What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421499 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Harcourts Gold Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5421499?

Bins: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Work: $197.60 awarded to landlord; Oven Trays: $63.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,153.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,311.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $195.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421499?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13256161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421499 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Harcourts Gold Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5421499?

Bins: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Work: $197.60 awarded to landlord; Oven Trays: $63.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,153.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,311.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $195.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421499?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13256161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Beverley Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421499 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421499 — net $10,878.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$260.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,311.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Oven trays	$63.25	Oven trays
Bins	$70.00	Bins
Outside work	$197.60	Outside work
Wall repairs and painting	$5,153.50	Wall repairs and painting
Rubbish removal	$195.50	Rubbish removal
Chattels damaged and missing	$3,000.00	Chattels damaged and missing
Exemplary damages - minor changes	$600.00	Exemplary damages - minor changes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,878.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,878.85

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background

This tenancy began in January 2024 and ended following a termination order of the Tribunal on 19 November 2025. The tenant had served several termination notices but had not vacated the premises by the termination dates.

Vacating the premises was not achieved in an orderly manner. The property manager attended the premises on 20 November and found the premises in a disorderly, untidy and unclean condition consistent with the tenant leaving abruptly.

The premises are one of seven dwellings in a large, converted house. The conversion was completed approximately five years ago, and the premises were in a good state of repair at the start of the tenancy.

The premises were fully furnished and equipped at the start of the tenancy. Relevant Law

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.

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

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).

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).

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.

The Tribunal must consider betterment where appropriate. 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 betterment, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to any minor change made to the premises during the tenancy (s42B(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Claims

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims except for emptying and cleaning the bins, the cost of repairing damage to the premises, painting and dumping rubbish from the garden shed and loss of and damage to chattels. I have therefore awarded the admitted claims, and it is the disputed claims that I will now consider. The Bins

The landlords say that the three council bins were found in the courtyard of the premises with material in them and unclean. They were emptied and cleaned.

The tenant said that the bins for all the units were left in a communal area, and he did not have designated bins, and he did not leave them on the premises.

The tenant did not deny that he used the bins or claim that he emptied and cleaned the bins he used. It is reasonable for the landlord to provide three empty and clean bins for the incoming tenant as they were at the start of this tenancy. The ingoing report shows that. It follows that the claim should be awarded.

The tenant denied that the bins were identified with the address of the premises, but that is usually the case, and I have no reason to think that the bins for the premises were an exception. I also accept the evidence of the property manager that he found the bins on the premises, as shown in the outgoing report, when he came to inspect. Items in the Shed

The photographs in the outgoing report show a sofa, a rug and some pallets in the garden shed on the premises. The property managers removed them and disposed of them and invoiced the landlords for $264.50.

The tenant said that he removed the sofa from the premises to make more space. There is no evidence that he spoke to the landlord about doing so.

I accept the landlords’ evidence that the sofa was damaged and had to be disposed of along with the other items in the shed. The tenant should have discussed and agreed the removal of the items rather than putting them outside in the shed.

The landlords are entitled to the reasonable cost of removing them. The charge includes two hours at $90 per hour which I find is excessive. I have made an award based on an hourly rate of $60 which is reasonable. Damage

The tenant put up numerous pictures in the premises and in doing so put picture hooks, nails and screws into many of the walls. This is classed as making minor changes to the premises.

When the tenant left, he removed the pictures and the fixings, but he did not make good the damage from them. There were holes left in the walls and associated plaster damage.

The tenant had an obligation in these circumstances to return the premises to substantially the same condition as they were in before making the changes. He failed to do so and so the landlords are entitled to be compensated for the cost of making good the damage.

The tenant questioned the degree of damage and the reasonableness of the landlords’ response.

The landlords’ claim was well supported by evidence showing the degree and extent of damage and I accept that it was reasonable for the landlords to carry out the repairs and painting that they did. It was necessary to restore the premises to the condition that were in before the tenant made the changes.

The tenant accepted responsibility for damage to the decking and posts which were caused by his car.

He disputed the damage to the French doors. He said that he had reported to the property manager that the locking mechanisms for the doors had fallen out from their housing. He did not put anything in writing and so there is no written evidence of the report. The landlords’ representative had no knowledge of it.

The tenants’ evidence was unreliable in some respects. For example, he initially denied receiving any keys for the premises but there is a keys receipt document signed by him.

I think it likely that if the doors were damaged and it was not the tenant’s responsibility, he would have at least reported the damage to the landlords formally and required it to be repaired rather than leaving it unrepaired at the end of the tenancy.

I find that the tenant is responsible for the damage as claimed and that the repairs and painting were reasonably required and that the cost was reasonable.

Insurance is not a factor because it was the tenant’s responsibility to restore the premises to their previous condition. Chattels

The tenant denied that the many of chattels that the landlords claim were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy were his responsibility. I find that the chattels were there at the beginning of the tenancy as recorded in the chattels list (and shown in the ingoing report) and that they were missing or damaged as recorded in the outgoing report.

The landlord has assessed the value of the missing and damaged chattels at $3,000 and I find that to be fair assessment. If anything, it is on the conservative side. Exemplary Damages

I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to make good the changes he made to the premises. This has put the landlord to considerable time, trouble and expense.

It is not the worst kind of case. It seems that the tenant did not leave himself time to deal with it. But a significant award is required. I have awarded $600.

I note as well that the landlords could have claimed exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to quit the premises, but they have not done so. Filing Fee

The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421499 — net $10,878.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$260.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,311.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Oven trays	$63.25	Oven trays
Bins	$70.00	Bins
Outside work	$197.60	Outside work
Wall repairs and painting	$5,153.50	Wall repairs and painting
Rubbish removal	$195.50	Rubbish removal
Chattels damaged and missing	$3,000.00	Chattels damaged and missing
Exemplary damages - minor changes	$600.00	Exemplary damages - minor changes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,878.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,878.85