What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466590 about?

The tribunal order states: Edwards Realty Limited As The Agent For Marcus Xie must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5466590?

Rent Credit: $137.86 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $10.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466590?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13874487-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466590 about?

The tribunal order states: Edwards Realty Limited As The Agent For Marcus Xie must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5466590?

Rent Credit: $137.86 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $10.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466590?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13874487-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9A Harrison Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5466590 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5466590 — net $127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$10.86		Water rates
Rent credit		$137.86	Rent credit
Total award	$10.86	$137.86
Net award		$127.00
Bond		$4,940.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$127.00

Both parties attended the hearing held on 8 July 2026 remotely. The tenant had the assistance of a Korean interpreter.

The tenancy began on 14 January 2023 and ended on 15 January 2026.

The landlord applied for the final water rates invoice and for the insurance excess for carpet replacement.

The amount for water was agreed to by the tenant and is ordered.

The carpet replacement relates to bedroom 2 and bedroom 3. The landlord did not know the age of the carpet. He thought it may be five years old but had no evidence to support this and accordingly to an online search of this property it was purchased only three months before this tenancy commenced. It is therefore possible that the carpet was existing at the time of purchase three and a half years ago.

For depreciation purposes when the age of carpet is not known the Tribunal may use the minimum age of depreciation for carpet being 8 years. If the carpet is at or near the end of its expected life, the depreciated value may be very low, sometimes only 10 to 15% of the replacement cost if it is still in reasonable condition.

In this situation, there were stains on the carpet in the two affected bedrooms at the beginning of the tenancy. Interestingly, there were no comments on the inspection report as there were for the outgoing inspection report.

At the beginning of the tenancy the carpet was not new and did not appear to be in good condition. Added to that is the three years where the tenant has lived there, so there is three years of wear and tear on top of carpet that we do not know the age of.

The landlord produced information from the insurance company showing that a claim for carpet replacement was accepted four months ago but the carpet has not been replaced. The landlord accepted a cash settlement for the stained carpet and seeks the insurance excess of $2,000.00 ($1,000.00 for each bedroom) from the tenant.

The tenant denies causing the stains. He said that the premises were not clean at the beginning of the tenancy. He thinks that the landlord wants money to replace all the carpet at the premises.

The tenant is only liable for damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy. Given the condition of the carpet in the ingoing inspection report it is not clear that the tenant caused further damage or if it did what portion of the damage was caused by this tenant.

When depreciation is considered the value of the carpet is low and the amount attributable to this tenant is not clear. Given the evidence before the Tribunal it is not possible to determine whether this tenant caused damage to the carpet beyond the damage at the beginning of the tenancy.

The landlord’s claim for compensation (insurance excess) for carpet damage is dismissed.

The tenant was in credit for rent at the end of the tenancy so that amount is including in this order.

As the landlord was not substantially successful, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, while the landlord sought name suppression, no suppression order is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5466590 — net $127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$10.86		Water rates
Rent credit		$137.86	Rent credit
Total award	$10.86	$137.86
Net award		$127.00
Bond		$4,940.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$127.00

Order

Edwards Realty Limited As The Agent For Marcus Xie must pay [The tenant/s] $127.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,940.00 (BN-10080316) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 8 July 2026 remotely. The tenant had the assistance of a Korean interpreter.
The tenancy began on 14 January 2023 and ended on 15 January 2026.
The landlord applied for the final water rates invoice and for the insurance excess for carpet replacement.
The amount for water was agreed to by the tenant and is ordered.
The carpet replacement relates to bedroom 2 and bedroom 3. The landlord did not know the age of the carpet. He thought it may be five years old but had no evidence to support this and accordingly to an online search of this property it was purchased only three months before this tenancy commenced. It is therefore possible that the carpet was existing at the time of purchase three and a half years ago.
For depreciation purposes when the age of carpet is not known the Tribunal may use the minimum age of depreciation for carpet being 8 years. If the carpet is at or near the end of its expected life, the depreciated value may be very low, sometimes only 10 to 15% of the replacement cost if it is still in reasonable condition.
In this situation, there were stains on the carpet in the two affected bedrooms at the beginning of the tenancy. Interestingly, there were no comments on the inspection report as there were for the outgoing inspection report.
At the beginning of the tenancy the carpet was not new and did not appear to be in good condition. Added to that is the three years where the tenant has lived there, so there is three years of wear and tear on top of carpet that we do not know the age of.
The landlord produced information from the insurance company showing that a claim for carpet replacement was accepted four months ago but the carpet has not been replaced. The landlord accepted a cash settlement for the stained carpet and seeks the insurance excess of $2,000.00 ($1,000.00 for each bedroom) from the tenant.
The tenant denies causing the stains. He said that the premises were not clean at the beginning of the tenancy. He thinks that the landlord wants money to replace all the carpet at the premises.
The tenant is only liable for damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy. Given the condition of the carpet in the ingoing inspection report it is not clear that the tenant caused further damage or if it did what portion of the damage was caused by this tenant.
When depreciation is considered the value of the carpet is low and the amount attributable to this tenant is not clear. Given the evidence before the Tribunal it is not possible to determine whether this tenant caused damage to the carpet beyond the damage at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation (insurance excess) for carpet damage is dismissed.
The tenant was in credit for rent at the end of the tenancy so that amount is including in this order.
As the landlord was not substantially successful, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, while the landlord sought name suppression, no suppression order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466590 — Tenancy dispute at 9A Harrison Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466590 — Tenancy dispute at 9A Harrison Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions