What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5183731?

The tribunal order states: Wayne Quinn must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited $2,327.00

How much money was awarded in case 5183731?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183731?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11899613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5183731?

The tribunal order states: Wayne Quinn must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited $2,327.00

How much money was awarded in case 5183731?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183731?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11899613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

632 Drury Hills Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183731 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183731 — net $2,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$1,800.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs to door frame and wall	$500.00	Repairs to door frame and wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,327.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,327.00

Order

Wayne Quinn must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited $2,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 May 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
Lawnmowing
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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 2
The duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy therefore relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs of the lawns taken on 10 January 2025, four days after the tenancy ended.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,800.00 for lawnmowing.
The tenant disputes that they left the lawns overgrown and gave evidence that they paid a contractor $700.00 to mow the lawns approximately 1.5 weeks before the tenancy ended.
The tenant did not submit any of photographs of the lawns taken at the end of the tenancy or an invoice from the contractor they paid. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
On the basis of the photographs of the lawns taken on 10 January 2025, I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. The grass is overgrown to quite a substantial degree and there are numerous weeds present.
The landlord has had the lawns mowed and weeds removed at a cost of $1,800.00. Whilst the amount is higher than what the Tribunal usually sees for lawnmowing, the length of the grass was quite long and the premises are large, spanning approximately 3,717 squared metres. Understood in this context, I consider the invoice to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,800.00 to mow the lawns is granted in full.
Damage to internal door and wall
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. 3
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is responsible for damaging a doorframe and wall.
The landlord gave evidence that the door in between the kitchen and hallway was covered entirely with a piece of black adhesive. The landlord claims this acted as a sound barrier and the tenant removed the adhesive without the landlord’s permission. The landlord states this caused some paint to pull off the doorframe and wall, and glue residue was left on these areas as well. The landlord submitted a photograph of the door and wall.
The landlord submitted a quote for $2,070.00. The landlord gave evidence that they have an invoice for this amount but could not locate it during the hearing. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,350.00 to repair the doorframe and wall, stating that the quote is in relation to two doors and they are only seeking compensation for one.
The tenant accepts that they removed the black adhesive from the door without the landlord’s permission. The tenant gave evidence that at one time, this part of the house was occupied by a separate tenant. The tenant claims the separate tenant had an oven which was placed against the door and black adhesive. The tenant gave evidence that the adhesive was not fire-proof and it was a safety risk. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord and 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. when the landlord did nothing about it. The tenant took it upon themselves to remove the adhesive and oven once the separate tenancy ended.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant damaged the doorframe and wall during the tenancy by intentionally removing the black adhesive. The damage is more than fair wear and tear with paint being removed from the door frame and wall, and glue residue left behind.
The tenant’s reasons for removing the adhesive might be legitimate however, the tenant has not filed their own application alleging any breach of the RTA by the landlord and therefore, I cannot take their reason into account.
The quote submitted by the landlord refers to four doors being repaired. The landlord claims the quote is poorly worded and simply references both sides of two doors that were repaired.
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that they have incurred a cost of $1,350.00 to repair the door, as they did not submit an invoice. The wording of the quote appears to state that four doors have been fixed and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this is simply a matter of poor wording.
I accept the landlord has suffered a loss, at least in terms of the diminution in value of the doorframe and wall, but they have not proven on the balance of probabilities that this loss equates to $1,350.00.
In all the circumstances, I consider $500.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to award the landlord for the damage to the doorframe and wall.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the doorframe and wall is granted for $500.00.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Filing fee
Because Southern Suburbs Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183731 — net $2,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$1,800.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs to door frame and wall	$500.00	Repairs to door frame and wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,327.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,327.00

Order

Wayne Quinn must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited $2,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 May 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
Lawnmowing
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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 2
The duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy therefore relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs of the lawns taken on 10 January 2025, four days after the tenancy ended.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,800.00 for lawnmowing.
The tenant disputes that they left the lawns overgrown and gave evidence that they paid a contractor $700.00 to mow the lawns approximately 1.5 weeks before the tenancy ended.
The tenant did not submit any of photographs of the lawns taken at the end of the tenancy or an invoice from the contractor they paid. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
On the basis of the photographs of the lawns taken on 10 January 2025, I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. The grass is overgrown to quite a substantial degree and there are numerous weeds present.
The landlord has had the lawns mowed and weeds removed at a cost of $1,800.00. Whilst the amount is higher than what the Tribunal usually sees for lawnmowing, the length of the grass was quite long and the premises are large, spanning approximately 3,717 squared metres. Understood in this context, I consider the invoice to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,800.00 to mow the lawns is granted in full.
Damage to internal door and wall
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. 3
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is responsible for damaging a doorframe and wall.
The landlord gave evidence that the door in between the kitchen and hallway was covered entirely with a piece of black adhesive. The landlord claims this acted as a sound barrier and the tenant removed the adhesive without the landlord’s permission. The landlord states this caused some paint to pull off the doorframe and wall, and glue residue was left on these areas as well. The landlord submitted a photograph of the door and wall.
The landlord submitted a quote for $2,070.00. The landlord gave evidence that they have an invoice for this amount but could not locate it during the hearing. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,350.00 to repair the doorframe and wall, stating that the quote is in relation to two doors and they are only seeking compensation for one.
The tenant accepts that they removed the black adhesive from the door without the landlord’s permission. The tenant gave evidence that at one time, this part of the house was occupied by a separate tenant. The tenant claims the separate tenant had an oven which was placed against the door and black adhesive. The tenant gave evidence that the adhesive was not fire-proof and it was a safety risk. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord and 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. when the landlord did nothing about it. The tenant took it upon themselves to remove the adhesive and oven once the separate tenancy ended.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant damaged the doorframe and wall during the tenancy by intentionally removing the black adhesive. The damage is more than fair wear and tear with paint being removed from the door frame and wall, and glue residue left behind.
The tenant’s reasons for removing the adhesive might be legitimate however, the tenant has not filed their own application alleging any breach of the RTA by the landlord and therefore, I cannot take their reason into account.
The quote submitted by the landlord refers to four doors being repaired. The landlord claims the quote is poorly worded and simply references both sides of two doors that were repaired.
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that they have incurred a cost of $1,350.00 to repair the door, as they did not submit an invoice. The wording of the quote appears to state that four doors have been fixed and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this is simply a matter of poor wording.
I accept the landlord has suffered a loss, at least in terms of the diminution in value of the doorframe and wall, but they have not proven on the balance of probabilities that this loss equates to $1,350.00.
In all the circumstances, I consider $500.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to award the landlord for the damage to the doorframe and wall.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the doorframe and wall is granted for $500.00.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Filing fee
Because Southern Suburbs Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183731 — Property damage at 632 Drury Hills Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183731 — Property damage at 632 Drury Hills Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577

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