with a split in the plasterboard in a bedroom. g. Damage to the one pane of glass in the front door along with damage to the wood. h. Various dents and scrap marks on the walls throughout the house which required patching and painting. Analysis and decision

To make an award for compensation for damage the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. In this case the tenant did not attend the hearing no evidence was heard to disprove the tenant’s liability for the identified damage.

The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The evidence shows the property was provided in a very good condition with no identified damage. The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage identified by the landlord, as evidenced in the supplied photographs, occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The Tribunal makes the following orders for compensation: a. The HVR control panel was in excellent condition at the commencement of the tenancy and showed no sign of wear and tear. The landlord’s contractor opined that the buttons were “deliberately pushed in and damage”. In accordance with section 49B(1) of the Act the Tribunal orders the amount of $521.00 compensation. No adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made. b. The age of the bathtub was unknown. The tenancy was afoot for less than a year. Given the nature of the damage the Tribunal finds that it was intentionally caused and the amount of $750.00 is ordered. No adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made. c. The walls of the property appeared to be newly painted at the commencement of the tenancy given the lack of obvious wear and tear. The landlord seeks compensation totalling $4,650.00. This include repairs to the kitchen cabinetry doors, a toilet wall, a hole in the bathroom wall, realigning the slammer posts on (two) wardrobe doors and a bedroom door, and replacing the front door. The landlord failed to address the Tribunal on the nature of this damage to the kitchen cabinetry, the toilet, the bathroom wall, the slammer posts in the master bedroom or second bedroom. No explanation was provided as to why the front door needed to be replaced as opposed to repaired. The Tribunal is satisfied the damage identified in paragraph [31 a- e] was intentionally caused. The Tribunal has formed the view that the remaining damage specified in paragraph [31 f - h] was more likely than not to have been caused carelessly. The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation and notes that paint in residential dwellings is generally considered to last between 5 and 10 years. Weighing all of these factors the Tribunal considered the tenant is liable to pay $3,550.00 for the cost of reapairs. Other matters

Because North Island Community Services Limited T/[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416853 — net $7,339.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$240.48	Water rates
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$325.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$570.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$705.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Replace HRV control panel	$521.00	Repairs: Replace HRV control panel
Repairs: Bath: insurance excess	$750.00	Repairs: Bath: insurance excess
Repairs: Wall remediation	$3,550.00	Repairs: Wall remediation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,339.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,339.98

On 18 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking outstanding water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 12 March 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 11 March 2026.

How much is owed water rates?

The landlord seeks water rates totalling $240.48 for the period 31 May 2025 to 1 December 2025. A water rates bill detailing the amount claimed was provided.

The landlord has proved the tenant is liable for the amount claimed and that is what is ordered.

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

The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which proved the property was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish at the commencement of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Invoices in the amounts claimed were provided.

An insurance claim was successfully made to replace the bath, and the landlord seeks $750.00 for the insurance excess.

Because North Island Community Services Limited T/[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416853 — Property damage at 22 McMillan Avenue, Te Kamo, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416853 — Property damage at 22 McMillan Avenue, Te Kamo, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions