What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5038088?

The tribunal order states: Nga Mihirangi Stacie Haimona-Pairama must pay Berrymans Property

How much money was awarded in case 5038088?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Mould Killer And Painting Materials: $91.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $409.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,081.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $32.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $99.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5038088?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11166247-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5038088?

The tribunal order states: Nga Mihirangi Stacie Haimona-Pairama must pay Berrymans Property

How much money was awarded in case 5038088?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Mould Killer And Painting Materials: $91.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $409.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,081.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $32.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $99.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5038088?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11166247-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Harold Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5038088 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

2 Harold Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5038088 — 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 5038088 — net $2,958.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$409.00	Lock/key replacement
Garage door replacement	$1,081.00	Garage door replacement
Smoke alarm replacement	$99.95	Smoke alarm replacement
Net curtain replacement	$57.47	Net curtain replacement
Replacement heatpump remote	$39.90	Replacement heatpump remote
Mould killer and painting materials	$91.90	Mould killer and painting materials
Light fitting replacement	$44.44	Light fitting replacement
Bulb replacement	$32.55	Bulb replacement
Door damage internal	$672.75	Door damage internal
Carpet cleaning and door painting	$402.50	Carpet cleaning and door painting
Rent compensation	$2,600.00	Rent compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,958.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,958.46

Claims and awards for application 5038088 — net $2,958.46 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $409.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Garage door replacement

Amount: $1,081.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garage door replacement

Smoke alarm replacement

Amount: $99.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Smoke alarm replacement

Net curtain replacement

Amount: $57.47
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Net curtain replacement

Replacement heatpump remote

Amount: $39.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement heatpump remote

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Nga Mihirangi Stacie Haimona-Pairama must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited as agent for Pretti & Hiren Shah $2,958.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6392435-007) to Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited as agent for Pretti & Hiren Shah immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$409.00 Garage door replacement$1,081.00 Smoke alarm replacement$99.95 Net curtain replacement$57.47 Replacement heatpump remote$39.90 Mould killer and painting materials$91.90 Light fitting replacement$44.44 Bulb replacement$32.55 Door damage internal$672.75 Carpet cleaning and door painting$402.50 Rent compensation$2,600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$5,558.46 Minus bond- $2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,958.46

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 20 December 2023. The landlord is Pretti and Hiren Shah by way of a property manager, Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited. The sole tenant is Nga Nihirangi Stacie Haimona-Pairama.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy due to end in 2025, but it was ended on 31 August by consent of the parties.
The landlord states that the tenant did not attend the final inspection, and the landlord has been unable to contact the tenant.
The landlord filed this application with the Tribunal. A mediation was scheduled, but again the tenant did not engage in that process. The matter was scheduled for a hearing today, on 4 December 2024, but again there was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied the tenant has been notified of the hearing so I will proceed to consider this matter in her absence.

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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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. Cleaning obligations at end of tenancy
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. Compensation
With any compensation claim, 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. 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.
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.
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 a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Chattels
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. Lock replacement
Section 40 of the RTA again sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

I will not consider the claims presented by the landlord. Lock replacement
The landlord states that when possession was to return to the landlord, the tenant did not show on site and could not be contacted. The keys were not returned so a locksmith was called to gain entry and to change the locks, the invoiced amount is $409.00. As above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant needed to return all keys, and did not do so, therefore the landlord is entitled to be compensated for lock and key replacement. Garage side door
The landlord has claimed damage to a side door in the garage, which the landlord understands was damaged during a scuffle between the tenant’s partner and police. Tenants are liable for damage caused by people on the premises with the permission of the tenant, which I assume would have been the situation for the partner. The damage is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proven the damage was not careless or intentional damage. I accept the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The quote for the repair (replacement of the door) is $1,081.00. I find the tenant is liable for this damage in full. Smoke alarms
The landlord states that there were five smoke alarms in the tenancy at the start of the tenancy, as supported in the tenancy agreement. At the end of the tenancy, four alarms were missing and needed to be replaced, which cost the landlord $99.95. The tenant needed to return all chattels at the end of the tenancy, and failing to do so makes the tenant liable for the replacement cost. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Net curtains
The landlord has claimed replacement costs for net curtains which were ripped (as supported in the photographs), and mouldy. The landlord confirmed the curtains were not torn or mouldy when the tenancy started.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is established, and the tenant ordered to pay the replacement cost of $57.47. Heat pump remote control
The landlord states that the remote control for the heat pump was missing at the end of the tenancy. Again the tenant must return chattels provided by the landlord – like remote controls. The replacement cost was $39.90, and the tenant is liable for that replacement cost. Mould killer and painting materials
The landlord seeks costs for mould killer and painting materials to the sum of $91.10. The landlord’s position is that the window sills were in good condition at the start of the tenancy, and at the end of the tenancy were extensively marked and probably damaged from mould. The landlord purchased mould killer and paint to remedy the situation, and did the work themselves. The landlord only seeks the materials cost.
The RTA requires that the tenant keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I am satisfied that the tenant did not achieve that with the window sills. I accept that the work undertaken by the landlord was proportional to the damage or state of the windowsills, and reasonably necessary to resolve the issue. This claim is ordered in full. Light fittings
The evidence is that there were two light fittings damaged during the tenancy, that was for a wall light and a ceiling light shade. The photographs support that this damage occurred during the tenancy. It is certainly not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The tenant is liable for the full replacement cost of $44.44. Light bulbs
At the end of the tenancy there were two light bulbs missing, they were all working at the start of the tenancy. The replacement cost was $32.55. The tenant must return the tenancy as it was found. There were working light bulbs at the start of the tenancy, that is how the tenant needed to return the premises. This claim is ordered in full. Bathroom and back doors
The photographs show one of the internal doors was damaged during the tenancy. The door has been split, consistent with having been forced open. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this was anything other than careless or intentional damage, so she is liable for the door replacement cost.
The landlord also seeks costs for filling and sanding the backdoor. The photographs show what is almost certainly damage from dog scratches. The damage occurred during the tenancy and is extensive, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven that this is careless or intentional damage so she is liable for the repair cost for this door too.
The combined repair cost for the above mentioned doors is $672.75, and is ordered in full. Carpet cleaning and painting
I accept that the premises were not returned reasonably clean, and that the landlord needed to have the carpets commercially cleaned to address odours.
The same invoice includes the cost of repainting the front door (also scratched from dogs) and the backdoor as mentioned above. This is work to repair damage the tenant is liable for, so is ordered in full, to the sum of $402.50.

RENT COMPENSATION

The landlord seeks rent compensation given: a. This was a fixed-term tenancy that ended early, and b. The tenant was not as supportive as she could have been with viewings to re-rent the premises in a timely way; and c. There was work that needed to be completed before the tenancy could be re-rented to the next tenant in late October.
The landlord has not claimed rent for the full period until the next tenancy commenced (which the landlord could have done), only compensation of one month.
At the minimum because this was a fixed term tenancy, the tenant is liable for the full rent until the next tenancy starts, but beyond that the other two reasons provided by the landlord for seeking compensation are fair and compensation could be ordered for those reasons.
The landlord’s rent compensation claim of $2,600.00 is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

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 5038088 — net $2,958.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$409.00	Lock/key replacement
Garage door replacement	$1,081.00	Garage door replacement
Smoke alarm replacement	$99.95	Smoke alarm replacement
Net curtain replacement	$57.47	Net curtain replacement
Replacement heatpump remote	$39.90	Replacement heatpump remote
Mould killer and painting materials	$91.90	Mould killer and painting materials
Light fitting replacement	$44.44	Light fitting replacement
Bulb replacement	$32.55	Bulb replacement
Door damage internal	$672.75	Door damage internal
Carpet cleaning and door painting	$402.50	Carpet cleaning and door painting
Rent compensation	$2,600.00	Rent compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,958.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,958.46

Claims and awards for application 5038088 — net $2,958.46 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $409.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Garage door replacement

Amount: $1,081.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garage door replacement

Smoke alarm replacement

Amount: $99.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Smoke alarm replacement

Net curtain replacement

Amount: $57.47
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Net curtain replacement

Replacement heatpump remote

Amount: $39.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement heatpump remote

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Nga Mihirangi Stacie Haimona-Pairama must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited as agent for Pretti & Hiren Shah $2,958.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6392435-007) to Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited as agent for Pretti & Hiren Shah immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$409.00 Garage door replacement$1,081.00 Smoke alarm replacement$99.95 Net curtain replacement$57.47 Replacement heatpump remote$39.90 Mould killer and painting materials$91.90 Light fitting replacement$44.44 Bulb replacement$32.55 Door damage internal$672.75 Carpet cleaning and door painting$402.50 Rent compensation$2,600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$5,558.46 Minus bond- $2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,958.46

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 20 December 2023. The landlord is Pretti and Hiren Shah by way of a property manager, Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited. The sole tenant is Nga Nihirangi Stacie Haimona-Pairama.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy due to end in 2025, but it was ended on 31 August by consent of the parties.
The landlord states that the tenant did not attend the final inspection, and the landlord has been unable to contact the tenant.
The landlord filed this application with the Tribunal. A mediation was scheduled, but again the tenant did not engage in that process. The matter was scheduled for a hearing today, on 4 December 2024, but again there was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied the tenant has been notified of the hearing so I will proceed to consider this matter in her absence.

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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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. Cleaning obligations at end of tenancy
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. Compensation
With any compensation claim, 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. 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.
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.
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 a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Chattels
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. Lock replacement
Section 40 of the RTA again sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

I will not consider the claims presented by the landlord. Lock replacement
The landlord states that when possession was to return to the landlord, the tenant did not show on site and could not be contacted. The keys were not returned so a locksmith was called to gain entry and to change the locks, the invoiced amount is $409.00. As above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant needed to return all keys, and did not do so, therefore the landlord is entitled to be compensated for lock and key replacement. Garage side door
The landlord has claimed damage to a side door in the garage, which the landlord understands was damaged during a scuffle between the tenant’s partner and police. Tenants are liable for damage caused by people on the premises with the permission of the tenant, which I assume would have been the situation for the partner. The damage is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proven the damage was not careless or intentional damage. I accept the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The quote for the repair (replacement of the door) is $1,081.00. I find the tenant is liable for this damage in full. Smoke alarms
The landlord states that there were five smoke alarms in the tenancy at the start of the tenancy, as supported in the tenancy agreement. At the end of the tenancy, four alarms were missing and needed to be replaced, which cost the landlord $99.95. The tenant needed to return all chattels at the end of the tenancy, and failing to do so makes the tenant liable for the replacement cost. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Net curtains
The landlord has claimed replacement costs for net curtains which were ripped (as supported in the photographs), and mouldy. The landlord confirmed the curtains were not torn or mouldy when the tenancy started.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is established, and the tenant ordered to pay the replacement cost of $57.47. Heat pump remote control
The landlord states that the remote control for the heat pump was missing at the end of the tenancy. Again the tenant must return chattels provided by the landlord – like remote controls. The replacement cost was $39.90, and the tenant is liable for that replacement cost. Mould killer and painting materials
The landlord seeks costs for mould killer and painting materials to the sum of $91.10. The landlord’s position is that the window sills were in good condition at the start of the tenancy, and at the end of the tenancy were extensively marked and probably damaged from mould. The landlord purchased mould killer and paint to remedy the situation, and did the work themselves. The landlord only seeks the materials cost.
The RTA requires that the tenant keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I am satisfied that the tenant did not achieve that with the window sills. I accept that the work undertaken by the landlord was proportional to the damage or state of the windowsills, and reasonably necessary to resolve the issue. This claim is ordered in full. Light fittings
The evidence is that there were two light fittings damaged during the tenancy, that was for a wall light and a ceiling light shade. The photographs support that this damage occurred during the tenancy. It is certainly not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The tenant is liable for the full replacement cost of $44.44. Light bulbs
At the end of the tenancy there were two light bulbs missing, they were all working at the start of the tenancy. The replacement cost was $32.55. The tenant must return the tenancy as it was found. There were working light bulbs at the start of the tenancy, that is how the tenant needed to return the premises. This claim is ordered in full. Bathroom and back doors
The photographs show one of the internal doors was damaged during the tenancy. The door has been split, consistent with having been forced open. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this was anything other than careless or intentional damage, so she is liable for the door replacement cost.
The landlord also seeks costs for filling and sanding the backdoor. The photographs show what is almost certainly damage from dog scratches. The damage occurred during the tenancy and is extensive, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven that this is careless or intentional damage so she is liable for the repair cost for this door too.
The combined repair cost for the above mentioned doors is $672.75, and is ordered in full. Carpet cleaning and painting
I accept that the premises were not returned reasonably clean, and that the landlord needed to have the carpets commercially cleaned to address odours.
The same invoice includes the cost of repainting the front door (also scratched from dogs) and the backdoor as mentioned above. This is work to repair damage the tenant is liable for, so is ordered in full, to the sum of $402.50.

RENT COMPENSATION

The landlord seeks rent compensation given: a. This was a fixed-term tenancy that ended early, and b. The tenant was not as supportive as she could have been with viewings to re-rent the premises in a timely way; and c. There was work that needed to be completed before the tenancy could be re-rented to the next tenant in late October.
The landlord has not claimed rent for the full period until the next tenancy commenced (which the landlord could have done), only compensation of one month.
At the minimum because this was a fixed term tenancy, the tenant is liable for the full rent until the next tenancy starts, but beyond that the other two reasons provided by the landlord for seeking compensation are fair and compensation could be ordered for those reasons.
The landlord’s rent compensation claim of $2,600.00 is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038088 — Property damage at 2 Harold Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038088 — Property damage at 2 Harold Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

RENT COMPENSATION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

RENT COMPENSATION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions