Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5424548 — Property damage at 14 Hunt Road, Rolleston 7615
Published 28 May 2026 · Application 5424548
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Rolleston
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
T Baker
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $828.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $828.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning | $240.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Cleaning | $60.00 | Cleaning | |
| Repairs | $500.00 | 15. I order the tenant to pay $500, being the insurance excess. | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $828.00 | ||
| Bond | $929.75 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $828.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5424548 — net $828.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $240.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning
- Amount
- $60.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Repairs
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 15. I order the tenant to pay $500, being the insurance excess.
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $828.00
Bond
Landlord $929.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $828.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Amanda Jane Thomas to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited As Agent For Anna & Andrew Philips $828.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $929.75 (BN-00026013) immediately apportioned as follows: Red Chili Property Management Limited As Agent For Anna & Andrew Philips: $828.00 Amanda Jane Thomas: $101.75
Reasons
- Ms Callister appeared on behalf of the landlord attended the hearing which was conducted remotely. There was no appearance for the tenant. Two phone calls to her mobile went unanswered.
- Ms Callister was not the property manager at the time of the tenancy. She has provided some email correspondence from the owner outlining some issues.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- Part of the bond has already been released. The balance remaining is $929.75, which is the amount in dispute.
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. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord provided an entry and exit report. An invoice for $189.75 for cleaning was also submitted. This covered items such as some marks on the front door handle, slider curtain and skirting boards.
- The tenant is not required to leave the premises is an immaculate condition. Sometimes some further cleaning is required. I find that overall, the premises were reasonably clean and tidy but accept that parts of the ensuite bathroom had not been cleaned. I order $60 for cleaning.
- There were some marks on the carpet in the living room and one bedroom. The landlord has established that carpet cleaning was required and has provided an invoice for $240. That amount is ordered.
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.
- According to an email from the owner, at a routine inspection in June 2025, it was discovered that the glass top stove had been damaged. The tenant said that the extractor fans on the rangehood were faulty and had fallen on to the stove after she had put it back after cleaning.
- The owner arranged for the manufacturer of the rangehood to attend and advise if the fans were faulty. It was reported that they had not been put in correctly. They had now bent.
- The landlord provided a quote for replacement for $2,528. Ms Callister said that they had been repaired and the owner had now sold the property. The owner seeks $500 insurance excess, and provided correspondence from the insurer, confirming that was the amount the owner had to pay.
- 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.
- I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- I order the tenant to pay $500, being the insurance excess.
- 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.
- Because Red Chili Property Management Limited As Agent For Anna & Andrew Philips has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5424548?
The tribunal order states: Amanda Jane Thomas to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited As
How much money was awarded in case 5424548?
Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424548?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424548?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13670405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.