What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048172?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Marie Elizabeth Hamblin and Allan John Edge must pay Ngaire Brittain

How much money was awarded in case 5048172?

Cleaning: $123.47 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $669.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,124.67 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Writing From Exterior: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Cat Door: $89.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Door: $119.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Putty In Front Door: $51.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanities: $715.11 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048172?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11897676-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048172?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Marie Elizabeth Hamblin and Allan John Edge must pay Ngaire Brittain

How much money was awarded in case 5048172?

Cleaning: $123.47 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $669.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,124.67 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Writing From Exterior: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Cat Door: $89.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Door: $119.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Putty In Front Door: $51.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanities: $715.11 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048172?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11897676-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

87B Ross Street, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048172 — Property damage

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048172 — net $3,991.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$669.32		9. The amount claimed for cleaning, repairs, and removal of rubbish is fair and reasonable.
Repairs: Replace broken cat door	$89.98		Repairs: Replace broken cat door
Replace vanities	$715.11		Replace vanities
Replace bathroom door	$119.75		Replace bathroom door
Replace vinyl in kitchen and bathroom	$1,124.67		Replace vinyl in kitchen and bathroom
Carpet Cleaning	$123.47		9. The amount claimed for cleaning, repairs, and removal of rubbish is fair and reasonable.
Carpet replacement	$2,200.00		Carpet replacement
Replace putty in front door	$51.80		Replace putty in front door
Remove writing from exterior	$210.00		Remove writing from exterior
Damage to exterior	$550.00		Damage to exterior
Rubbish removal	$210.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		33. There was other damage to the premises during the tenancy as follows: a.
Bond released to landlord		$2,100.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$6,091.10	$2,100.00
Net award	$3,991.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,991.10

The tenancy began on 5 June 2021 and ended on 17 July 2024.

The landlord’s application seeks repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal, and replacement of chattels.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 9 May 2024. Ms Brittain, Mr Kahotea, and Mr Edge participated in the hearing. Cleaning, minor repairs to walls, and rubbish removal

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 1

Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. Tenants are not liable for “fair wear and tear”.

This part of the landlord’s claim includes general cleaning and repair of small dents, marks, holes on walls and doors, removal of children’s writing on walls, and general cleaning.

Ms Brittain provided photographs showing the damage, and photographs in support of the cleaning claim. Ms Brittain carried out the repairs and cleaning.

Ms Brittain’s evidence shows that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy in some respects, in particular in the kitchen. There was damage to walls and doors beyond fair wear and tear.

The amount claimed for cleaning, repairs, and removal of rubbish is fair and reasonable. Replacement of vanities

The claim seeks the cost of replacing both vanities due to water damage to the door and base on both both.

Ms Brittain’s photographs show the damage. The damage is not noted on the property inspection report at the beginning of the tenancy.

Mr Edge commented that the water pressure on the taps is very strong, so it is easy for water to splash beyond the basin and onto the vanity.

I acknowledge that this helps explain how the damage occurred, but I do not think that it reduces the tenants’ liability for the damage. Tenants must exercise reasonable care. If the water pressure is strong, tenants should turn on the tap 1 gently and slowly. If any water accidentally splashes onto the wooden vanity, tenants should wipe it away immediately.

The extent of damage to the vanities during this three-year tenancy shows a lack of reasonable care.

The vanities had to be replaced due to the extent of damage and the risk of mould / rot.

The cost claimed is based on the cost of basic, relatively low-cost vanities (cabinets only). The landlords provided quotes for these items.

The claim is proven. Replacement of vinyl

Ms Brittain’s photographs show: a. Coloured stains on the vinyl in the bathroom. Some of the stains are obvious rust / discolouration from the tenants’ washing machine. The other stains (pink and purple) are more difficult to identify. b. A pink stain and a tear in the vinyl in the dining room.

This damage was not present at the start of the tenancy.

The damage is in the nature of careless damage.

The claim seeks $1,647.00 for replacement of the vinyl in both rooms.

I accept that the vinyl could not be “repaired”. The landlord attempted to remove the stains, but they are permanent. The only way to remediate the damage is to replace the vinyl.

The claim is proven.

Having regard to the age of the vinyl, I will apply depreciation of one-third to the proven replacement cost. Carpet

The carpet was heavily stained during the tenancy.

Mr Edge did not dispute that this damage occurred during this tenancy.

The landlord attempted to remediate the problem with commercial cleaning, but the stains, odour, and damage to the underlay could not be removed with commercial cleaning.

The carpet had to be replaced.

The cost of cleaning ($273.47) is proven. The tenants are liable for this cost.

The landlord was able to claim insurance for the carpet replacement, but the insurer applied an excess of $550 per room.

The cost of replacing the carpet, less depreciation, exceeds the $2,200.00 claimed by the landlord.

The tenants are liable to pay $2,200.00 for replacement of the carpet. Other minor repairs

There was other damage to the premises during the tenancy as follows: a. Putty in front door window. The tenants replaced a glass pane in the front door during the tenancy. It appears that the tenants children played with the window putty before it set. The putty needs to be replaced. b. There is childrens writing / drawings on the exterior of the house. The amount claimed for removal is fair and reasonable. c. There is damage to the bottom of part of the exterior cladding, near an outside tap. The landlords obtained a quote for $667.50 for repair. Given that the damage is near the bottom of the cladding, it is likely that the damage is careless damage, such as impact by a child’s bike or toy, rather than intentional damage. The claim is proven, but the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess. 2 d. The main bathroom door and door frame were split. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the door is proven. Filing fee, bond

The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee for the application. 3

The bond was released to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, and it can be applied to the proven costs. N Blake, 28 May 2025 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA 3 Section 102(4)(a) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048172 — net $3,991.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$669.32		9. The amount claimed for cleaning, repairs, and removal of rubbish is fair and reasonable.
Repairs: Replace broken cat door	$89.98		Repairs: Replace broken cat door
Replace vanities	$715.11		Replace vanities
Replace bathroom door	$119.75		Replace bathroom door
Replace vinyl in kitchen and bathroom	$1,124.67		Replace vinyl in kitchen and bathroom
Carpet Cleaning	$123.47		9. The amount claimed for cleaning, repairs, and removal of rubbish is fair and reasonable.
Carpet replacement	$2,200.00		Carpet replacement
Replace putty in front door	$51.80		Replace putty in front door
Remove writing from exterior	$210.00		Remove writing from exterior
Damage to exterior	$550.00		Damage to exterior
Rubbish removal	$210.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		33. There was other damage to the premises during the tenancy as follows: a.
Bond released to landlord		$2,100.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$6,091.10	$2,100.00
Net award	$3,991.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,991.10

Order

Natasha Marie Elizabeth Hamblin and Allan John Edge must pay Ngaire Brittain and Selwyn Kahotea as trustees of the Herene Tai Trust $3,991.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 5 June 2021 and ended on 17 July 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal, and replacement of chattels.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 9 May 2024. Ms Brittain, Mr Kahotea, and Mr Edge participated in the hearing. Cleaning, minor repairs to walls, and rubbish removal
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 1
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. Tenants are not liable for “fair wear and tear”.
This part of the landlord’s claim includes general cleaning and repair of small dents, marks, holes on walls and doors, removal of children’s writing on walls, and general cleaning.
Ms Brittain provided photographs showing the damage, and photographs in support of the cleaning claim. Ms Brittain carried out the repairs and cleaning.
Ms Brittain’s evidence shows that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy in some respects, in particular in the kitchen. There was damage to walls and doors beyond fair wear and tear.
The amount claimed for cleaning, repairs, and removal of rubbish is fair and reasonable. Replacement of vanities
The claim seeks the cost of replacing both vanities due to water damage to the door and base on both both.
Ms Brittain’s photographs show the damage. The damage is not noted on the property inspection report at the beginning of the tenancy.
Mr Edge commented that the water pressure on the taps is very strong, so it is easy for water to splash beyond the basin and onto the vanity.
I acknowledge that this helps explain how the damage occurred, but I do not think that it reduces the tenants’ liability for the damage. Tenants must exercise reasonable care. If the water pressure is strong, tenants should turn on the tap 1 gently and slowly. If any water accidentally splashes onto the wooden vanity, tenants should wipe it away immediately.
The extent of damage to the vanities during this three-year tenancy shows a lack of reasonable care.
The vanities had to be replaced due to the extent of damage and the risk of mould / rot.
The cost claimed is based on the cost of basic, relatively low-cost vanities (cabinets only). The landlords provided quotes for these items.
The claim is proven. Replacement of vinyl
Ms Brittain’s photographs show: a. Coloured stains on the vinyl in the bathroom. Some of the stains are obvious rust / discolouration from the tenants’ washing machine. The other stains (pink and purple) are more difficult to identify. b. A pink stain and a tear in the vinyl in the dining room.
This damage was not present at the start of the tenancy.
The damage is in the nature of careless damage.
The claim seeks $1,647.00 for replacement of the vinyl in both rooms.
I accept that the vinyl could not be “repaired”. The landlord attempted to remove the stains, but they are permanent. The only way to remediate the damage is to replace the vinyl.
The claim is proven.
Having regard to the age of the vinyl, I will apply depreciation of one-third to the proven replacement cost. Carpet
The carpet was heavily stained during the tenancy.
Mr Edge did not dispute that this damage occurred during this tenancy.
The landlord attempted to remediate the problem with commercial cleaning, but the stains, odour, and damage to the underlay could not be removed with commercial cleaning.
The carpet had to be replaced.
The cost of cleaning ($273.47) is proven. The tenants are liable for this cost.
The landlord was able to claim insurance for the carpet replacement, but the insurer applied an excess of $550 per room.
The cost of replacing the carpet, less depreciation, exceeds the $2,200.00 claimed by the landlord.
The tenants are liable to pay $2,200.00 for replacement of the carpet. Other minor repairs
There was other damage to the premises during the tenancy as follows: a. Putty in front door window. The tenants replaced a glass pane in the front door during the tenancy. It appears that the tenants children played with the window putty before it set. The putty needs to be replaced. b. There is childrens writing / drawings on the exterior of the house. The amount claimed for removal is fair and reasonable. c. There is damage to the bottom of part of the exterior cladding, near an outside tap. The landlords obtained a quote for $667.50 for repair. Given that the damage is near the bottom of the cladding, it is likely that the damage is careless damage, such as impact by a child’s bike or toy, rather than intentional damage. The claim is proven, but the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess. 2 d. The main bathroom door and door frame were split. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the door is proven. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee for the application. 3
The bond was released to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, and it can be applied to the proven costs. N Blake, 28 May 2025 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA 3 Section 102(4)(a) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048172 — Property damage at 87B Ross Street, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048172 — Property damage at 87B Ross Street, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions