What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421448 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Houzer Holdings Limited T/A Christchurch Room

How much money was awarded in case 5421448?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421448?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14057566-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421448 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Houzer Holdings Limited T/A Christchurch Room

How much money was awarded in case 5421448?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421448?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14057566-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 5, 24 Aileen Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421448 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Houzer Holdings Limited T/A Christchurch Room Rentals $59.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a rehearing as ordered in April 2026 after the tenant was unable to join the first hearing with a different adjudicator. Ironically, the landlord had a similar problem today and had to be joined 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 boarding house tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 November 2025. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy. $275.00 is awarded.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant left most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice and photos at exit. The tenant disputed the claim and provided a 40 second video taken at exit. As observed at the hearing, the scale between a closeup photo and a sweeping video makes for difficult comparisons.
Having further reviewed the evidence and consideration of the submissions, I find the landlord has established some areas required further cleaning. They are not significant but generally align with the invoiced effort. I award the invoiced cost of $86.25.
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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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.
The carpet was new in 2020, some eight months before this tenancy commenced. The landlord claimed the carpet was assessed by their usual cleaner as beyond restoration and a replacement strategy was adopted in the alternative. The sequence of events was very tight and the evidence inconclusive, but the carpet was replaced at a cost of $600.00 with a further invoiced cost of $80.00 for dumping the old carpet. Neither invoice itemised the actual cost of new carpet or dumping, versus any labour or other cost component.
The tenant pointed to his video as supporting his stance that the carpet condition reflected expected wear and tear.
A lengthy discussion ensued.
I conclude the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. That said, even if I am wrong and the carpet could have been cleaned rather than replaced, I consider the alternative cleaning cost (after depreciation for replacement) would not be dissimilar to that ordered here. At best the carpet required cleaning.
The amount ordered is proved.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The studio carpet is considered a high-traffic area and an eight-year straight- line economic life depreciation applicable. That means the tenant share of the replacement costs is 25% - being $170.00 of the $680.00 as invoiced. The landlord stance that inferior carpet was used with an inherent discount that addresses any betterment concerns had no evidential basis and the comparative photos do not support such a conclusion.
Because Houzer Holdings Limited T/A Christchurch Room Rentals has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Houzer Holdings Limited T/A Christchurch Room Rentals $59.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a rehearing as ordered in April 2026 after the tenant was unable to join the first hearing with a different adjudicator. Ironically, the landlord had a similar problem today and had to be joined 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 boarding house tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 November 2025. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy. $275.00 is awarded.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant left most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice and photos at exit. The tenant disputed the claim and provided a 40 second video taken at exit. As observed at the hearing, the scale between a closeup photo and a sweeping video makes for difficult comparisons.
Having further reviewed the evidence and consideration of the submissions, I find the landlord has established some areas required further cleaning. They are not significant but generally align with the invoiced effort. I award the invoiced cost of $86.25.
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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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.
The carpet was new in 2020, some eight months before this tenancy commenced. The landlord claimed the carpet was assessed by their usual cleaner as beyond restoration and a replacement strategy was adopted in the alternative. The sequence of events was very tight and the evidence inconclusive, but the carpet was replaced at a cost of $600.00 with a further invoiced cost of $80.00 for dumping the old carpet. Neither invoice itemised the actual cost of new carpet or dumping, versus any labour or other cost component.
The tenant pointed to his video as supporting his stance that the carpet condition reflected expected wear and tear.
A lengthy discussion ensued.
I conclude the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. That said, even if I am wrong and the carpet could have been cleaned rather than replaced, I consider the alternative cleaning cost (after depreciation for replacement) would not be dissimilar to that ordered here. At best the carpet required cleaning.
The amount ordered is proved.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The studio carpet is considered a high-traffic area and an eight-year straight- line economic life depreciation applicable. That means the tenant share of the replacement costs is 25% - being $170.00 of the $680.00 as invoiced. The landlord stance that inferior carpet was used with an inherent discount that addresses any betterment concerns had no evidential basis and the comparative photos do not support such a conclusion.
Because Houzer Holdings Limited T/A Christchurch Room Rentals has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421448 — Rent arrears at Room 5, 24 Aileen Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421448 — Rent arrears at Room 5, 24 Aileen Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

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?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.