What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5499769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Magnus [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited (as

How much money was awarded in case 5499769?

Bedroom: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $249.50 awarded to landlord; Missing Items: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5499769?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5499769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14100890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5499769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Magnus [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited (as

How much money was awarded in case 5499769?

Bedroom: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $249.50 awarded to landlord; Missing Items: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5499769?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5499769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14100890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Alexandra Lane, Mangawhai 0975 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5499769 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5499769 — net $1,249.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Kitchen	$249.50	Kitchen
Bedroom	$500.00	Bedroom
Missing items	$500.00	Missing items
Net award	$1,249.50
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,249.50

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Magnus [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited (as agent for Maidavale Management Ltd, trustee of the E B Sundstrum family trust) $1,249.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (BN-17446772) immediately apportioned as follows: Mackys Real Estate Limited: $1,249.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Magnus [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $3,150.50

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 23 March 2024 and ended on 12 April 2026.
The tenants seek the bond after the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation for damaged or missing chattels as set out in more detail below.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 21 August 2026. Ms Burkinshaw represented the landlord at the hearing. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Landlord’s claim
The landlord’s claim seeks $4,250.00, being seven insurance excesses (4 x $500 and 3 x $750) as follows: Kitchen
Ms Burkinshaw said that: a. There was a 32” Panasonic TV mounted on the wall at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the TV was found in the shed with damage to the screen. b. The fridge had a crack in the interior lining.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] said that: a. He moved the TV from the kitchen (and the TV from the bedroom, and other furniture that he did not need) into the shed. The shed was an area Description DetailsExcess KitchenDamaged Panasonic TV$500.00 Damaged fridge Bedroom 1Damaged Panasonic TV$500.00 Damaged wooden table Large rug damaged and stained Bedroom 2Bed base and mattress damaged$500.00 Missing itemsBedside drawers, lamps, pots, cushions$500.00 CarpetCarpet replacement master bedroom$750.00 Carpet replacement hallway$750.00 Carpet replacement bedroom$750.00 reserved for the owner’s use and was accessed by various people during the tenancy, such as the gardener. b. He did not notice any crack on the inside the fridge during the tenancy.
In any claim for damage, the landlord must prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. If the landlord proves that, then the tenant is liable unless the tenant can prove that the damage was not caused by them or by anyone who was at the premises without their consent. 1
In this instance: a. Mackys’ photographs show that the TV was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. b. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] chose to remove the TV from the kitchen and put it into the shed, which the landlord and the landlord’s contractors could access without needing to give him notice. The shed is specifically excluded from the premises in the tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] cannot argue that the damage was caused by someone who entered the premises without his consent. c. I have no information about how the damage occurred, and neither does the landlord. It is very strange that this TV, and the TV from the bedroom, both suffered seemingly identical types of screen damage whilst in storage in the shed. However, the landlord does not have to prove how the damage occurred, only that it occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. d. My finding is that the landlord has established this in respect of the TV. e. The replacement value of the TV per the insurer’s schedule is $499.00. I accept that figure. I note that the insurer has settled this (and all the other) claims on replacement cost basis, even though the items were not new. This includes settlement on the fridge / freezer at a replacement value of $4,199.00, even though the fridge was 5 years old when the damage was discovered. In terms of the tenant’ liability to the landlord for replacement chattels, depreciation must apply. f. The TV was approximately three years old. I will apply deprecation of 50% to the new replacement cost.
In terms of the fridge / freezer, there is no evidence of the condition of the interior of the fridge at the start of the tenancy.
There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the damage happened during the tenancy, and this part of the claim must be dismissed. 1 Section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The proven claim in respect of the kitchen is $249.50. Bedroom 1
This claim includes the other TV (discussed above), and a wooden table. It also also includes a large rug, although the rug in question was not located in this bedroom during the tenancy but in the “snug” / TV room.
The exact same considerations apply to the claim for this TV as the kitchen TV discussed above. This TV has a replacement value of $699.00 and was also three years old.
The wooden table claim is also very similar. It was in this room at the start of the tenancy and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] moved it to the shed. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] said that he did not recall seeing any damage to it at that time. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered it with one leg broken off (the leg was found on a shelf in the shed) and another leg damaged.
Again, the damage is mysterious but for the reasons set out above my finding is that the tenant is legally liable.
The tenant’s proven liability for the TV and table exceeds the $500.00 claimed. Therefore it is not necessary for me to address the claim for the rug. The claim for $500.00 is proven. Bedroom 2
Ms Burkinshaw said that there was damage to the top of the mattress (rips) and to the bed base (holes in the fabric top of the base, Ms Burkinshaw noted that children’s toys were found inside the base).
At the beginning of the tenancy the beds had mattress protectors over them. These were found inside the house, but not on the beds, at the end of the tenancy.
The entry photographs show the bed with the mattress cover on (so the mattress surface is not visible) and the sides of the bed base. The top of the bed base is only visible when the mattress is moved. Understandably, there are no entry photographs showing the top of the bed base.
The landlord has the burden of proof.
My finding is that the evidence available to me does not establish the pre- tenancy condition of the top of the mattress or the top of the bed base. Therefore it is not proven that the damage happened during this tenancy. Missing items
Mr & [The tenant/s] tenant/s] engaged movers to help them with re-locating after the end of the tenancy.
The movers inadvertently packed up some of the landlord’s chattels including bedside tables, lamps, and various pots and pans.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] said that he had no intention of taking these items and no intention to retain them. When they arrived at his new property, he instructed the moving company to deliver them back to Mangawhai.
Mr & [The tenant/s] tenant/s] then got entangled in a dispute with the moving company about the amount that they had invoiced for the move. It seems that this dispute has resulted in the chattels not being returned to Managawhai. They are still in the possession of the moving company who (I understanding them) are holding them under some kind of lien until they are paid for the move.
This was an unfortunate sequence of events, and I entirely accept that Mr & [The tenant/s] tenant/s] did not steal the chattels.
However, the landlord’s chattels are part of the tenanted premises. They must remain in the premises at the end of the tenancy. It is now more than four months since the end of the tenancy. I understand that the premises were sold after the end of this tenancy. The missing chattels are effectively lost to the landlord, and the landlord is entitled to compensation.
I am satisfied that the depreciated value of the missing items exceeds $500.00 in total. The claim is proven. Carpet
The claim seeks replacement of the carpet in the master bedroom, hallway, and another bedroom.
Ms Burkinshaw provided entry condition photographs. The photographs show the relevant rooms, but the premises were furnished and many areas (such as the hallway) had large rugs over the carpet.
The exit condition evidence consists of three photographs. One shows the hall, with the mat lifted. The others show particular areas in the bedrooms, where the imprint marks from furniture are clearly visible.
There is simply not enough ‘before and after’ evidence to prove the claim for replacement of carpet in the hall and two bedrooms. I do not know whether the stains shown in the three ‘after’ photographs were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee, bond
The landlord will receive $1,249.50 from the bond, calculated per the table above. The balance of the bond will be paid to the tenants.
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. Each party must bear their own cost of the filing fee.
The tenants sought name suppression. The Tribunal must award name suppression upon application to any party who was “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 2 In this instance both parties were partially successful, and it is not the case that the tenants were substantially successful. There are no special considerations that justify the Tribunal using its discretionary power to grant name suppression to any party. 3 Therefore, I will not make an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5499769 — net $1,249.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Kitchen	$249.50	Kitchen
Bedroom	$500.00	Bedroom
Missing items	$500.00	Missing items
Net award	$1,249.50
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,249.50

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Magnus [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited (as agent for Maidavale Management Ltd, trustee of the E B Sundstrum family trust) $1,249.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (BN-17446772) immediately apportioned as follows: Mackys Real Estate Limited: $1,249.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Magnus [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $3,150.50

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 23 March 2024 and ended on 12 April 2026.
The tenants seek the bond after the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation for damaged or missing chattels as set out in more detail below.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 21 August 2026. Ms Burkinshaw represented the landlord at the hearing. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Landlord’s claim
The landlord’s claim seeks $4,250.00, being seven insurance excesses (4 x $500 and 3 x $750) as follows: Kitchen
Ms Burkinshaw said that: a. There was a 32” Panasonic TV mounted on the wall at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the TV was found in the shed with damage to the screen. b. The fridge had a crack in the interior lining.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] said that: a. He moved the TV from the kitchen (and the TV from the bedroom, and other furniture that he did not need) into the shed. The shed was an area Description DetailsExcess KitchenDamaged Panasonic TV$500.00 Damaged fridge Bedroom 1Damaged Panasonic TV$500.00 Damaged wooden table Large rug damaged and stained Bedroom 2Bed base and mattress damaged$500.00 Missing itemsBedside drawers, lamps, pots, cushions$500.00 CarpetCarpet replacement master bedroom$750.00 Carpet replacement hallway$750.00 Carpet replacement bedroom$750.00 reserved for the owner’s use and was accessed by various people during the tenancy, such as the gardener. b. He did not notice any crack on the inside the fridge during the tenancy.
In any claim for damage, the landlord must prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. If the landlord proves that, then the tenant is liable unless the tenant can prove that the damage was not caused by them or by anyone who was at the premises without their consent. 1
In this instance: a. Mackys’ photographs show that the TV was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. b. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] chose to remove the TV from the kitchen and put it into the shed, which the landlord and the landlord’s contractors could access without needing to give him notice. The shed is specifically excluded from the premises in the tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] cannot argue that the damage was caused by someone who entered the premises without his consent. c. I have no information about how the damage occurred, and neither does the landlord. It is very strange that this TV, and the TV from the bedroom, both suffered seemingly identical types of screen damage whilst in storage in the shed. However, the landlord does not have to prove how the damage occurred, only that it occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. d. My finding is that the landlord has established this in respect of the TV. e. The replacement value of the TV per the insurer’s schedule is $499.00. I accept that figure. I note that the insurer has settled this (and all the other) claims on replacement cost basis, even though the items were not new. This includes settlement on the fridge / freezer at a replacement value of $4,199.00, even though the fridge was 5 years old when the damage was discovered. In terms of the tenant’ liability to the landlord for replacement chattels, depreciation must apply. f. The TV was approximately three years old. I will apply deprecation of 50% to the new replacement cost.
In terms of the fridge / freezer, there is no evidence of the condition of the interior of the fridge at the start of the tenancy.
There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the damage happened during the tenancy, and this part of the claim must be dismissed. 1 Section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The proven claim in respect of the kitchen is $249.50. Bedroom 1
This claim includes the other TV (discussed above), and a wooden table. It also also includes a large rug, although the rug in question was not located in this bedroom during the tenancy but in the “snug” / TV room.
The exact same considerations apply to the claim for this TV as the kitchen TV discussed above. This TV has a replacement value of $699.00 and was also three years old.
The wooden table claim is also very similar. It was in this room at the start of the tenancy and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] moved it to the shed. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] said that he did not recall seeing any damage to it at that time. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered it with one leg broken off (the leg was found on a shelf in the shed) and another leg damaged.
Again, the damage is mysterious but for the reasons set out above my finding is that the tenant is legally liable.
The tenant’s proven liability for the TV and table exceeds the $500.00 claimed. Therefore it is not necessary for me to address the claim for the rug. The claim for $500.00 is proven. Bedroom 2
Ms Burkinshaw said that there was damage to the top of the mattress (rips) and to the bed base (holes in the fabric top of the base, Ms Burkinshaw noted that children’s toys were found inside the base).
At the beginning of the tenancy the beds had mattress protectors over them. These were found inside the house, but not on the beds, at the end of the tenancy.
The entry photographs show the bed with the mattress cover on (so the mattress surface is not visible) and the sides of the bed base. The top of the bed base is only visible when the mattress is moved. Understandably, there are no entry photographs showing the top of the bed base.
The landlord has the burden of proof.
My finding is that the evidence available to me does not establish the pre- tenancy condition of the top of the mattress or the top of the bed base. Therefore it is not proven that the damage happened during this tenancy. Missing items
Mr & [The tenant/s] tenant/s] engaged movers to help them with re-locating after the end of the tenancy.
The movers inadvertently packed up some of the landlord’s chattels including bedside tables, lamps, and various pots and pans.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] said that he had no intention of taking these items and no intention to retain them. When they arrived at his new property, he instructed the moving company to deliver them back to Mangawhai.
Mr & [The tenant/s] tenant/s] then got entangled in a dispute with the moving company about the amount that they had invoiced for the move. It seems that this dispute has resulted in the chattels not being returned to Managawhai. They are still in the possession of the moving company who (I understanding them) are holding them under some kind of lien until they are paid for the move.
This was an unfortunate sequence of events, and I entirely accept that Mr & [The tenant/s] tenant/s] did not steal the chattels.
However, the landlord’s chattels are part of the tenanted premises. They must remain in the premises at the end of the tenancy. It is now more than four months since the end of the tenancy. I understand that the premises were sold after the end of this tenancy. The missing chattels are effectively lost to the landlord, and the landlord is entitled to compensation.
I am satisfied that the depreciated value of the missing items exceeds $500.00 in total. The claim is proven. Carpet
The claim seeks replacement of the carpet in the master bedroom, hallway, and another bedroom.
Ms Burkinshaw provided entry condition photographs. The photographs show the relevant rooms, but the premises were furnished and many areas (such as the hallway) had large rugs over the carpet.
The exit condition evidence consists of three photographs. One shows the hall, with the mat lifted. The others show particular areas in the bedrooms, where the imprint marks from furniture are clearly visible.
There is simply not enough ‘before and after’ evidence to prove the claim for replacement of carpet in the hall and two bedrooms. I do not know whether the stains shown in the three ‘after’ photographs were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee, bond
The landlord will receive $1,249.50 from the bond, calculated per the table above. The balance of the bond will be paid to the tenants.
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. Each party must bear their own cost of the filing fee.
The tenants sought name suppression. The Tribunal must award name suppression upon application to any party who was “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 2 In this instance both parties were partially successful, and it is not the case that the tenants were substantially successful. There are no special considerations that justify the Tribunal using its discretionary power to grant name suppression to any party. 3 Therefore, I will not make an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5499769 — Tenancy dispute at 53 Alexandra Lane, Mangawhai 0975

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5499769 — Tenancy dispute at 53 Alexandra Lane, Mangawhai 0975

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.