What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434297 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Stephen Chiman

How much money was awarded in case 5434297?

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 5434297?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13591257-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434297 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Stephen Chiman

How much money was awarded in case 5434297?

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 5434297?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13591257-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

92B Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5434297 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Stephen Chiman Bhana & Jasu Mati Bhana Trustees Of Ranolf Trust $8,937.00, calculated as follows: Brief DescriptionAmount Rent arrears to 5 February 2026$4,140.00 Cleaning walls/floors, including faeces cleaning$90.00 Carpet cleaning$400.00 Missing fridge-freezer$120.00 Missing microwave$90.00 Carpet damage compensation$3,500.00 Lino damage$180.00 Bed and mattress damaged by dog urine$250.00 Brief DescriptionAmount Ranchslider/lounge curtains damaged by dogs$39.00 Repair hole in bedroom$100.00 Filing fee$28.00 Total$8,937.00

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy: $4,140.00

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says the tenant did not attend the final inspection. That may have made the end-of-tenancy process more difficult, but there is no separate statutory obligation on a tenant to attend a final inspection.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s evidence was that cleaning was required to walls and floors, including cleaning associated with faeces. I accept that evidence. The cleaning cost of $90.00 is reasonable and proved. That claim is allowed.
The landlord also claims $400.00 for carpet cleaning. There were four dogs in the property that defecated all over the carpet throughout the premises. The landlord claimed he washed the carpet four times. The landlord has not provided any receipts, but the chemical cost and time works out to $100 per wash, he tells me. The carpet was not completely odour free after it was cleaned, but it was much better. I approve $400.
The landlord did not identify any proven cost for replacing keys or security devices. No amount is awarded here.
The landlord claims that a fridge-freezer and microwave were missing at the end of the tenancy. Those items were recorded on the chattel list signed by the tenant. There are photos of a fridge at the start of the tenancy. I am satisfied they were chattels provided for the tenant’s benefit and were not left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The claims for $120.00 for the fridge-freezer and $90.00 for the microwave are proved and allowed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged during the tenancy and despite cleaning the dog faeces and urine, the odour remined. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the damage was not present at the start of the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The carpet has not been replaced but it is damaged, and that damage justifies compensation. The compensation claimed for the carpet, which was three years old at the start of the tenancy, is $3,500.00. I am satisfied the amount is proved. I allow $3,500.00.
The lino was damaged during the tenancy. The damage appears in the final inspection photographs and is not shown in the pre-tenancy photographs. The landlord provided invoices for repair/replacement of $180.00. I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the amount claimed is proved. I allow $180.00.
The bed and mattress were soaked in dog urine. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant’s dog or dogs being kept at the premises. The item was not merely worn through ordinary use. The claim of $250.00 is proved and allowed.
The ranchslider curtains and bedroom curtains were ripped by dogs. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant’s dog or dogs being kept at the premises. The claim proved is $39.00 for the lounge/ranchslider curtains. I allow $39.00. No further amount is allowed for bedroom curtains unless separately invoiced and proved.
There was a hole in the bedroom. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The repair cost of $100.00 is reasonable and proved. I allow $100.00.
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. Did the Tenant decline the Landlord’s lawful entry?
The Landlord claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 5 February, the tenant left earlier than the time arranged for inspection. The landlord says the tenant was abusive and that the landlord did not want to enter without the tenant being present. The tenant also did not attend the final inspection.
I do not find that this establishes a failure by the tenant to allow lawful entry under section 48. The evidence does not show that the landlord had given the required notice for entry, and that the tenant prevented entry in circumstances where the landlord was entitled to enter. The fact that the landlord chose not to enter without the tenant present does not itself prove that entry was unlawfully declined. Filing fee
Because Stephen Chiman Bhana & Jasu Mati Bhana Trustees Of Ranolf Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434297 — Rent arrears at 92B Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434297 — Rent arrears at 92B Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

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

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