How much money was awarded in case 5484300?

Cleaning: $167.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Table: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484300?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14086191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5484300?

Cleaning: $167.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Table: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484300?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14086191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

92 Wynyard Crescent, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484300 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484300 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Queenstown Property Management Limited

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484300 — net $3,695.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$167.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Table	$500.00	Repairs: Table
Repairs: Carpet	$3,000.00	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,695.00
Bond	$5,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,695.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Queenstown Property Management Limited $3,695.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,600.00 (BN-00048050) immediately apportioned as follows: Queenstown Property Management Limited: $3,695.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,905.00

The Landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that carpet was stained/soiled at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and a receipt to prove the carpet cleaning claim.

A dining table provided with the premises was also heavily stained/marked by liquids and/or heat. The tenant claimed that it protected the table, and the marking was normal wear and tear. It was not. The landlord referred to photographs provided by the tenant which showed that the table was not reasonably protected at mealtimes. The cost of resurfacing the table is $575. The landlord sought a reasonable contribution to the cost. I award $500.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Four areas of carpet were damaged by attempts at stain removal. It appears that the heavy staining was rubbed vigorously which has led to pile damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. At the hearing the tenant suggested that the Tribunal should request an objective report. The landlord provided two reports, including from an independent loss adjuster. I am entitled to reply on that evidence.

The landlord also provided photographs and communications with its insurer to prove the claim for four insurance excesses. I award the amount claimed.

As the landlord has succeeded with these aspects of its claim, I also award it reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Exemplary Damages

The landlord claimed $1,500 in exemplary damages for the tenant allegedly renting rooms in the premises on Air BnB.

The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA. Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA.

In this case, the landlord claims that the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.

In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The premises comprised a family home with a self-contained unit on the lower level. The tenancy agreement had a clause regarding sub-letting which included the following, the tenant shall not without prior written consent...: “3. Rent out the Property, or part thereof, on a short-term or daily basis or for the third parties' holiday purposes for financial reward....

Permit any person to holiday in the Tenancy Property for financial reward when that person has not been approved by the Property Manager or Landlord.

Rent out the Tenancy Property or any portion of the tenancy Property when the Tenant is not personally present to supervise the security of the Property and behaviour of the occupants.”

The property manager provided evidence of the premises being advertised on Air BnB early in the tenancy and reviews being loaded. A neighbour complained to the Queenstown Lakes District Council because the premises do not have approval for use for holiday purposes. The Council contacted the owner overseas regarding the complaint and the property manager says that the owner was distressed by the call.

The tenancy stated in April 2025. There is evidence of part of the premises being used for holiday rental purposes during that month. The landlord asked the tenants to stop renting part of the premises for holiday rental purposes. The tenants agreed to remove advertising and cancel bookings. There is no other evidence to support a conclusion that the tenants continued to provide holiday rentals after that time. There is one other complaint recorded from the neighbour in late 2025, of a vehicle arriving late at night. One late evening arrival is not evidence of a holiday rental. There is no evidence of repeated complaints by the neighbour, or corroborative evidence of turnover of vehicles, sightings of visitors or the like. The property manager says that there was evidence of changing personal items in the bedrooms at inspections throughout the tenancy, but if there was, the landlord did not address any concerns with the tenant at the time.

In my view, the evidence establishes that the tenants let rooms for holiday purposes during the first few weeks of the tenancy and stopped when they were asked to do so. I also find that they remained in occupation of the premises for the duration of the tenancy and that the primary purpose of the premises was as a family home for the tenants.

The landlord claims that exemplary damages are available by virtue of clause 30 of the Tenancy Agreement and s56 RTA. As noted above, exemplary damages are only available where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. Section 56 relates to termination for breaches of tenant obligations. It is not relevant to the current application.

The provision which may allow a landlord to claim exemplary damages is s44 RTA. Section 44 sets out when and how a tenant can sublet or part with possession, the need for landlord consent, and the consequences if these rules are not followed. It also protects tenants from unreasonable or discriminatory refusal by landlords.

I must first consider whether renting a room or two for holiday purposes is “sub- letting” or “parting with possession”. Sub-letting or parting with possession refers to situations where a tenant allows another person to occupy the rental premises, either by creating a new tenancy (sub-letting) or by otherwise giving up possession of the premises to someone else. In my view, that does not include a situation where the tenant has the occasional guest rent an Air BnB room. The landlord has not established that the tenant has committed an unlawful act by renting rooms on Air BnB. The situation would quite likely be different if the tenant had not remained in occupation throughout the tenancy.

Even if the tenant had committed an unlawful act, I would have declined to award exemplary damages. The evidence is consistent with the tenant removing the listing and cancelling bookings as soon as it was aware that the landlord did not consent to holiday bookings. There is no clear or compelling evidence of holiday rentals after May 2025.

This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484300 — net $3,695.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$167.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Table	$500.00	Repairs: Table
Repairs: Carpet	$3,000.00	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,695.00
Bond	$5,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,695.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Queenstown Property Management Limited $3,695.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord also provided photographs and communications with its insurer to prove the claim for four insurance excesses. I award the amount claimed.

As the landlord has succeeded with these aspects of its claim, I also award it reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Exemplary Damages

The landlord claimed $1,500 in exemplary damages for the tenant allegedly renting rooms in the premises on Air BnB.

In this case, the landlord claims that the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Permit any person to holiday in the Tenancy Property for financial reward when that person has not been approved by the Property Manager or Landlord.

Rent out the Tenancy Property or any portion of the tenancy Property when the Tenant is not personally present to supervise the security of the Property and behaviour of the occupants.”

This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484300 — Property damage at 92 Wynyard Crescent, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484300 — Property damage at 92 Wynyard Crescent, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.