What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176293?

The tribunal order states: Shane McDonald and Elaine McDonald are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5176293?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $331.35 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176293?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11874538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176293?

The tribunal order states: Shane McDonald and Elaine McDonald are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5176293?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $331.35 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176293?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11874538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Okaihau Place, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176293 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176293 — net $1,041.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$68.16	Water rates
Compensation - damage to benchtop	$500.00	Compensation - damage to benchtop
Carpet Cleaning: Spot stain treatment	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning: Spot stain treatment
Repairs: Damage to walls	$331.35	Repairs: Damage to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,041.51
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,041.51

Shane McDonald and Elaine McDonald are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited (as agent for Preetik Krishnan and Neran Govender) $1,041.51 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (6407935-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited: $1,041.51 Shane McDonald and Elaine McDonald: $1,678.49

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 16 January 2025.

The landlord’s application seeks vacated water rates, repairs, and other costs.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 21 May 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Walters and Ms Hargood represented the landlord.

Mr McDonald did not dispute the claim for water rates.

Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. Tenants are not liable for ‘fair wear and tear’. Tenants are liable for damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. Tenant’s liability for careless damage is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser).

The landlord sought: a. $115.00 for treatment of two carpet stains. b. $331.35 for damage to walls. c. $500.00 (the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess) for damage to the kitchen benchtop. d. $150.00 for replacing the silicon in the shower.

The claim for carpet stain treatment is proven. Ms Walters provided photographs of the two small stains. Ms Walters took the photographs after the tenants moved out, and before the owners moved back in.

I was provided with a copy of the entry inspection report. The stains cannot be seen in that report. Mr McDonald did not argue that the stains were present at the beginning of the tenancy.

I am satisfied that it is proven, to the standard of “more likely than not” that the stains occurred during the tenancy. The cost of stain removal is proven.

Ms Walters provided photographs of the damage to the walls. The photographs show: a. Two deep, parallel gouges on the wall in the hallway. b. A sizeable diamond shaped dent / chip. c. Two deep gouges and a black mark.

The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Mr McDonald did not know how the damage occurred. He suggested that it may have been during moving. This possible, given the nature of the damage.

Mr McDonald’s main objection to this claim was cost of repairs.

The landlord provided quote from Teahon Property Maintenance for $331.35. The quote details the work but does not provide a breakdown of labour and materials.

Mr McDonald said that he had spoken to other builders and showed them the photographs of the damage, and they said that the cost was excessive and that Teahon were probably “gouging” the landlord.

I must prefer the landlord’s evidence because they have provided an actual estimate for the work, rather than Mr McDonald’s evidence which is hearsay.

I also think that the quoted amount is reasonable having regard to the fact that there are multiple areas that require repair and painting.

This part of the landlord’s claim is proven.

The benchtop was damaged during the tenancy. Mr McDonald said that his wife put a hot pot onto the bench and when she lifted it, part of the benchtop surface tore, exposing the composite wood underneath.

Ms Walters provided a photograph of the damaged area, which is consistent with Mr McDonald’s description.

Mr McDonald commented that the benchtop should not be damaged in that way simply by putting a hot pot on it.

I agree that the ‘tearing’ damage is perhaps surprising, but some type of damage is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of putting a hot pot directly onto a laminate benchtop. The damage is not fair wear and tear.

The landlord looked into the option of repair, but unfortunately it was not possible to repair (evidence provided). The only reinstatement option is replacement of the benchtop. The landlord has insurance with an excess of $500.

I am satisfied that the landlord will replace the benchtop because the damage is allowing water to get to the composite timber.

The claim is proven. The tenant’s liability is capped at $500.00.

The landlord sought the cost of replacing the silicon in the shower on the grounds that the tenants failed to keep the silicon clean.

Mr McDonald said that they attempted to clean the silicon but the dark marks could not be removed.

Silicon darkens and deteriorates over time, and there can be various reasons why it may deteriorate more quickly than ‘normal’. It is not proven that this cost is due to tenant carelessness or failure to keep the premises reasonably clean. This part of the claim is dismissed.

The claim for lawnmowing is dismissed. Tenants must leave the premises (including lawns and gardens, if they are responsible for them) “reasonably clean tidy” at the end of the tenancy. People can have genuinely different views about what amounts to reasonably clean and tidy. Because of that, visual evidence such as photographs or video are critical evidence in landlord claims for cleaning or lawnmowing. There are no photographs of the lawns at the end of the tenancy. This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven.

The landlord has been substantially successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee.

The landlord will receive $1,041.51 from the bond, calculated per the table above. The balance will be released to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176293 — net $1,041.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$68.16	Water rates
Compensation - damage to benchtop	$500.00	Compensation - damage to benchtop
Carpet Cleaning: Spot stain treatment	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning: Spot stain treatment
Repairs: Damage to walls	$331.35	Repairs: Damage to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,041.51
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,041.51

Order

Shane McDonald and Elaine McDonald are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited (as agent for Preetik Krishnan and Neran Govender) $1,041.51 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (6407935-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited: $1,041.51 Shane McDonald and Elaine McDonald: $1,678.49

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 16 January 2025.
The landlord’s application seeks vacated water rates, repairs, and other costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 21 May 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Walters and Ms Hargood represented the landlord.
Mr McDonald did not dispute the claim for water rates.
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. Tenants are not liable for ‘fair wear and tear’. Tenants are liable for damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. Tenant’s liability for careless damage is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser).
The landlord sought: a. $115.00 for treatment of two carpet stains. b. $331.35 for damage to walls. c. $500.00 (the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess) for damage to the kitchen benchtop. d. $150.00 for replacing the silicon in the shower.
The claim for carpet stain treatment is proven. Ms Walters provided photographs of the two small stains. Ms Walters took the photographs after the tenants moved out, and before the owners moved back in.
I was provided with a copy of the entry inspection report. The stains cannot be seen in that report. Mr McDonald did not argue that the stains were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that it is proven, to the standard of “more likely than not” that the stains occurred during the tenancy. The cost of stain removal is proven.
Ms Walters provided photographs of the damage to the walls. The photographs show: a. Two deep, parallel gouges on the wall in the hallway. b. A sizeable diamond shaped dent / chip. c. Two deep gouges and a black mark.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Mr McDonald did not know how the damage occurred. He suggested that it may have been during moving. This possible, given the nature of the damage.
Mr McDonald’s main objection to this claim was cost of repairs.
The landlord provided quote from Teahon Property Maintenance for $331.35. The quote details the work but does not provide a breakdown of labour and materials.
Mr McDonald said that he had spoken to other builders and showed them the photographs of the damage, and they said that the cost was excessive and that Teahon were probably “gouging” the landlord.
I must prefer the landlord’s evidence because they have provided an actual estimate for the work, rather than Mr McDonald’s evidence which is hearsay.
I also think that the quoted amount is reasonable having regard to the fact that there are multiple areas that require repair and painting.
This part of the landlord’s claim is proven.
The benchtop was damaged during the tenancy. Mr McDonald said that his wife put a hot pot onto the bench and when she lifted it, part of the benchtop surface tore, exposing the composite wood underneath.
Ms Walters provided a photograph of the damaged area, which is consistent with Mr McDonald’s description.
Mr McDonald commented that the benchtop should not be damaged in that way simply by putting a hot pot on it.
I agree that the ‘tearing’ damage is perhaps surprising, but some type of damage is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of putting a hot pot directly onto a laminate benchtop. The damage is not fair wear and tear.
The landlord looked into the option of repair, but unfortunately it was not possible to repair (evidence provided). The only reinstatement option is replacement of the benchtop. The landlord has insurance with an excess of $500.
I am satisfied that the landlord will replace the benchtop because the damage is allowing water to get to the composite timber.
The claim is proven. The tenant’s liability is capped at $500.00.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing the silicon in the shower on the grounds that the tenants failed to keep the silicon clean.
Mr McDonald said that they attempted to clean the silicon but the dark marks could not be removed.
Silicon darkens and deteriorates over time, and there can be various reasons why it may deteriorate more quickly than ‘normal’. It is not proven that this cost is due to tenant carelessness or failure to keep the premises reasonably clean. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The claim for lawnmowing is dismissed. Tenants must leave the premises (including lawns and gardens, if they are responsible for them) “reasonably clean tidy” at the end of the tenancy. People can have genuinely different views about what amounts to reasonably clean and tidy. Because of that, visual evidence such as photographs or video are critical evidence in landlord claims for cleaning or lawnmowing. There are no photographs of the lawns at the end of the tenancy. This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven.
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee.
The landlord will receive $1,041.51 from the bond, calculated per the table above. The balance will be released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176293 — Property damage at 13 Okaihau Place, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176293 — Property damage at 13 Okaihau Place, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions