What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5472529 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Archer Mchattie Limited T/A Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 5472529?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Spa Pool Removal: $1,200.20 awarded to landlord; Spa Pool Value: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13850798-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5472529 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Archer Mchattie Limited T/A Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 5472529?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Spa Pool Removal: $1,200.20 awarded to landlord; Spa Pool Value: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13850798-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

105A Pownall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472529 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

105A Pownall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472529 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472529 — net $995.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$270.00		Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$1,000.00		Window repairs
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$375.00		Repairs
Spa pool removal	$1,200.20		Spa pool removal
Spa pool value		$2,000.00	Spa pool value
Total award	$2,995.20	$2,000.00
Net award	$995.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$995.20

Claims and awards for application 5472529 — net $995.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $270.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Window repairs

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs

Amount: $375.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Spa pool removal

Amount: $1,200.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Spa pool removal

Spa pool value

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Archer Mchattie Limited T/A Ray White Property Management As The Agent For KRT Property Investments Ltd $995.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but there is a dispute between the parties in relation to various matters.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 26 October 2022. The landlord is KRT Property Investments Ltd by way of a property manager, Archer McHattie Ltd. The sole tenant is Ben Moorcock.
The tenancy was terminated by way of Tribunal order dated 10 October 2025 (Application 5343961). The termination was because of rent arrears. Possession was ordered to return to the landlord at 11:59pm that same day.

CLAIMS

At the hearing, Mr Archer confirmed the landlord’s claims are as follows: a. Carpet cleaning b. Rubbish removal c. Window replacement d. General cleaning e. Replacement / breakages f. Spa pool removal.
The tenants claim relates to a spa pool that the tenant considers has been seized by the landlord.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

Landlords claim 1 – Carpet cleaning

The landlord’s position is that the carpets were clean at the start of the tenancy, but dirty when the tenancy was returned. The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs of $390.00.
In response the tenant states that he did not get the full opportunity to clean the house in the circumstances of the eviction. Further the tenant’s position is that the carpet was in poor condition. Analysis
At the start of the tenancy the landlord must provide the tenancy reasonably clean, and at the end of the tenancy the tenancy must be returned also reasonably clean.
Overall, I am not persuaded this claim is proven. The tenant has accepted that he did not get an opportunity to complete all cleaning, and I will address this further below. But as far as the carpet is concerned, when I can consider the photographs provided, they do not in my assessment show carpet that is stained or dirty. I must conclude that this claim has not been proven, so the claim is declined. Landlords claim 2 – Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy, submitting the rubbish was the tenant's rubbish.
The tenant accepts that there were some goods left at the end of the tenancy such as beds in the shed or appliances, which Mr Moorcock says the landlord confirmed he would deal with. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the obligation is on the tenant to remove all belongings. Again I recognise the difficult circumstances that Mr Moorcock faced, but ultimately there were some items left on the premises. There is a difference of opinion as to whether these would represent rubbish or goods, but however they would be viewed, I accept that the landlord needed to deal with the items, and should be compensated for that. In this case the landlord has claimed three hours work, at $150.00, and tip fees at $120.00. This claim seems reasonable given the volume of items the landlord needed to address, and this claim must be ordered in full. Landlords claim 3 – Window replacement
The landlord claims the cost for repairing a cracked window. The tenant said that the crack occurred by a neighbour’s child was using a skateboard, but that was denied by the neighbours when the landlord spoke with them. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,095.98, which is the cost incurred for reglazing the window (invoice provided from Ziggys Glass).
The tenant states he emailed the landlord about this. The tenant said the damage occurred when one of the neighbour’s children was outside, and a skateboard flicked up, hitting and damaging the glass, which he witnessed. Analysis
With any compensation claim for damage, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
In this case, I accept the tenant’s evidence that the damage to the glass occurred from a skateboard flicking up, breaking the pane. I consider that it would represent careless damage. The tenant is liable for careless damage caused by them or some other person on the premises with the tenants consent, which seems the case here. The tenant is liable to the extent of the insurance excess, which is $1,000.00 as recorded on the tenancy agreement. The tenant is therefore liable for the reglazing cost to the sum of $1,000.00. Landlords claim 4 – General cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for general cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states at the end of the tenancy extensive cleaning was needed. The landlord claims $950.00 for their own time.
The tenant accepts that the premises were not returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, but considers that the amount of the claim is excessive. Analysis
Again this is a case where the tenant agrees that he did not manage to complete the work necessary before possession was returned to the landlord. The tenant agrees that some cleaning would have been required, but considers that the amount claimed by the landlord is simply excessive.
When I consider the photographs provided, my overall impression is that the premises were mostly clean and tidy. There were some goods left on the premises, and I have compensated the landlord for his time and dealing with those above. There were some surfaces which I accept were marked and grubby, which would fall short of meeting the requirement to return the premises reasonably clean. But beyond that, I consider the work necessary would be limited.
Taking into consideration my assessment of the photographs, it is reasonable to order compensation for three hours of the landlord’s work for cleaning only. I therefore order $150.00. Landlords claim 5 – Replacement / Breakages
The landlord seeks costs for various items that were broken, including a curtain rail and three light shades. Mr Archer notes that the claim is for supply of replacement items and installation; the amount claimed is $375.00.
The tenant agrees that these items were broken during the tenancy but disputes the sum of the claim. Analysis
The tenant agrees that the claimed items were broken during the tenancy, the dispute is over the amount of the claim. Overall, I do not consider the claim to be excessive. The claim included not only the cost to purchase the replacement items, but the landlord’s time in sourcing those, and installing them. The claim seems fair, and is ordered in full. Landlord and tenant claim 6 – Spa pool removal
Both parties have made claims in relation to the tenant’s spa pool that was left on the premises. It is sensible to deal with both claims together, given the significant overlap.
The landlord states that some 30 days after Mr Moorcock’s tenancy ended, they found a new tenant, and the tenant’s spa pool had not been removed. Six people needed to move it because of the size and weight. The spa pool was sold for $1,500.00.
The tenant disputes that there was any contact about moving the tenancy. The landlord was told the tenant had a truck lined up to remove the spa. Mr Moorcock notes that it was not his spa, but a friend’s. The tenant states that the truck had been lined up around 10 days following the end of the tenancy. The truck went around to uplift the spa and it was gone, and moved to the property manager’s daughter’s house.
The landlord disputes what the tenant says; Mr Archer states that the spa pool was there for 32 days, and then sold by word of mouth. Mr Archer agrees that he did get a call from the truck driver initially, but never heard from him again. Analysis
The RTA confirms that at the end of the tenancy, the obligation is on the tenant to remove their goods. When goods are left on the premises at the end of the tenancy, the landlord should make reasonable efforts to have the tenant collect the goods, but if the tenant fails to do so, then the landlord may dispose of the goods, which could include a sale of the item, with any amount obtained going toward any debt owing by the tenant.
This case, there is no dispute between the parties that the spa pool was left on the deck at the end of the tenancy.
There was a dispute over whether the tenant had made arrangements to collect the spa pool. The landlord’s position is that the pool was removed about 30 days after possession had returned to the landlord, before the next tenancy started. If that were the case, I would accept that the landlord’s actions were reasonable, and that the tenant would have had ample time to remove the spa pool.
The tenants position is that a truck went to the property before then, but the pool had gone. I have not received any evidence from the truck driver, or communications around that, to support what the tenant advised me at the hearing. On the other side of the ledger, there are emails from December 2025, where the property manager had indicated the spa pool had been on site for some 30 days without being picked up, and that would be consistent with what was advised to the Tribunal today by the landlord.
On the basis of the evidence available, I am not convinced that the landlord removed the Spark pool unreasonably, the evidence would tend to suggest that the spa pool was only removed some 30 days following the tenancy ending.
The landlord has claimed $1,200.20 for emptying and removing the spa pool which required six people to move and place onto a trailer for removal. The claim includes trailer hire, mileage, and storage of the spa pool. I have no reason to consider that claim to be unreasonable.
In terms of the sale price of the spa pool, the landlord states that the spa pool was sold for a price of $1,500.00, which he considers to be a reasonable market rate for that item.
The tenant disagrees and considers that the spa pool is of a higher value.
In terms of the value of the Spa pool, neither party has provided me with an independent assessment of value. However, I am not persuaded that the value of the spa pool would be $1,500.00. That would not be consistent with my perusal of second-hand spa pool costs from TradeMe, and it would also not be consistent with the AI-generated costing from the landlord, which indicates the market value generally between $1,500 and $3,500 for a second-hand spa pool of that type.
I have determined that the price to be applied should be $2,000. In reaching that price, I note an email from the tenant on 15 October 2025, where he offered to sell the pool to the landlord for that value.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472529 — net $995.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$270.00		Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$1,000.00		Window repairs
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$375.00		Repairs
Spa pool removal	$1,200.20		Spa pool removal
Spa pool value		$2,000.00	Spa pool value
Total award	$2,995.20	$2,000.00
Net award	$995.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$995.20

Claims and awards for application 5472529 — net $995.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $270.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Window repairs

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs

Amount: $375.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Spa pool removal

Amount: $1,200.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Spa pool removal

Spa pool value

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Archer Mchattie Limited T/A Ray White Property Management As The Agent For KRT Property Investments Ltd $995.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but there is a dispute between the parties in relation to various matters.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 26 October 2022. The landlord is KRT Property Investments Ltd by way of a property manager, Archer McHattie Ltd. The sole tenant is Ben Moorcock.
The tenancy was terminated by way of Tribunal order dated 10 October 2025 (Application 5343961). The termination was because of rent arrears. Possession was ordered to return to the landlord at 11:59pm that same day.

CLAIMS

At the hearing, Mr Archer confirmed the landlord’s claims are as follows: a. Carpet cleaning b. Rubbish removal c. Window replacement d. General cleaning e. Replacement / breakages f. Spa pool removal.
The tenants claim relates to a spa pool that the tenant considers has been seized by the landlord.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

Landlords claim 1 – Carpet cleaning

The landlord’s position is that the carpets were clean at the start of the tenancy, but dirty when the tenancy was returned. The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs of $390.00.
In response the tenant states that he did not get the full opportunity to clean the house in the circumstances of the eviction. Further the tenant’s position is that the carpet was in poor condition. Analysis
At the start of the tenancy the landlord must provide the tenancy reasonably clean, and at the end of the tenancy the tenancy must be returned also reasonably clean.
Overall, I am not persuaded this claim is proven. The tenant has accepted that he did not get an opportunity to complete all cleaning, and I will address this further below. But as far as the carpet is concerned, when I can consider the photographs provided, they do not in my assessment show carpet that is stained or dirty. I must conclude that this claim has not been proven, so the claim is declined. Landlords claim 2 – Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy, submitting the rubbish was the tenant's rubbish.
The tenant accepts that there were some goods left at the end of the tenancy such as beds in the shed or appliances, which Mr Moorcock says the landlord confirmed he would deal with. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the obligation is on the tenant to remove all belongings. Again I recognise the difficult circumstances that Mr Moorcock faced, but ultimately there were some items left on the premises. There is a difference of opinion as to whether these would represent rubbish or goods, but however they would be viewed, I accept that the landlord needed to deal with the items, and should be compensated for that. In this case the landlord has claimed three hours work, at $150.00, and tip fees at $120.00. This claim seems reasonable given the volume of items the landlord needed to address, and this claim must be ordered in full. Landlords claim 3 – Window replacement
The landlord claims the cost for repairing a cracked window. The tenant said that the crack occurred by a neighbour’s child was using a skateboard, but that was denied by the neighbours when the landlord spoke with them. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,095.98, which is the cost incurred for reglazing the window (invoice provided from Ziggys Glass).
The tenant states he emailed the landlord about this. The tenant said the damage occurred when one of the neighbour’s children was outside, and a skateboard flicked up, hitting and damaging the glass, which he witnessed. Analysis
With any compensation claim for damage, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
In this case, I accept the tenant’s evidence that the damage to the glass occurred from a skateboard flicking up, breaking the pane. I consider that it would represent careless damage. The tenant is liable for careless damage caused by them or some other person on the premises with the tenants consent, which seems the case here. The tenant is liable to the extent of the insurance excess, which is $1,000.00 as recorded on the tenancy agreement. The tenant is therefore liable for the reglazing cost to the sum of $1,000.00. Landlords claim 4 – General cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for general cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states at the end of the tenancy extensive cleaning was needed. The landlord claims $950.00 for their own time.
The tenant accepts that the premises were not returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, but considers that the amount of the claim is excessive. Analysis
Again this is a case where the tenant agrees that he did not manage to complete the work necessary before possession was returned to the landlord. The tenant agrees that some cleaning would have been required, but considers that the amount claimed by the landlord is simply excessive.
When I consider the photographs provided, my overall impression is that the premises were mostly clean and tidy. There were some goods left on the premises, and I have compensated the landlord for his time and dealing with those above. There were some surfaces which I accept were marked and grubby, which would fall short of meeting the requirement to return the premises reasonably clean. But beyond that, I consider the work necessary would be limited.
Taking into consideration my assessment of the photographs, it is reasonable to order compensation for three hours of the landlord’s work for cleaning only. I therefore order $150.00. Landlords claim 5 – Replacement / Breakages
The landlord seeks costs for various items that were broken, including a curtain rail and three light shades. Mr Archer notes that the claim is for supply of replacement items and installation; the amount claimed is $375.00.
The tenant agrees that these items were broken during the tenancy but disputes the sum of the claim. Analysis
The tenant agrees that the claimed items were broken during the tenancy, the dispute is over the amount of the claim. Overall, I do not consider the claim to be excessive. The claim included not only the cost to purchase the replacement items, but the landlord’s time in sourcing those, and installing them. The claim seems fair, and is ordered in full. Landlord and tenant claim 6 – Spa pool removal
Both parties have made claims in relation to the tenant’s spa pool that was left on the premises. It is sensible to deal with both claims together, given the significant overlap.
The landlord states that some 30 days after Mr Moorcock’s tenancy ended, they found a new tenant, and the tenant’s spa pool had not been removed. Six people needed to move it because of the size and weight. The spa pool was sold for $1,500.00.
The tenant disputes that there was any contact about moving the tenancy. The landlord was told the tenant had a truck lined up to remove the spa. Mr Moorcock notes that it was not his spa, but a friend’s. The tenant states that the truck had been lined up around 10 days following the end of the tenancy. The truck went around to uplift the spa and it was gone, and moved to the property manager’s daughter’s house.
The landlord disputes what the tenant says; Mr Archer states that the spa pool was there for 32 days, and then sold by word of mouth. Mr Archer agrees that he did get a call from the truck driver initially, but never heard from him again. Analysis
The RTA confirms that at the end of the tenancy, the obligation is on the tenant to remove their goods. When goods are left on the premises at the end of the tenancy, the landlord should make reasonable efforts to have the tenant collect the goods, but if the tenant fails to do so, then the landlord may dispose of the goods, which could include a sale of the item, with any amount obtained going toward any debt owing by the tenant.
This case, there is no dispute between the parties that the spa pool was left on the deck at the end of the tenancy.
There was a dispute over whether the tenant had made arrangements to collect the spa pool. The landlord’s position is that the pool was removed about 30 days after possession had returned to the landlord, before the next tenancy started. If that were the case, I would accept that the landlord’s actions were reasonable, and that the tenant would have had ample time to remove the spa pool.
The tenants position is that a truck went to the property before then, but the pool had gone. I have not received any evidence from the truck driver, or communications around that, to support what the tenant advised me at the hearing. On the other side of the ledger, there are emails from December 2025, where the property manager had indicated the spa pool had been on site for some 30 days without being picked up, and that would be consistent with what was advised to the Tribunal today by the landlord.
On the basis of the evidence available, I am not convinced that the landlord removed the Spark pool unreasonably, the evidence would tend to suggest that the spa pool was only removed some 30 days following the tenancy ending.
The landlord has claimed $1,200.20 for emptying and removing the spa pool which required six people to move and place onto a trailer for removal. The claim includes trailer hire, mileage, and storage of the spa pool. I have no reason to consider that claim to be unreasonable.
In terms of the sale price of the spa pool, the landlord states that the spa pool was sold for a price of $1,500.00, which he considers to be a reasonable market rate for that item.
The tenant disagrees and considers that the spa pool is of a higher value.
In terms of the value of the Spa pool, neither party has provided me with an independent assessment of value. However, I am not persuaded that the value of the spa pool would be $1,500.00. That would not be consistent with my perusal of second-hand spa pool costs from TradeMe, and it would also not be consistent with the AI-generated costing from the landlord, which indicates the market value generally between $1,500 and $3,500 for a second-hand spa pool of that type.
I have determined that the price to be applied should be $2,000. In reaching that price, I note an email from the tenant on 15 October 2025, where he offered to sell the pool to the landlord for that value.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472529 — Property damage at 105A Pownall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472529 — Property damage at 105A Pownall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions