What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5463069?

The tribunal order states: Rita May Robinson to pay Vision Realty Management Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5463069?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Door Locks And Door Frame: $278.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $249.55 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $844.29 awarded to landlord; Rug: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13613112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5463069?

The tribunal order states: Rita May Robinson to pay Vision Realty Management Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5463069?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Door Locks And Door Frame: $278.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $249.55 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $844.29 awarded to landlord; Rug: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13613112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Resolution Place, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463069 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5463069 — net $2,870.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 February 2026	$844.29	Rent arrears to 1 February 2026
Door locks and door frame	$278.88	Door locks and door frame
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Wall, door and fence damage	$1,150.00	Wall, door and fence damage
Lock/key replacement	$249.55	Lock/key replacement
Rug	$90.00	Rug
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,870.72
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,870.72

Rita May Robinson to pay Vision Realty Management Limited as Agent for Pinesmart Limited $2,870.72 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The landlord’s claim are otherwise dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (BN-00080286) immediately apportioned as follows: Vision Realty Management Limited as Agent for Pinesmart Limited: $2,870.72 Rita May Robinson: $529.28

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wong represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent

The tenancy ended on 2 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant denied that she owed rent.

I asked the tenant to explain what was wrong with the landlord’s rent statement. She could not do so but instead relied on what she said she was told by others including Tenancy Services. I note that the landlord sent her a copy of the rent statement and invited her to inform them if she believed it to be wrong. There is no evidence that she did so.

Landlords must keep a record of rent payments and produce it when required. That record is the starting point for consideration of a claim for rent arrears. The landlord’s record shows that rent was paid up to date until 22 January 2026. That leaves 10 days to the end of the tenancy. The tenant paid $370 on 24 January against $850 due for that week. There were no more payments and $364.29 was due for the last three days of the tenancy.

I note the closeness of the tenant’s final payment and the rent due for the last three days of the tenancy. Possibly, the tenant believed that because rent was paid in advance at first, that she was a week in credit at the end. That is a misunderstanding that the Tribunal sees from time to time. If rent is paid on time, it is in advance at first but by the end of each rent period it is back to a zero balance and rent then falls due again.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the landlord’s rent statement and so I have awarded the rent arrears as claimed. If the tenant has any evidence to prove the contrary, she can apply for a rehearing. The Landlord’s Other Claims

Relevantly, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys and security devices.

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

There are limitations on how much compensation the landlord can recover for damage depending on the landlord’s insurance. But those limitations do not apply in this case. The wall damage was caused by penetrations made to hang or hold items to the wall. That is intentional damage and so no limitation applies. Gas Assessment

The landlord accepted that the gas assessment did not result from anything that the tenant did wrong and so the claim was withdrawn. Door Locks and Door Frame

There was damage to door locks and a door frame during the tenancy. The tenant said it was fair wear and tear.

I am satisfied that it is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord also relied on an agreement with the tenant that she would pay 50% of the repair cost being $278.88. In my view that was a reasonable agreement, and I see no reason to look behind it. I have therefore awarded it. Cleaning

The tenant said that she left the premises reasonably clean. I find that the landlord’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show that there were some areas that were not left at the required standard.

The landlord’s claim includes cleaning the exterior widows which is not the tenant’s responsibility. The claim is otherwise reasonable and so I have reduced the award from $287.50 to $230. Fence, Bedroom Door and Wall Damage.

The tenant accepted the claims for the cost of repairing a fence and a bedroom door but disputed the claim for wall damage.

The tenant accepted that the walls were damaged during the tenancy and that her attempt to repair the damage was unsuccessful.

I find that the tenant is liable for the reasonable cost of repairing and painting the walls.

But I must consider 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 must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The premises were not in a new or near new condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord could not say when they were last decorated. I would say that they were showing their age, and the ingoing condition report supports that.

Some reduction is required for the fact that the walls would have required painting in the not-too-distant future. There has therefore been an element of betterment. I have therefore awarded half the cost of repairing and painting the walls. The other costs have been awarded in full. Locks and Keys

There is no dispute that not all keys provided at the start of the tenancy were returned at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant said that the remaining keys were returned shortly after the tenancy ended some by her father and some by her. In both cases they were put in the landlord’s letter box.

The landlord said that some keys that were returned did not fit locks at the premises and some were returned after the locks had been changed.

I accept the landlord’s evidence on this claim. I do not think they would have changed the locks if the keys had been returned promptly. I have therefore awarded the cost of lock changing and key replacement. Rug

There was a new rug at the premises at the start of the tenancy. It was left stained when the tenancy ended. The tenant admitted that she did not clean it with the Rug Doctor carpet cleaner as she did with the carpet in the premises.

The landlord did not clean the rug either and it remained at the premises when possession passed to the owner. The landlord said that the rug cost $223. The tenant said that the Rug Doctor cost her $161.

I find that the landlord’s claim is limited to the cost of cleaning the carpet. The landlord claims $90 which seems to be based on the cost of the rug. It is 40% of the cost.

If the rug can be cleaned, the cost of doing so is unlikely to be less than $90. I have therefore awarded the sum of $90. Filing Fee

The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond

I have split the bond to give effect to my findings.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5463069 — net $2,870.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 February 2026	$844.29	Rent arrears to 1 February 2026
Door locks and door frame	$278.88	Door locks and door frame
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Wall, door and fence damage	$1,150.00	Wall, door and fence damage
Lock/key replacement	$249.55	Lock/key replacement
Rug	$90.00	Rug
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,870.72
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,870.72