What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5097429?

The tribunal order states: Stacey Nancekivell must pay Lodge Rentals Limited as Agent for Bentley Studios

How much money was awarded in case 5097429?

Cleaning: $127.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $111.55 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $42.86 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door And Wall: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bed Base: $217.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $69.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood Filter: $140.30 awarded to landlord; Replace Roller Blind Over Ranch Slid…: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097429?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11458908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5097429?

The tribunal order states: Stacey Nancekivell must pay Lodge Rentals Limited as Agent for Bentley Studios

How much money was awarded in case 5097429?

Cleaning: $127.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $111.55 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $42.86 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door And Wall: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bed Base: $217.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $69.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood Filter: $140.30 awarded to landlord; Replace Roller Blind Over Ranch Slid…: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097429?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11458908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 58 Kahikatea Drive, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097429 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097429 — net $1,836.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/11/2024	$42.86	Rent arrears to 13/11/2024
Cleaning	$127.75	Cleaning
Replace bed base	$217.50	Replace bed base
Replace rangehood filter	$140.30	Replace rangehood filter
Toilet seat	$20.00	Toilet seat
Lock/key replacement	$111.55	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: bathroom door and wall	$460.00	Repairs: bathroom door and wall
Replace roller blind over ranch slider	$220.00	Replace roller blind over ranch slider
Repairs: excess items damaged caused by paint	$400.00	Repairs: excess items damaged caused by paint
Replace furnishings	$69.96	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,836.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,836.92

Order

Stacey Nancekivell must pay Lodge Rentals Limited as Agent for Bentley Studios Ltd $1,836.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Berryman and Ms Day appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2022 and ended on 13 November 2024 after the tenant gave notice. The landlord’s claim was lodged on 05 December 2024.
The landlord’s claims that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears of $42.86, ii. Failed to leave the property, including the grounds in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, iii. Failed to return the keys provided, iv. Failed to account for missing chattels, v. Is responsible for damage to: • The carpet, • Table and chair, • Ranchslider, • Blind over ranch slider, • The front door, • Bed base, • Rangehood filter, • Doors and walls, • Toilet seat.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord states the tenant gave notice and then ceased making rent payments. Before the end of the tenancy, the tenant agreed to release the bond of $1,500.00 to cover rent arrears. After applying the bond, a balance of $42.86 remained. The landlord has provided rent records that prove the amount owing. The amount claimed is awarded.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The property is a one room studio unit built in 2020. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report dated 21 November 2022 and end of tenancy inspection report completed on 19 November 2024. Both include photographs. Ms Day conducted the end of tenancy inspection. The identity of the property manager who conducted the pre tenancy inspection is unknown. Cleaning / keys / missing chattels
Having viewed the end of tenancy photographs, while I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave some areas of the property reasonably clean and tidy, there is insufficient to justify the full amount claimed. Based on the evidence, I award cleaning costs of $127.75 (three hours at the rate of $35. + GST per hour)
The tenant was provided with two keys to the front door. This is recorded in the tenancy agreement. The keys were not returned. The landlord is claiming $111.55 for re barrelling the locks and cutting new keys. The amount is awarded.
The property included chattels which included cutlery and crockery. A list was included with the tenancy agreement. Some of the items on the list were missing at the end of the tenancy, including a glass, side plates, wooden chopping board, mixing bowl, mugs, and a universal television remote. These items were replaced for $69.96. The amount claimed is awarded. Law – damage
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.
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).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
The landlord has insurance for damage caused by the tenant. The excess is $400.00 per claim.
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ranch slider / carpet / chair and table / blind over ranchslider.
At the end of tenancy inspection, the landlord discovered that white paint had been splashed over the ranchslider, on the carpet, and a chair and table. A closer inspection of the ranchslider also revealed damage consistent with a heavy item coming into contact with the aluminium joinery. The damage was not reported to the landlord. Photographs have been produced. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage depicted occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The total amount to repair the damage was $2,945.00. The landlord made a successful insurance claim and is seeking the one excess of $400.00. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. In the circumstances, I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment.
A lounge chair and table were also damaged by paint. The compensation for this claim is included in the excess awarded for the carpet.
The claim for the carpet, chair, and table, and ranchslider also includes damage to the front door. The landlord has produced photographs showing several small dents in the door, which is made from metal. However, there are no photographs showing the condition of the door at the commencement of the tenancy. This part of the claim is not proven. Roller blind
A photograph has been produced showing damage to a roller blind on the inside of the ranchslider. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the roller blind was $
47. The landlord made a successful insurance claim and is seeking the excess of $400.00.
Roller blinds in rental properties typically have an estimated useful expected lifespan of eight years. In this case, the blind was approximately halfway through its estimated useful lifespan. Considering betterment, I reduce the amount claimed by 45% and award the landlord $ 220.00. Bed base.
The property was provided with a queen size bed consisting of bed base and mattress. The bed was new in 2020. The landlord has produced a photograph showing one of the metal caster wheels on the bed base is broken. It has been snapped off. There are no photographs showing each of the casters; however, the landlord states that they were all broken and that the bed base was sitting directly on the floor. There is no damage recorded in the pre tenancy checklist. There are photographs showing the general condition of the bed at the commencement of the tenancy. None show the casters. However, the bed is sitting off the ground. The casters form part of the bed base and cannot be replaced separately. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied to the required standard, which is more likely than not, that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the bed was $435.00.
Beds provided as chattels in rental properties typically have an estimated useful expected lifespan of around 10 years. In this case, the bed was approximately halfway through its estimated useful lifespan. Considering betterment, I reduce the amount claimed by 50 % and award the landlord $ 217.50. Range hood
The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to the filter in the range hood. It appears to be bent and buckled. There is a photograph in the pre tenancy report showing no damage. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The filter was replaced at a cost of $140. 30. The amount claimed is awarded. Toilet seat
The end of tenancy photographs show that the toilet seat has been broken off its hinges and is laying on the floor next to the toilet bowl. The toilet seat was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The cost of replacing the toilet seat was included in the invoice for general cleaning but is not itemised.
Toilets and toilet seats are typically high use areas. The seat was a standard plastic type. The toilet seat was approximately 4 years old. There is an element of fair wear and tear. I award the landlord $20.00 toward the cost of replacing the seat. Walls and doors
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, doors, and the ceiling. Photographs show holes in the bathroom door and a wall. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The other damage claimed is not clearly visible in the end of tenancy photographs. I note from the pre tenancy inspection report that the property had some pre-existing minor damage. The invoice is itemised. I award the landlord $460.00 to repair the damage proved. Costs
Because Lodge Rentals Limited as Agent for Bentley Studios Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord does not seek name suppression and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097429 — net $1,836.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/11/2024	$42.86	Rent arrears to 13/11/2024
Cleaning	$127.75	Cleaning
Replace bed base	$217.50	Replace bed base
Replace rangehood filter	$140.30	Replace rangehood filter
Toilet seat	$20.00	Toilet seat
Lock/key replacement	$111.55	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: bathroom door and wall	$460.00	Repairs: bathroom door and wall
Replace roller blind over ranch slider	$220.00	Replace roller blind over ranch slider
Repairs: excess items damaged caused by paint	$400.00	Repairs: excess items damaged caused by paint
Replace furnishings	$69.96	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,836.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,836.92

Order

Stacey Nancekivell must pay Lodge Rentals Limited as Agent for Bentley Studios Ltd $1,836.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Berryman and Ms Day appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2022 and ended on 13 November 2024 after the tenant gave notice. The landlord’s claim was lodged on 05 December 2024.
The landlord’s claims that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears of $42.86, ii. Failed to leave the property, including the grounds in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, iii. Failed to return the keys provided, iv. Failed to account for missing chattels, v. Is responsible for damage to: • The carpet, • Table and chair, • Ranchslider, • Blind over ranch slider, • The front door, • Bed base, • Rangehood filter, • Doors and walls, • Toilet seat.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord states the tenant gave notice and then ceased making rent payments. Before the end of the tenancy, the tenant agreed to release the bond of $1,500.00 to cover rent arrears. After applying the bond, a balance of $42.86 remained. The landlord has provided rent records that prove the amount owing. The amount claimed is awarded.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The property is a one room studio unit built in 2020. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report dated 21 November 2022 and end of tenancy inspection report completed on 19 November 2024. Both include photographs. Ms Day conducted the end of tenancy inspection. The identity of the property manager who conducted the pre tenancy inspection is unknown. Cleaning / keys / missing chattels
Having viewed the end of tenancy photographs, while I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave some areas of the property reasonably clean and tidy, there is insufficient to justify the full amount claimed. Based on the evidence, I award cleaning costs of $127.75 (three hours at the rate of $35. + GST per hour)
The tenant was provided with two keys to the front door. This is recorded in the tenancy agreement. The keys were not returned. The landlord is claiming $111.55 for re barrelling the locks and cutting new keys. The amount is awarded.
The property included chattels which included cutlery and crockery. A list was included with the tenancy agreement. Some of the items on the list were missing at the end of the tenancy, including a glass, side plates, wooden chopping board, mixing bowl, mugs, and a universal television remote. These items were replaced for $69.96. The amount claimed is awarded. Law – damage
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.
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).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
The landlord has insurance for damage caused by the tenant. The excess is $400.00 per claim.
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ranch slider / carpet / chair and table / blind over ranchslider.
At the end of tenancy inspection, the landlord discovered that white paint had been splashed over the ranchslider, on the carpet, and a chair and table. A closer inspection of the ranchslider also revealed damage consistent with a heavy item coming into contact with the aluminium joinery. The damage was not reported to the landlord. Photographs have been produced. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage depicted occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The total amount to repair the damage was $2,945.00. The landlord made a successful insurance claim and is seeking the one excess of $400.00. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. In the circumstances, I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment.
A lounge chair and table were also damaged by paint. The compensation for this claim is included in the excess awarded for the carpet.
The claim for the carpet, chair, and table, and ranchslider also includes damage to the front door. The landlord has produced photographs showing several small dents in the door, which is made from metal. However, there are no photographs showing the condition of the door at the commencement of the tenancy. This part of the claim is not proven. Roller blind
A photograph has been produced showing damage to a roller blind on the inside of the ranchslider. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the roller blind was $
47. The landlord made a successful insurance claim and is seeking the excess of $400.00.
Roller blinds in rental properties typically have an estimated useful expected lifespan of eight years. In this case, the blind was approximately halfway through its estimated useful lifespan. Considering betterment, I reduce the amount claimed by 45% and award the landlord $ 220.00. Bed base.
The property was provided with a queen size bed consisting of bed base and mattress. The bed was new in 2020. The landlord has produced a photograph showing one of the metal caster wheels on the bed base is broken. It has been snapped off. There are no photographs showing each of the casters; however, the landlord states that they were all broken and that the bed base was sitting directly on the floor. There is no damage recorded in the pre tenancy checklist. There are photographs showing the general condition of the bed at the commencement of the tenancy. None show the casters. However, the bed is sitting off the ground. The casters form part of the bed base and cannot be replaced separately. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied to the required standard, which is more likely than not, that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the bed was $435.00.
Beds provided as chattels in rental properties typically have an estimated useful expected lifespan of around 10 years. In this case, the bed was approximately halfway through its estimated useful lifespan. Considering betterment, I reduce the amount claimed by 50 % and award the landlord $ 217.50. Range hood
The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to the filter in the range hood. It appears to be bent and buckled. There is a photograph in the pre tenancy report showing no damage. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The filter was replaced at a cost of $140. 30. The amount claimed is awarded. Toilet seat
The end of tenancy photographs show that the toilet seat has been broken off its hinges and is laying on the floor next to the toilet bowl. The toilet seat was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The cost of replacing the toilet seat was included in the invoice for general cleaning but is not itemised.
Toilets and toilet seats are typically high use areas. The seat was a standard plastic type. The toilet seat was approximately 4 years old. There is an element of fair wear and tear. I award the landlord $20.00 toward the cost of replacing the seat. Walls and doors
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, doors, and the ceiling. Photographs show holes in the bathroom door and a wall. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The other damage claimed is not clearly visible in the end of tenancy photographs. I note from the pre tenancy inspection report that the property had some pre-existing minor damage. The invoice is itemised. I award the landlord $460.00 to repair the damage proved. Costs
Because Lodge Rentals Limited as Agent for Bentley Studios Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord does not seek name suppression and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097429 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 58 Kahikatea Drive, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097429 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 58 Kahikatea Drive, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions