What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418970?

The tribunal order states: Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay Jamie Mereana Jacobsen

How much money was awarded in case 5418970?

Bone Refund Received: $2,780.00 awarded to tenant; Depreciation By 15: $38.54 awarded to landlord; Painting Over Walls Where Holes Plas…: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $376.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $924.96 awarded to landlord; Plaster Holes X5: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $137.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418970?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13217658-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418970?

The tribunal order states: Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay Jamie Mereana Jacobsen

How much money was awarded in case 5418970?

Bone Refund Received: $2,780.00 awarded to tenant; Depreciation By 15: $38.54 awarded to landlord; Painting Over Walls Where Holes Plas…: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $376.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $924.96 awarded to landlord; Plaster Holes X5: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $137.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418970?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13217658-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Ward Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418970 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418970 — net $577.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.8.2025	$924.96		Rent arrears to 17.8.2025
Replace furnishings: Bathroom vinyl reduced for	$137.66		Replace furnishings: Bathroom vinyl reduced for
depreciation by 15	$38.54		depreciation by 15
Repairs: Plaster holes x5	$620.00		Repairs: Plaster holes x5
Painting over walls where holes plastered reduced for	$105.00		Painting over walls where holes plastered reduced for
Window repairs	$376.00		Window repairs
Bone refund received		$2,780.00	Bone refund received
Total award	$2,202.16	$2,780.00
Net award		$577.84
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$577.84

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Matangi representing the landlord and Ms Jacobsen attending by telephone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day termination notice ending on 24 August 2025. Prior to this date, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 14 August 2025. The tenant had not removed all her belongings by that date and remained in the premises until 17 August 2025, handing the keys over to the landlord that day, after finally vacating the premises. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 17 August 2025.

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 (RTA).

The landlord provided photos taken on 15 August 2025 to show the condition of the property at that point. However, the landlord acknowledges that the tenant had not fully vacated and removed her belongings until 17 August 2025, and as detailed above, they charged her rent until 17 August 2025 accordingly.

The photos taken by the landlord on 15 August 2025 show belongings (including large pieces of furniture, a fridge and beds) and rubbish still inside the premises. However, the tenant confirmed that all belongings and rubbish were removed from inside the premises and sorted into two piles outside: one pile of rubbish was left on a drop sheet outside for disposal; and the tenant took the second pile of belongings to her new tenancy.

The landlord claims $700 for the costs of rubbish removal from the premises including hire of a skip bin. However, the landlord was unable to provide any evidence (such as a photo) of what exactly was left behind by the tenant for disposal. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that they have proved what rubbish was left behind nor that costs of $700 were reasonably incurred. It is not for the Tribunal to “guess” what is a reasonable charge for an unknown type and quantity of rubbish. That being the case, the claim is dismissed for lack of proof.

The landlord also says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks cleaning costs of $420. However, the landlord was unable to provide any photos to establish the condition of the property when the tenant vacated on 17 August 2025. The tenant said she cleaned as best as she was able and noted that she may have left some items in the bathroom drawers. However, again, it is for the landlord to prove their claim and the Tribunal cannot “guess” what is a reasonable charge for an unknown amount of cleaning. Again, the claim must be dismissed for lack of proof.

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 claim for a missing door handle is withdrawn by the landlord.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: missing/ripped vinyl flooring in the bathroom that resulted in the whole of the floor vinyl being replaced; damaged kitchen blinds that had to be replaced; five holes in walls throughout the premises that required plastering and repainting of the affected walls; and a broken kitchen window. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I must consider 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord was unable to provide evidence as to the age of the vinyl flooring, the kitchen blinds and when the walls were last painted. Therefore, I can only assume that they may have reached the end of their life in a rental property (according to current depreciation guidelines) and that the replacement costs should be fully depreciated. However, I accept that, but for the damage, replacement of the flooring, blinds, and repainting of walls, would not have been necessary. Therefore, I award 15% of the claimed costs as compensation for the unintended early replacement costs.

The amounts ordered are proved. Summary

The landlord has already received refund of the full bond. However, the bond refund exceeds the above awards, which means that the landlord must refund $577.84 to the tenant.

As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with their claims, I do not award suppression of their name and identifying details nor reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418970 — net $577.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.8.2025	$924.96		Rent arrears to 17.8.2025
Replace furnishings: Bathroom vinyl reduced for	$137.66		Replace furnishings: Bathroom vinyl reduced for
depreciation by 15	$38.54		depreciation by 15
Repairs: Plaster holes x5	$620.00		Repairs: Plaster holes x5
Painting over walls where holes plastered reduced for	$105.00		Painting over walls where holes plastered reduced for
Window repairs	$376.00		Window repairs
Bone refund received		$2,780.00	Bone refund received
Total award	$2,202.16	$2,780.00
Net award		$577.84
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$577.84

Order

Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay Jamie Mereana Jacobsen $577.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Matangi representing the landlord and Ms Jacobsen attending by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day termination notice ending on 24 August 2025. Prior to this date, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 14 August 2025. The tenant had not removed all her belongings by that date and remained in the premises until 17 August 2025, handing the keys over to the landlord that day, after finally vacating the premises. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 17 August 2025.

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 (RTA).
The landlord provided photos taken on 15 August 2025 to show the condition of the property at that point. However, the landlord acknowledges that the tenant had not fully vacated and removed her belongings until 17 August 2025, and as detailed above, they charged her rent until 17 August 2025 accordingly.
The photos taken by the landlord on 15 August 2025 show belongings (including large pieces of furniture, a fridge and beds) and rubbish still inside the premises. However, the tenant confirmed that all belongings and rubbish were removed from inside the premises and sorted into two piles outside: one pile of rubbish was left on a drop sheet outside for disposal; and the tenant took the second pile of belongings to her new tenancy.
The landlord claims $700 for the costs of rubbish removal from the premises including hire of a skip bin. However, the landlord was unable to provide any evidence (such as a photo) of what exactly was left behind by the tenant for disposal. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that they have proved what rubbish was left behind nor that costs of $700 were reasonably incurred. It is not for the Tribunal to “guess” what is a reasonable charge for an unknown type and quantity of rubbish. That being the case, the claim is dismissed for lack of proof.
The landlord also says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks cleaning costs of $420. However, the landlord was unable to provide any photos to establish the condition of the property when the tenant vacated on 17 August 2025. The tenant said she cleaned as best as she was able and noted that she may have left some items in the bathroom drawers. However, again, it is for the landlord to prove their claim and the Tribunal cannot “guess” what is a reasonable charge for an unknown amount of cleaning. Again, the claim must be dismissed for lack of proof.

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 claim for a missing door handle is withdrawn by the landlord.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: missing/ripped vinyl flooring in the bathroom that resulted in the whole of the floor vinyl being replaced; damaged kitchen blinds that had to be replaced; five holes in walls throughout the premises that required plastering and repainting of the affected walls; and a broken kitchen window. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I must consider 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord was unable to provide evidence as to the age of the vinyl flooring, the kitchen blinds and when the walls were last painted. Therefore, I can only assume that they may have reached the end of their life in a rental property (according to current depreciation guidelines) and that the replacement costs should be fully depreciated. However, I accept that, but for the damage, replacement of the flooring, blinds, and repainting of walls, would not have been necessary. Therefore, I award 15% of the claimed costs as compensation for the unintended early replacement costs.
The amounts ordered are proved. Summary
The landlord has already received refund of the full bond. However, the bond refund exceeds the above awards, which means that the landlord must refund $577.84 to the tenant.
As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with their claims, I do not award suppression of their name and identifying details nor reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418970 — Property damage at 23 Ward Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418970 — Property damage at 23 Ward Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions