What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425069 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for the suppression of the names of the landlord and the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5425069?

Cleaning: $309.47 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $548.57 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint: $1,760.00 awarded to landlord; Sink During Tenancy: $188.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13672178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425069 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for the suppression of the names of the landlord and the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5425069?

Cleaning: $309.47 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $548.57 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint: $1,760.00 awarded to landlord; Sink During Tenancy: $188.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13672178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425069 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425069 — net $1,364.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 December 2025	$548.57	Rent arrears to 5 December 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$309.47	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: sink during tenancy	$188.31	Repairs: sink during tenancy
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Repairs: plaster and paint	$1,760.00	Repairs: plaster and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,364.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,364.35

Order

There is an order for the suppression of the names of the landlord and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,364.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by the property manager. There was no appearance for the tenant.
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 provided a rent summary showing that the tenant owed one day of rent to 28 November, being the original end date of the tenancy. In fact the tenancy ended one week later on 5 December 2025. The landlord provided screenshots of text communications which show that the original termination date of Friday 28 November was extended by one week to 5 December. I have therefore ordered rent arrears of one week and one day to 5 December 2025. That comes to $548.57.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed $200 for cleaning. On viewing the exit inspection photographs, the premises appear reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has not established that the tenant is responsible for the invoice for cleaning.
The tenant did leave some rubbish behind, and the cost of rubbish removal is included in an invoice for some repairs.
The entry and exit inspection photos show that during the tenancy a number of stains appeared on the carpet. I find that the tenant is responsible for those and order that she reimburse the landlord the $309.47 paid for carpet cleaning, as shown on the invoice provided by the landlord.
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 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 photos show multiple holes in the walls that were not present in the entry inspection. Some attempt had been made to plaster them, but it has not been done in a professional manner. The premises had been painted about 3 years before the start of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1760 for plastering and painting. That amount is ordered.
There are two other invoices. During the tenancy, there was a problem with the kitchen sink. A plumber attended. The invoice for $188.31 refers to removal of rust and other blockage. The property manager said that food was down the sink. She thinks it is likely caused by the tenant because the previous tenant was there for three years and had no problems.
I find it more likely than not that the blockage was caused by the tenant.
The other invoice for $563.50 contains a number of items: a. removal of rubbish. The photos show that the tenant left rubbish behind. b. repair of cupboard. The photos show damage to the cupboard. c. replacement of back door handle. The photos show a missing door handle. d. unblocking the bathroom sink. The property manager said that there were cotton buds down the drain.
I find that those costs were more likely than not incurred by the tenant’s actions.
There are three remaining items that I am not satisfied are her responsibility.
The wallpaper in the toilet had to be glued back down. I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the wallpaper lifting.
The toilet seat required replacing. The photos did not show that the toilet seat was damaged. It is difficult to assess the extent of the damage and whether it was more than fair wear and tear.
The invoice included adjustment to the front door, which the property manager agreed should not be included.
I have therefore reduced the amount payable on that invoice to $450.
The amounts ordered are 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425069 — net $1,364.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 December 2025	$548.57	Rent arrears to 5 December 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$309.47	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: sink during tenancy	$188.31	Repairs: sink during tenancy
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Repairs: plaster and paint	$1,760.00	Repairs: plaster and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,364.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,364.35

Order

There is an order for the suppression of the names of the landlord and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,364.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by the property manager. There was no appearance for the tenant.
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 provided a rent summary showing that the tenant owed one day of rent to 28 November, being the original end date of the tenancy. In fact the tenancy ended one week later on 5 December 2025. The landlord provided screenshots of text communications which show that the original termination date of Friday 28 November was extended by one week to 5 December. I have therefore ordered rent arrears of one week and one day to 5 December 2025. That comes to $548.57.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed $200 for cleaning. On viewing the exit inspection photographs, the premises appear reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has not established that the tenant is responsible for the invoice for cleaning.
The tenant did leave some rubbish behind, and the cost of rubbish removal is included in an invoice for some repairs.
The entry and exit inspection photos show that during the tenancy a number of stains appeared on the carpet. I find that the tenant is responsible for those and order that she reimburse the landlord the $309.47 paid for carpet cleaning, as shown on the invoice provided by the landlord.
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 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 photos show multiple holes in the walls that were not present in the entry inspection. Some attempt had been made to plaster them, but it has not been done in a professional manner. The premises had been painted about 3 years before the start of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1760 for plastering and painting. That amount is ordered.
There are two other invoices. During the tenancy, there was a problem with the kitchen sink. A plumber attended. The invoice for $188.31 refers to removal of rust and other blockage. The property manager said that food was down the sink. She thinks it is likely caused by the tenant because the previous tenant was there for three years and had no problems.
I find it more likely than not that the blockage was caused by the tenant.
The other invoice for $563.50 contains a number of items: a. removal of rubbish. The photos show that the tenant left rubbish behind. b. repair of cupboard. The photos show damage to the cupboard. c. replacement of back door handle. The photos show a missing door handle. d. unblocking the bathroom sink. The property manager said that there were cotton buds down the drain.
I find that those costs were more likely than not incurred by the tenant’s actions.
There are three remaining items that I am not satisfied are her responsibility.
The wallpaper in the toilet had to be glued back down. I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the wallpaper lifting.
The toilet seat required replacing. The photos did not show that the toilet seat was damaged. It is difficult to assess the extent of the damage and whether it was more than fair wear and tear.
The invoice included adjustment to the front door, which the property manager agreed should not be included.
I have therefore reduced the amount payable on that invoice to $450.
The amounts ordered are 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425069 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425069 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions