How much money was awarded in case 5514730?

Cleaning: $1,058.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5475990 D…: $3,598.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $599.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $485.30 awarded to landlord; Rangehood: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors And Electrical Fittings: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Lounge Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $448.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514730?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13895129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5514730?

Cleaning: $1,058.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5475990 D…: $3,598.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $599.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $485.30 awarded to landlord; Rangehood: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors And Electrical Fittings: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Lounge Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $448.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514730?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13895129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

78 Ferguson Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5514730 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514730 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514730 — net $7,409.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5475990 dated 29/04/2026	$3,598.00	Previous order application 5475990 dated 29/04/2026
Lock/key replacement	$599.52	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$448.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$782.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$485.30	Window repairs
Repairs: walls, doors and electrical fittings	$750.00	Repairs: walls, doors and electrical fittings
Repairs: rangehood	$620.00	Repairs: rangehood
Carpet Cleaning: and repairs	$1,058.00	Carpet Cleaning: and repairs
Replace furnishings: lounge carpet	$500.00	Replace furnishings: lounge carpet
Replace furnishings: kitchen vinyl	$500.00	Replace furnishings: kitchen vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,409.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,409.32

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7,409.32 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5475990 dated 29/04/2026 $3,598.00 Lock/key replacement$599.52 Rubbish removal$448.50 Cleaning$782.00 Window repairs$485.30 Repairs: walls, doors and electrical fittings$750.00 Repairs: rangehood$620.00 Carpet Cleaning: and repairs$1,058.00 Replace furnishings: lounge carpet$500.00 Replace furnishings: kitchen vinyl$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$9,369.32 Bond$1,960.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,409.32

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence showed that the tenant took what he wanted, left anything else behind and made no attempt to clean. The tenant did not return the keys.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord provided photographic evidence, together with a specialist carpet report that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The front door glass and the lounge window were broken. b. In the front bedroom the door was cracked on one side with a hole on the other side. There were screw holes in the walls, curtains had been torn off their tracks, a power point was broken, the Chorus box torn off the wall and a light switch was broken. c. In the hallway there was a hole in the wall and the manhole cover was missing. The carpet required cleaning because of staining. d. In the lounge shelves had been removed, there was a hole in the door, gouge and knife marks in the walls. The carpet had numerous burn holes which appeared to be from discarded cigarettes. The damage was too widespread to be repaired and the carpet required replacement. e. In the bathroom the door handle had been ripped off, a window stay had been forcibly broken and there was a punch hole in the wall. f. In the kitchen a power point was detached from the wall, there was an impact hole in the wall, a cupboard handle was broken off and the rangehood had been broken beyond repair by a fire. The vinyl in front of the stove was damaged beyond repair. g. The carpets in two bedrooms and the hallway were badly soiled and had burn holes. These could be cleaned and patched.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its extent and nature, it is reasonable to determine that the damage was intentional. The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account 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 taken into account the estimated age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Given its estimated age, the lounge carpet had only a residual utility value.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514730 — net $7,409.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5475990 dated 29/04/2026	$3,598.00	Previous order application 5475990 dated 29/04/2026
Lock/key replacement	$599.52	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$448.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$782.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$485.30	Window repairs
Repairs: walls, doors and electrical fittings	$750.00	Repairs: walls, doors and electrical fittings
Repairs: rangehood	$620.00	Repairs: rangehood
Carpet Cleaning: and repairs	$1,058.00	Carpet Cleaning: and repairs
Replace furnishings: lounge carpet	$500.00	Replace furnishings: lounge carpet
Replace furnishings: kitchen vinyl	$500.00	Replace furnishings: kitchen vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,409.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,409.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7,409.32 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5475990 dated 29/04/2026 $3,598.00 Lock/key replacement$599.52 Rubbish removal$448.50 Cleaning$782.00 Window repairs$485.30 Repairs: walls, doors and electrical fittings$750.00 Repairs: rangehood$620.00 Carpet Cleaning: and repairs$1,058.00 Replace furnishings: lounge carpet$500.00 Replace furnishings: kitchen vinyl$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$9,369.32 Bond$1,960.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,409.32

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence showed that the tenant took what he wanted, left anything else behind and made no attempt to clean. The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographic evidence, together with a specialist carpet report that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The front door glass and the lounge window were broken. b. In the front bedroom the door was cracked on one side with a hole on the other side. There were screw holes in the walls, curtains had been torn off their tracks, a power point was broken, the Chorus box torn off the wall and a light switch was broken. c. In the hallway there was a hole in the wall and the manhole cover was missing. The carpet required cleaning because of staining. d. In the lounge shelves had been removed, there was a hole in the door, gouge and knife marks in the walls. The carpet had numerous burn holes which appeared to be from discarded cigarettes. The damage was too widespread to be repaired and the carpet required replacement. e. In the bathroom the door handle had been ripped off, a window stay had been forcibly broken and there was a punch hole in the wall. f. In the kitchen a power point was detached from the wall, there was an impact hole in the wall, a cupboard handle was broken off and the rangehood had been broken beyond repair by a fire. The vinyl in front of the stove was damaged beyond repair. g. The carpets in two bedrooms and the hallway were badly soiled and had burn holes. These could be cleaned and patched.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its extent and nature, it is reasonable to determine that the damage was intentional. The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 taken into account the estimated age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Given its estimated age, the lounge carpet had only a residual utility value.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514730 — Property damage at 78 Ferguson Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514730 — Property damage at 78 Ferguson Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions