What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418591 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 5418591?

Cleaning: $117.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $602.86 awarded to landlord; Plastering, Painting: $364.62 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $259.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418591?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13458273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418591 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 5418591?

Cleaning: $117.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $602.86 awarded to landlord; Plastering, Painting: $364.62 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $259.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418591?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13458273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418591 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418591 — net $1,372.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4.12.2025	$602.86	Rent arrears to 4.12.2025
Carpet Cleaning	$117.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$259.99	Rubbish removal
Repairs: plastering, painting	$364.62	Repairs: plastering, painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,372.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Chelsea Mckessock must pay [The landlord/s] $1,372.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord, both attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 4 December 2025.
At the start of the hearing, the landlord said they had already received the full bond of $2,380.00, which had been applied against rent arrears owing. As such, the landlord withdrew the claim for refund of the bond.

How much rent is owing?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 4 December 2025, the end of the tenancy, with the bond of $2,380.00 already applied, which is $602.86.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a video of the Entry Inspection which showed the condition of the property, along with close up photographs of the carpet in the master bedroom, rubbish left at the property and some wall damage, as well as invoices to support their claims, and other evidence. Carpet cleaning
The landlord said the house was a new build and the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy in June 2025. The landlord said that they found a number of stains on the master bedroom carpet at the end of the tenancy, both large and smaller stains. The landlord provided photographs of these stains in the master bedroom carpet, which were compared during the hearing to the video entry inspection, which showed a new, unblemished carpet. From the evidence provided, I find the tenant did not leave the carpet in the master bedroom clean and tidy and there was a requirement for the landlord to have the carpet cleaned to attempt to remove the stains caused during the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice for the carpet cleaning in the amount of $117.00, which I find reasonable given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $117.00 to clean the master bedroom carpet at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant left rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs which showed a series of boxes left, including a pizza box, other boxes with rubbish, a tall red bin full of rubbish and a blue bin with an old paint pot and candle. The landlord said their tradesperson had to separate out all the rubbish into rubbish and recycling, remove it and dispose of it. The landlord provided an invoice for $259.99 for this, with an itemised breakdown of the time spent dealing with the tenant’s rubbish. I find this to be a reasonable cost, given the evidence, and so award the landlord $259.99 to remove rubbish left at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. Wall damage
The landlord said that during the tenancy, the tenant damaged the laundry wall and the hallway wall, which had to be repaired. The landlord provided photographs showing the tenant had installed a large dryer bracket wooden post on the laundry wall, left a noticeable hole in another laundry wall and showed a large scrape across the hallway wall. The landlord said the large dryer bracket had to be removed, and the holes filled and painted, the other hole in the laundry wall had to be plastered and painted and the scrape on the hallway wall had to be painted.
From the evidence provided, particularly the photographs, I find it is likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.
The landlord provided an invoice for $381.81 for this repair work, which I find is a reasonable cost, given the evidence. The property managers agreed that likely around half of this invoice would be attributable to painting work, being $190.90.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord said the property was freshly painted at the start of the tenancy, around May 2025, as it was a new build property. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $190.90 cost I find reasonable for the painting, by 9% for depreciation to an award of $173.72 for the painting.
I then add the depreciated painting cost award of $173.72 to the other half of the invoice for the repair work, which is $190.90, which then comes to a total of $364.62, which I award the landlord for the plastering and painting repair work at the end of the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression and is entitled to this as they have been successful with the claims. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address is not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418591 — net $1,372.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4.12.2025	$602.86	Rent arrears to 4.12.2025
Carpet Cleaning	$117.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$259.99	Rubbish removal
Repairs: plastering, painting	$364.62	Repairs: plastering, painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,372.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Chelsea Mckessock must pay [The landlord/s] $1,372.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord, both attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 4 December 2025.
At the start of the hearing, the landlord said they had already received the full bond of $2,380.00, which had been applied against rent arrears owing. As such, the landlord withdrew the claim for refund of the bond.

How much rent is owing?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 4 December 2025, the end of the tenancy, with the bond of $2,380.00 already applied, which is $602.86.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a video of the Entry Inspection which showed the condition of the property, along with close up photographs of the carpet in the master bedroom, rubbish left at the property and some wall damage, as well as invoices to support their claims, and other evidence. Carpet cleaning
The landlord said the house was a new build and the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy in June 2025. The landlord said that they found a number of stains on the master bedroom carpet at the end of the tenancy, both large and smaller stains. The landlord provided photographs of these stains in the master bedroom carpet, which were compared during the hearing to the video entry inspection, which showed a new, unblemished carpet. From the evidence provided, I find the tenant did not leave the carpet in the master bedroom clean and tidy and there was a requirement for the landlord to have the carpet cleaned to attempt to remove the stains caused during the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice for the carpet cleaning in the amount of $117.00, which I find reasonable given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $117.00 to clean the master bedroom carpet at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant left rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs which showed a series of boxes left, including a pizza box, other boxes with rubbish, a tall red bin full of rubbish and a blue bin with an old paint pot and candle. The landlord said their tradesperson had to separate out all the rubbish into rubbish and recycling, remove it and dispose of it. The landlord provided an invoice for $259.99 for this, with an itemised breakdown of the time spent dealing with the tenant’s rubbish. I find this to be a reasonable cost, given the evidence, and so award the landlord $259.99 to remove rubbish left at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. Wall damage
The landlord said that during the tenancy, the tenant damaged the laundry wall and the hallway wall, which had to be repaired. The landlord provided photographs showing the tenant had installed a large dryer bracket wooden post on the laundry wall, left a noticeable hole in another laundry wall and showed a large scrape across the hallway wall. The landlord said the large dryer bracket had to be removed, and the holes filled and painted, the other hole in the laundry wall had to be plastered and painted and the scrape on the hallway wall had to be painted.
From the evidence provided, particularly the photographs, I find it is likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.
The landlord provided an invoice for $381.81 for this repair work, which I find is a reasonable cost, given the evidence. The property managers agreed that likely around half of this invoice would be attributable to painting work, being $190.90.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord said the property was freshly painted at the start of the tenancy, around May 2025, as it was a new build property. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $190.90 cost I find reasonable for the painting, by 9% for depreciation to an award of $173.72 for the painting.
I then add the depreciated painting cost award of $173.72 to the other half of the invoice for the repair work, which is $190.90, which then comes to a total of $364.62, which I award the landlord for the plastering and painting repair work at the end of the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression and is entitled to this as they have been successful with the claims. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address is not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418591 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418591 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

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

Frequently asked questions