What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437951?

The tribunal order states: Clarissa Ivy Takimoana Webber and Tommy Turoa Simon to pay Inspire

How much money was awarded in case 5437951?

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 5437951?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437951?

The tribunal order states: Clarissa Ivy Takimoana Webber and Tommy Turoa Simon to pay Inspire

How much money was awarded in case 5437951?

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 5437951?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Tania Crescent, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437951 — Property damage

Order

Clarissa Ivy Takimoana Webber and Tommy Turoa Simon to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $3,862.81 immediately, calculated as follows: AwardAmount Rent arrears$2,303.58 Cleaning$500.00 Insurance excess x 2$1,500.00 Rubbish removal$34.26 Repair broken outlet$196.97 Wall and door damage$1,200.00 Filing fee$28.00 Total award$5,762.81 Less bond($1,900.00) Balance payable$3,862.81
Bond Services is to pay the full bond of $1,900.00 to Inspire Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
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 tenancy ended on 2 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove rent arrears of $2,303.58 owing at the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The outgoing inspection records that the house had not been left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, that rubbish had been left on the front deck, in the garage, and behind the garage, and that three council bins still required emptying. The inspection also records dirty carpets, windows requiring cleaning, dirty drapes, and kitchen areas requiring cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved in relation to cleaning and rubbish removal.

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.
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: wall damage and poor patch repairs in the bedrooms and dining room; damage to internal doors; staining and damage to carpet in the lounge and bedroom; and a smashed double plug outlet in the laundry.
The photographs support the existence of wall damage, poor plaster repairs, carpet staining and tearing, door damage, and the damaged outlet.
The outgoing inspection report is consistent with that damage, recording that the walls throughout the house had been damaged and poorly repaired, that the lounge carpet was damaged and dirty, that there was a large black stain in bedroom 2 carpet, that bedroom 3 door needed to be replaced, that the bathroom door was failing, and that the laundry double plug outlet had been smashed.
The landlord also produced an invoice for repair of the broken outlet in the sum of $196.97, and an invoice for preparing 3 bedrooms, plastering holes, gibbing and painting, and replacing, refitting and painting 2 new doors, totalling $1,200.00.
The insurance schedule records a standard excess of $750.00. The weekly rent was $600.00, so four weeks’ rent is $2,400.00.
The tenant’s liability for each insured carpet claim is therefore limited to $750.00.
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.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Clarissa Ivy Takimoana Webber and Tommy Turoa Simon to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $3,862.81 immediately, calculated as follows: AwardAmount Rent arrears$2,303.58 Cleaning$500.00 Insurance excess x 2$1,500.00 Rubbish removal$34.26 Repair broken outlet$196.97 Wall and door damage$1,200.00 Filing fee$28.00 Total award$5,762.81 Less bond($1,900.00) Balance payable$3,862.81
Bond Services is to pay the full bond of $1,900.00 to Inspire Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
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 tenancy ended on 2 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove rent arrears of $2,303.58 owing at the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The outgoing inspection records that the house had not been left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, that rubbish had been left on the front deck, in the garage, and behind the garage, and that three council bins still required emptying. The inspection also records dirty carpets, windows requiring cleaning, dirty drapes, and kitchen areas requiring cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved in relation to cleaning and rubbish removal.

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.
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: wall damage and poor patch repairs in the bedrooms and dining room; damage to internal doors; staining and damage to carpet in the lounge and bedroom; and a smashed double plug outlet in the laundry.
The photographs support the existence of wall damage, poor plaster repairs, carpet staining and tearing, door damage, and the damaged outlet.
The outgoing inspection report is consistent with that damage, recording that the walls throughout the house had been damaged and poorly repaired, that the lounge carpet was damaged and dirty, that there was a large black stain in bedroom 2 carpet, that bedroom 3 door needed to be replaced, that the bathroom door was failing, and that the laundry double plug outlet had been smashed.
The landlord also produced an invoice for repair of the broken outlet in the sum of $196.97, and an invoice for preparing 3 bedrooms, plastering holes, gibbing and painting, and replacing, refitting and painting 2 new doors, totalling $1,200.00.
The insurance schedule records a standard excess of $750.00. The weekly rent was $600.00, so four weeks’ rent is $2,400.00.
The tenant’s liability for each insured carpet claim is therefore limited to $750.00.
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.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437951 — Property damage at 28 Tania Crescent, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437951 — Property damage at 28 Tania Crescent, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

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