Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5517229 — Rent arrears at 7 Kotuku Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204
Decided 6 Aug 2026 · Published 6 Aug 2026 · Application 5517229
- Rent arrears
- Smoke alarms
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as The Agent for Jinyan Cao $ 2,425.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Ms Liang appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. There is a note on the file dated 07 July 2026 from the tenant, suggesting that the landlord was barred from making, and the Tribunal was unable to consider, the claims. No further explanation has been provided. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served notice of the hearing, and the matter has proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord’s claims are as follows: i. Failure to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish ($630.00), ii. Failure to leave the lawns and gardens reasonably tidy ($100.00), iii. Break lease advertising costs ($228.85), iv. Key callout costs ($97.75), v. Failure to return the keys ($250.00), vi. Blocked drain ($681.25), vii. Damage ($632.50).
- In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought. The bond has already been refunded to the landlord. Rent and advertising costs.
- The tenancy commenced on 05 October 2025 and was for a fixed term ending 05 October 2026. On 09 April 2026, the tenant advised the landlord that they wished to break their agreement and end the tenancy. The landlord agreed, citing the standard terms that the tenant remain liable for rent until a new tenant was found and advertising costs. The tenant agreed, stating that any rent and costs could be deducted from the bond. The property was advertised, and viewings conducted. However, the property was not re-let, and on 12 May 2026, the landlord advised the tenant they would release them from the agreement. The parties agreed that the tenant would vacate the property on 15 May 2026.
- The landlord has provided an up-to-date rent summary and an invoice for advertising costs.
- Under a fixed term agreement, the tenant is liable for rent until the end of the fixed term, when they are released from the agreement by the landlord, or the landlord enters into a new tenancy. In this case, the tenant was released on 15 May 2026. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for rent to that date and the advertising costs claimed. The amounts claimed are reasonable and awarded.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish. The landlord also claims that the tenant failed to leave the lawns and gardens reasonably tidy. The landlord also claims that two smoke alarms in the hallway were missing.
- The tenant was provided with keys at the commencement of the tenancy. A photograph of the keys is included in the pre-tenancy inspection report. The landlord states that on or about 10 December 2025, the tenant reported that they had lost their keys. The tenant was unable to attend the landlord’s office, so a property manager delivered the keys.
- On or about 30 December 2025, the tenant again reported that they had lost their keys. As it was the holiday break, and the landlord’s office was not staffed, arrangements were made for a property manager to travel to the office, and for the tenant to collect the landlord’s set of keys.
- The tenant was given the spare set on the understanding that they would have a new set cut and then return the spare set to the landlord. The landlord states that the spare set was not returned. The landlord also states that at the end of the tenancy, no keys were returned, and the main lock had been damaged. The landlord is claiming the cost of a property manager travelling to the tenant’s property to deliver the keys, travelling to the office, and rekeying the locks at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord has provided a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection report, both of which include photographs.
- The property was built in the 1950s and consists of three bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, a lounge / dining room, and a small garden shed. Law
- 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 (Act).
- The provision does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or immaculate condition.
- The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific method to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the available evidence, including inspection reports and photographs.
- Provided that the property was in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it should be returned in the same condition.
- Subject to fair wear and tear, chattels should be returned in a reasonable condition. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. Surfaces throughout the property have not been wiped down, and the carpet has not been vacuumed. There is household rubbish in the general waste and each of the recycling bins, there is other household rubbish left inside and around the exterior of the property, including inside the small garden shed.
- The end of tenancy photographs show that the lawns and gardens are overgrown.
- Two smoke alarms located in the hallway at the commencement of the tenancy are missing.
- he light bulb in the entry is missing, and the bulb in the lounge is blown. I am awarding the landlord compensation for the missing bulb only, and not for the blown bulb, as although it has ceased working, I cannot rule out fair wear and tear. In this case, I am reducing the amount claimed to replace the bulbs by $5.00.
- The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is, a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
- The keys provided to the tenant are, for the purposes of the Act, deemed chattels, and should be returned at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are also liable for reasonable costs associated with replacing missing keys during a tenancy. In this case I am satisfied that the travelling costs flow naturally from the breach and are a reasonable claim.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage that is more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord has provided photographs showing damage to a windowsill, two internal doors, bedroom, and bathroom, and 6 discrete areas of damage to walls.
- The landlord has provided a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection report, both of which include photographs.
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for a drain blocked by wet wipes.
- On 03 December 2025, the tenant reported that the drains had become blocked. A plumber who visited the property discovered that the drainage system had been blocked by wet wipes. The use of a specialist drain clearing tool was required. On the same day, the landlord advised the tenant that the drainage system had been operating without issue, and that as wet wipes had caused the blockage, the tenant would be held responsible for the plumber’s cost.
- The landlord stated that the tenant resided at the property with their four young children, one of whom was a newborn. The landlord states that the previous tenants were a mature male and their adult son, that there were no children, and it was unlikely that they used wet wipes. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant must, to avoid liability, prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness, the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
- Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may result in the tenant being liable for any subsequent damage.
- The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, as well as their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
- The mesh screen part of the fly screen at the front door is missing. The windowsill has what appears to be tooth marks, consistent with having been chewed by a dog. The landlord stated that during the tenancy, a dog was kept at the property without the landlord’s consent. There are areas of discrete damage to the walls, consistent with scratching by an animal. There are also small dents and holes, wallpaper tears caused by removing adhesive hooks, and some children’s drawings. There is a small section of veneer missing from one of the bedroom doors, and the inside of the bathroom door appears to have been scratched by an animal.
- The pre-tenancy inspection report shows that at the commencement of the tenancy, the property was showing signs of fair wear and tear, including some damage consistent with its age.
- In this case, I am satisfied that the damage is over and above that recorded in the pre-tenancy checklist, has occurred during the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear, some of it likely having been caused by an animal kept by the tenant. In my view, the damage is likely the result of carelessness.
- The landlord has insurance for damage caused by tenants, with an excess of $1,100.00 per claim. The total amount claimed is less than the total excesses that would have applied had the landlord made a claim. The amount claimed to repair the damage is reasonable. Only the damaged areas were repaired, and there has been no betterment. The invoice provided includes the missing smoke alarms and light bulb.
- In their email to the tenant concerning the drainage blockage, the landlord states: “We are not entirely sure whether it was baby wipes or other types of wipes, but it was found causing the blockage to the sewage......” The plumber’s invoice reports: “Baby wipes wrapped around the head of the jet likely causing the blockage.”
- There are no photographs of the material concerned. I am unable to make an objective assessment. Although “wipes” and “baby wipes” are often used interchangeably, there can be differences in the composition, thickness, and construction of baby wipes compared with wet wipes intended for other purposes.
- In this case, although it is unlikely that the previous tenants used baby wet wipes, I cannot rule out that they may have used other types of wipes which may have contributed to the blockage. On balance, I am therefore not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the plumber’s cost. The claim relating to the blocked drainage is dismissed. Costs
- As the landlord has been substantially successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
- Although the landlord is entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it, and no orders are made.