What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153851?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,116.00 (6515720-001) to A1 Property

How much money was awarded in case 5153851?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,060.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153851?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11873919-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153851?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,116.00 (6515720-001) to A1 Property

How much money was awarded in case 5153851?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,060.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153851?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11873919-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 126 Edinburgh Street, Spreydon, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153851 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153851 — net $690.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/01/25	$1,060.00	Rent arrears to 16/01/25
Repairs: Damage to walls and doors	$1,035.00	Repairs: Damage to walls and doors
Replace furnishings: Curtains (insurance excess	$500.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains (insurance excess
Cleaning: Oven	$184.00	Cleaning: Oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$690.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,116.00 (6515720-001) to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Brian Kelly And Rowena Smith immediately.
Tequila Leigh Thian must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Brian Kelly And Rowena Smith $690.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing. The tenant did not attend. A call to the tenant’s last known mobile number went to voicemail.
The tenant was the sole tenant pursuant to a variation to tenancy agreement dated 18 December 2024. The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy due to expire on 20 February 2025, however following the tenant’s request to end the tenancy early, it was agreed the tenancy would end on 16 January 2025.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears to 16 January 2025, compensation for damage and cleaning/lawns, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant did not pay any rent after their last payment on 19 December 2024.
As at 16 January 2025, arrears were $1,060.00.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Oven cleaning
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that they did not clean the oven.
The landlord has provided photos taken on 17 January 2025 which show the oven was not reasonably clean. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $160 (+GST) for the cost of cleaning the oven.
The amount ordered is proved. Lawns
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably tidy.
The landlord has provided photos taken on 17 January 2025 which show the small area of lawn by a wooden deck and pebble path. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $100 (+GST) for the cost of lawn mowing.
I am not satisfied the photos provided show the lawn was not reasonably tidy. While I accept the photos show the lawn had perhaps not been mowed within the last week of the tenancy, the grass growth is not such that the average person would not consider it reasonably tidy.
I also note the amount claimed for mowing of such a small area does not seem reasonable.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for the cost of lawn mowing.

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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Careless damage to walls and doors requiring patching and painting: $1,035.00; and b. Intentional damage to curtains: $644.78 Walls and doors
The landlord has provided an in-going report dated 22 December 2023 which shows the property was in new condition. The landlord says the tenant (and her previous co-tenant) were the first tenants in the property.
The landlord has also provided photos taken on 17 January 2025 which show damage to the walls and doors in the kitchen, lounge, stairs and bedrooms.
The landlord has provided an invoice for repairs completed which totals $1,035.00.
The landlord confirmed the owner of the property has insurance for tenant damage, however the excess is $500.00 per claim (as noted in the tenancy agreement) and the insurer would consider each room a separate claim. The landlord says as the total cost of all repairs was $1,035.00 the owner has not made a claim on insurance, as each room (and therefore each claim) on its own would not have exceeded the $500.00 excess.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved damage to the walls and doors occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. I am satisfied the damage was caused by the tenant and that insurance money was irrecoverable given the applicable excess for each of the four (or five) claims.
The amounts ordered is proved. Curtains
The in-going report dated 22 December 2023 shows the curtains were in new condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has provided photos taken during an inspection on 22 October 2024 which show some pulled threads at the base of the curtains. The landlord says when she asked the tenants about the damage on 22 October 2024, they confirmed they had a cat at the premises which had caused the damage.
The landlord says the tenants did not have permission to have a cat at the premises, however, the landlord agreed to the cat remaining at the premises from that date.
The landlord has provided photos taken 17 January 2025 which show the curtains had additional pulls at the bottom of the curtains by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not made an insurance claim for the damaged curtains. The landlord says the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacing the curtains, as the damage was intentional and therefore insurance would not be recoverable. The landlord has provided a quote for replacement, totalling $644.78.
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.
I am not satisfied the damage was intentional. While I accept it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenant’s cat, I am not satisfied the tenants set out to cause the damage, nor that they knew damage by the cat was a certainty. I note that, at least from 22 October 2024, the landlord knew the tenant had a cat in the premises and it can be expected that a cat may cause some wear and tear.
I note that the damage to the curtains was not as extensive as in the case of Bright Property management Limited v Aleisha Te Kapa, 1 and I am therefore not satisfied the damage was so inevitable as to be intentional.
Having found the damage was not intentional, the landlord’s claim is limited to the applicable excess under insurance for careless damage, being $500.00. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153851 — net $690.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/01/25	$1,060.00	Rent arrears to 16/01/25
Repairs: Damage to walls and doors	$1,035.00	Repairs: Damage to walls and doors
Replace furnishings: Curtains (insurance excess	$500.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains (insurance excess
Cleaning: Oven	$184.00	Cleaning: Oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$690.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,116.00 (6515720-001) to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Brian Kelly And Rowena Smith immediately.
Tequila Leigh Thian must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Brian Kelly And Rowena Smith $690.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing. The tenant did not attend. A call to the tenant’s last known mobile number went to voicemail.
The tenant was the sole tenant pursuant to a variation to tenancy agreement dated 18 December 2024. The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy due to expire on 20 February 2025, however following the tenant’s request to end the tenancy early, it was agreed the tenancy would end on 16 January 2025.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears to 16 January 2025, compensation for damage and cleaning/lawns, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant did not pay any rent after their last payment on 19 December 2024.
As at 16 January 2025, arrears were $1,060.00.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Oven cleaning
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that they did not clean the oven.
The landlord has provided photos taken on 17 January 2025 which show the oven was not reasonably clean. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $160 (+GST) for the cost of cleaning the oven.
The amount ordered is proved. Lawns
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably tidy.
The landlord has provided photos taken on 17 January 2025 which show the small area of lawn by a wooden deck and pebble path. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $100 (+GST) for the cost of lawn mowing.
I am not satisfied the photos provided show the lawn was not reasonably tidy. While I accept the photos show the lawn had perhaps not been mowed within the last week of the tenancy, the grass growth is not such that the average person would not consider it reasonably tidy.
I also note the amount claimed for mowing of such a small area does not seem reasonable.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for the cost of lawn mowing.

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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Careless damage to walls and doors requiring patching and painting: $1,035.00; and b. Intentional damage to curtains: $644.78 Walls and doors
The landlord has provided an in-going report dated 22 December 2023 which shows the property was in new condition. The landlord says the tenant (and her previous co-tenant) were the first tenants in the property.
The landlord has also provided photos taken on 17 January 2025 which show damage to the walls and doors in the kitchen, lounge, stairs and bedrooms.
The landlord has provided an invoice for repairs completed which totals $1,035.00.
The landlord confirmed the owner of the property has insurance for tenant damage, however the excess is $500.00 per claim (as noted in the tenancy agreement) and the insurer would consider each room a separate claim. The landlord says as the total cost of all repairs was $1,035.00 the owner has not made a claim on insurance, as each room (and therefore each claim) on its own would not have exceeded the $500.00 excess.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved damage to the walls and doors occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. I am satisfied the damage was caused by the tenant and that insurance money was irrecoverable given the applicable excess for each of the four (or five) claims.
The amounts ordered is proved. Curtains
The in-going report dated 22 December 2023 shows the curtains were in new condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has provided photos taken during an inspection on 22 October 2024 which show some pulled threads at the base of the curtains. The landlord says when she asked the tenants about the damage on 22 October 2024, they confirmed they had a cat at the premises which had caused the damage.
The landlord says the tenants did not have permission to have a cat at the premises, however, the landlord agreed to the cat remaining at the premises from that date.
The landlord has provided photos taken 17 January 2025 which show the curtains had additional pulls at the bottom of the curtains by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not made an insurance claim for the damaged curtains. The landlord says the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacing the curtains, as the damage was intentional and therefore insurance would not be recoverable. The landlord has provided a quote for replacement, totalling $644.78.
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.
I am not satisfied the damage was intentional. While I accept it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenant’s cat, I am not satisfied the tenants set out to cause the damage, nor that they knew damage by the cat was a certainty. I note that, at least from 22 October 2024, the landlord knew the tenant had a cat in the premises and it can be expected that a cat may cause some wear and tear.
I note that the damage to the curtains was not as extensive as in the case of Bright Property management Limited v Aleisha Te Kapa, 1 and I am therefore not satisfied the damage was so inevitable as to be intentional.
Having found the damage was not intentional, the landlord’s claim is limited to the applicable excess under insurance for careless damage, being $500.00. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153851 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 126 Edinburgh Street, Spreydon,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153851 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 126 Edinburgh Street, Spreydon,

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions