What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446351 about?

The tribunal order states: Peter James Shaw to pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg

How much money was awarded in case 5446351?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $667.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446351?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13800460-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446351 about?

The tribunal order states: Peter James Shaw to pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg

How much money was awarded in case 5446351?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $667.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446351?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13800460-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Helmores Lane, Merivale, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5446351 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5446351 — net $775.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: oven and rangehood	$60.00	Cleaning: oven and rangehood
Replace chattels	$20.00	Replace chattels
Repairs: painting walls	$667.98	Repairs: painting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$775.98
Bond	$4,196.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$775.98

Peter James Shaw to pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg Family Trust $775.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,196.00 (BN-00053960) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg Family Trust: $775.98 Peter James Shaw: $3,420.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 and ended on 25 January 2026. The burden of proof

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the oven and rangehood reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided pre-tenancy photos and photos taken at the end of the tenancy. Having reviewed the photos, I do not consider that these items have been left reasonably clean and tidy.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: A garden fork and a fuel container. The tenant accepted that the fuel container had not been replaced but said that the garden rake was in poor condition. The photos provided by the landlord from the commencement of the tenancy show a reasonably new garden fork and a fuel container. It may be that the tenant has mistaken the garden fork and the garden rake.

In setting compensation at $20.00, 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 tenant is required to replace standard lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation for $158.52 for the replacement of a rangehood lightbulb. I do not consider that to be a standard lightbulb. The claim is dismissed.

The amounts ordered are reasonable and are proven.

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 tenant has carried out remedial painting to walls in hallways. The work has not been carried out to a reasonable standard. The tenant has used semi -gloss paint and not low sheen paint. The painting work carried out by the tenant stands out from the rest of the paint work. The landlord provided photos of the damage and a copy of the repair invoice for $667.98. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proven.

As A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5446351 — net $775.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: oven and rangehood	$60.00	Cleaning: oven and rangehood
Replace chattels	$20.00	Replace chattels
Repairs: painting walls	$667.98	Repairs: painting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$775.98
Bond	$4,196.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$775.98

Peter James Shaw to pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg Family Trust $775.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,196.00 (BN-00053960) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg Family Trust: $775.98 Peter James Shaw: $3,420.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 and ended on 25 January 2026. The burden of proof

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)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The amounts ordered are reasonable and are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proven.

As A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Gregg Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5446351 — Property damage at 37 Helmores Lane, Merivale, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5446351 — Property damage at 37 Helmores Lane, Merivale, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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