Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5438128 — Rent arrears at 16C Gladstone Road, Matamata, Matamata 3400
Decided 20 Apr 2026 · Published 20 Apr 2026 · Application 5438128
- Rent arrears
- Smoke alarms
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord] name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay [Landlord] $1,960.00 immediately.
- Jessie Cooper-Over is to pay [Landlord] $1,450.21 immediately, calculated as follows: Description of awardAmount
- 5 weeks lost rent$735.00 End-of-tenancy cleaning and rubbish removal$306.83 Rubbish removal October 2025$78.10 Replacement of locks and window latches$587.50 Missing chattels at end of tenancy$116.23 Carpet cleaning$114.21 Bedroom window repair$101.89 Description of awardAmount
- 5 weeks lost rent$735.00 Carpet repair$146.63 Wall repainting and equipment$208.60 Garden shed repair$29.80 Lawn reinstatement after fire pit$9.73 Concrete/fire damage remediation$178.61 Sanding materials for repair preparation$40.93 Internal door repairs$498.53 Repainting deck and side steps$229.62 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total awarded$3,410.21 Less bond refunded to landlord and credited($1,960.00) Balance payable by tenant$1,450.21
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.
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy and receipts for the costs incurred in cleaning and rubbish removal. I am satisfied those costs were reasonably incurred.
- I therefore allow the landlord’s claims for sugar soap ($4.98), rubbish/furniture removal to the dump ($102.95 and $35.50), and the related labour and mileage for rubbish/furniture removal ($141.00 and $22.40).
- The landlord took rubbish from the property to the dump for the tenant during tenancy in October. The tenant agreed to reimburse for this however never did. I award this claim: $78.10
- The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided evidence and receipts showing that replacement of the locks and latches was required, including replacement of the sliding door lock because the tenant did not return a key. I am satisfied the cost claimed was reasonably incurred. I allow the claim for replacement of house locks and window latches in the sum of $587.50.
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a padlock, a door stop, a wardrobe cabinet handle, a shower door seal/flashing, and net curtains. The landlord provided receipts for replacement. I am satisfied those items were missing at the end of the tenancy and that the replacement costs were reasonable. I allow the claims for padlock ($24.37), door stop ($3.78), handle cabinet ($7.68), door seal ($13.40), and net curtains ($67.00).
- The landlord also claimed carpet cleaning costs on the basis that the tenant failed to leave the carpet clean at the end of the tenancy, and it was caked with dirt and other organic material. The landlord provided evidence of the cost of hiring a Rug Doctor. I am satisfied those costs were reasonably incurred and allow carpet cleaning of $48.74 and labour of $58.75, and mileage of $6.72.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence, receipts, and messages in support of the claimed damage. I am satisfied the following damage was caused during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear, and that the costs claimed were reasonably incurred. I allow the following claims: a. Bedroom window repair of $101.89. b. Carpet repair of $146.63. c. Repainting walls of $201.70 and painting equipment of $6.90. d. Repair garden shed in the sum of $29.80. e. Lawn seed of $9.73 to restore the lawn where the tenant had put in a fire pit. f. Lighter gas of $5.35 and wire wheel set of $8.76, incurred in attempting to remove fire damage from the concrete, together with labour for paint removal of $47.00 and concrete restoration of $117.50. g. Sanding belts of $40.93, incurred for sanding required for pre-painting and gib stopping due to damage. h. Door repairs of $498.53. i. Paint in the sum of $229.62 for repainting the deck and side steps after unauthorised painting by the tenant.
- 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.
- The landlord also sought compensation relating to methamphetamine contamination, including the cost of meth testing and loss of rent. However, the landlord did not obtain a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test, and therefore has not proved that any contamination occurred during the tenancy. I do not allow the meth test claim of $395.60 or any meth-related loss of rent claim.
- The landlord claims three weeks’ lost rent. I consider one-and-a-half weeks is appropriate: $735.00
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I also allow reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00, and I grant the Landlord’s request for name suppression.