What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5218840?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $602.50 of the bond (3736244-007) to A Grade

How much money was awarded in case 5218840?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to secure prem…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Bedroom 1: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Patching And Painting Lounge: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Garage remote (…: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12224193-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5218840?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $602.50 of the bond (3736244-007) to A Grade

How much money was awarded in case 5218840?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to secure prem…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Bedroom 1: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Patching And Painting Lounge: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Garage remote (…: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12224193-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51A West Tamaki Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218840 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218840 — net $602.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning (by consent	$250.00		Cleaning (by consent
Replace furnishings: Garage remote (by consent	$115.00		Replace furnishings: Garage remote (by consent
Rubbish removal: Couch (by consent	$150.00		Rubbish removal: Couch (by consent
Repairs: Patching and painting lounge	$230.00		Repairs: Patching and painting lounge
Repairs: Painting bedroom 1	$57.50		Repairs: Painting bedroom 1
Compensation: Failure to secure premises after viewing		$200.00	Failure to secure premises after viewing
Total award	$802.50	$200.00
Net award	$602.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$602.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218840 — net $602.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning (by consent	$250.00		Cleaning (by consent
Replace furnishings: Garage remote (by consent	$115.00		Replace furnishings: Garage remote (by consent
Rubbish removal: Couch (by consent	$150.00		Rubbish removal: Couch (by consent
Repairs: Patching and painting lounge	$230.00		Repairs: Patching and painting lounge
Repairs: Painting bedroom 1	$57.50		Repairs: Painting bedroom 1
Compensation: Failure to secure premises after viewing		$200.00	Failure to secure premises after viewing
Total award	$802.50	$200.00
Net award	$602.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$602.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay $602.50 of the bond (3736244-007) to A Grade Rental Homes Company Limited As Agent For Haozhuang Cai July Qiang immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay $3,597.50 of the bond (3736244-007) to Liam Roger Cappel, Jesse Maher, Luke Scott and Chad Allison immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

Liam Roger Cappel, Jesse Maher, Luke Scott, and Chad Allison (the tenants) rented the landlord’s 5-bedroom home in St Heliers for nearly three years. The tenancy agreement described the landlord as A Grade Rental Homes Company Limited as agent for Haozhuang Cai. The claims proceeded on the basis the property manager and owner are one party (the landlord). The property manager, Ms Qiang, appeared at the hearing.
The tenants say that shortly before the tenancy ended, when the premises were being shown to prospective new tenants, the landlord arranged a viewing for a day and time that had not been agreed, and, on the date of an agreed viewing, failed to secure the premises after the viewing had ended.
Once the tenancy came to an end on 28 February 2025, the parties could not agree how the bond should be refunded. The tenants accepted they were liable to pay some costs for removal of a couch and a replacement garage door remote but disputed other claims for damage and cleaning made by the landlord.
As a result, the tenants filed an application with the Tribunal asking the Tribunal to refund the bond, and seeking compensation for the new tenant viewing that was arranged for 3 February 2025, and for failing to secure the premises after a viewing on 5 February 2025. The tenants also seek general damages for stress. In a counterclaim, the landlord seeks refund of the bond for cleaning and damage caused by the tenants. Matters not in dispute
At the hearing, the tenants accepted the following claims made by the landlord: a. Cost of removal of a couch $150; b. Cost of replacing a garage door remote $115.
During the hearing, the parties also reached agreement that the tenant pay $250 for cleaning to settle all claims made by the landlord in relation to cleaning
Those orders are made by consent.
Lastly, the landlord withdrew a claim for damage to storage shelves in one of the bedrooms. That claim, for $60+GST, is dismissed. Matters in dispute
The issues that remain in dispute for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises? b. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment by sending prospective new tenants to view the property on 3 February 2025? c. Did the landlord breach the conditions of the tenants’ consent permitting the landlord to hold a viewing by failing to secure the premises after the viewing on 5 February 2025? d. Should the landlord compensate the tenants for general stress relating to the manner in which the tenancy ended?

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Below I separately consider each of the landlord’s claims for damage allegedly caused during the tenancy. (a) Blocked drain in master bedroom ensuite: $80+GST
The landlord says at the start of the tenancy, as recorded in an inspection report dated 19 July 2022, there was no record of any issues with the ensuite sink. The landlord says during the exit inspection on 28 February 2025, the landlord discovered the ensuite sink was blocked. A handyman attended on the same day and unblocked the sink.
The tenants say the sink was not blocked when they moved out. They do not accept causing any damage to the sink.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim because I am not satisfied the blockage was damage caused by the tenants, or if it was, I am satisfied it was fair wear and tear. Over the course of nearly three years of regular use, it is not uncommon that a bathroom sink drain may require clearing. I consider this a matter of maintenance, and therefore a matter that the landlord is responsible for. (b) Blind weight removed in living room: $50 +GST
The landlord says at the start of the tenancy, weights were installed at the base of vertical blinds in the living room. The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the weights had been removed and were stacked in a pile beside the blinds. The landlord sought compensation for the amount charged by a handyman to re-install the weights.
The tenants say they did not remove the weights from the vertical blinds and dispute the weights were installed at the start of the tenancy.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim because I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenants caused damage. I am not satisfied the weights sitting to one side is evidence of damage, but even if it was, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the weights were installed on the blinds at the start of the tenancy. The photo the landlord referred me to in the inspection conducted 19 July 2022 appears to show a different set of blinds than that shown in the picture taken 28 February 2025. 1 The 19 July 2022 photo show a window (not full height) with dark grey or black vertical blinds. The 28 February 2025 photo shows a full height window or door with light brown or grey vertical blinds. In short, the photos seem to show two different windows, with two different sets of blinds. (c) Patching and paintwork by tenant in lounge and upstairs bedroom: $200+GST
The landlord says the tenants carried out repairs to walls in the lounge, dining room and upstairs bedroom which was not done to a satisfactory standard and required re-patching and re-painting.
The tenants acknowledge they carried out wall repairs in the lounge, dining room and upstairs bedroom walls but say they did their best and attempted to match the paint colour as best they could. The tenants accept they did not seek the landlord’s consent before carrying out the work.
I am satisfied the work carried out by the tenants was not to a satisfactory standard as the photos taken on 28 February 2025 show the paint used by the tenants did not match the existing paint. I award the landlord $200+GST, being $230 for work carried out remedying the tenants’ repair paintwork. (d) Damage to paint in downstairs bedroom: $50+GST
The landlord says the tenants also damaged the paint in the downstairs bedroom, which the tenant did not attempt to repair. The landlord referred to black marks on the walls and scratches on the wardrobe door, as shown in photographs taken on 28 February 2025. The landlord says the walls were in good, unmarked condition, as show in the inspection conducted 19 July 2022. 1 I was referred to the bottom left photo on p.26 of Barfoot & Thompson’s inspection conducted 19 July 2022.
The tenants accept the damage to the walls in the downstairs bedroom was caused during the tenancy, but say they is was fair wear and tear. The tenants say they are unsure how the marks on the walls and wardrobe doors were caused.
I am satisfied the damage to the walls in the downstairs bedroom is more than fair wear and tear. The black marks and scrapes are more than what would be considered the result of normal use of a bedroom and appear likely to have been caused by furniture or other heavy objects making repeated contact with the wall. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and I award the landlord $50+GST, being $57.50. (e) Damage to blind rail in bedroom 2: $50 +GST
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the rail at the bottom of the roll-up blind in bedroom 2 was resting in the corner of the room – that is, it had come away from the blind itself. The landlord says it was intact at the start of the tenancy but was removed or damaged by the tenants during the tenancy.
Mr Maher stated he slept in bedroom 2. He says when operating the blind (rolling it up or down as designed) the bottom of the rail came away. He says it occurred approximately six months before the tenancy ended. The tenants say the damage was fair wear and tear and occurred through normal use of the blind.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim. The landlord did not produce any evidence of damage which would suggest the tenant had forcibly removed the rail. For that reason, and because I find Mr Maher’s evidence that the rail came away through normal use of the blind plausible, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the damage is not fair wear and tear. (f) Broken lock on master bedroom door: $40+GST
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the lock on the master bedroom door was broken and the door could not close. A photograph taken on 28 February 2025 appears to show a screw was missing from the lower part of the faceplate, below the latchbolt.
The tenants say they don’t recall the lock to the master bedroom door being an issue and say as far as they were aware it was functioning fine and could be closed during the tenancy.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim because I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenants caused the damage, and/or that any damage was not fair wear and tear. The damage appears to be caused by a missing screw in the lower part of the faceplate. Maintenance of the locks is the responsibility of the landlord and, after a nearly three-year tenancy, it is not uncommon that such maintenance would be required. (g) Blocked shower drain in master bedroom ensuite: $100+GST
The landlord says at the start of the tenancy, in an inspection conducted 19 July 2022 there was no record of any issues with the ensuite shower drain. The landlord says during the exit inspection on 28 February 2025, the landlord discovered the ensuite shower drain was blocked. A handyman attended on the same day and unblocked the shower drain.
The tenants say they were not aware the shower drain was blocked either during the tenancy or when they moved out. They do not accept causing any damage to the shower drain.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim because I am not satisfied the blockage was damage caused by the tenants, or if it way, that it is more than fair wear and tear. Over the course of nearly three years of regular use, I do not think it is uncommon that a shower drain may require clearing. I consider this an issue of maintenance, and therefore a matter that the landlord is responsible for. (h) Carpet damage: $250
The landlord says at the start of the tenancy, in an inspection conducted 19 July 2022 the carpet was in good condition. The landlord could not say how old the carpet was, but Ms Qiang estimates it was less than 10 years old at the start of the tenancy. The landlord says two carpeted areas on separate stairways were damaged during the tenancy; one on the stairs near the entry, and one on the stairs to the upper bedroom.
The tenants accept damage occurred to the carpet but say it was just wear and tear as the areas are high traffic zones. The tenants say at approximately 10 years old, the carpet was at the end of its expected lifespan.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim because I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the damage to the carpet at the entryway and on stairs to the bedroom was not fair wear and tear. I note that carpet in residential rental properties has an expected lifespan of eight years. 2 Given this, and the landlord’s general estimation that the carpet was “less than 10 years old,” I am not satisfied the damage to the carpet was not simply a result of age, and general wear and tear.
Even if I was wrong, and the carpet was intentionally damaged by the tenants, the landlord has not proved the cost claimed has been incurred. The landlord confirmed the repair work has not been carried out and the property has been re-let to tenants in its current state. 2 See IR265: General depreciation, Inland Revenue, July 2025, p.36. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment by sending prospective new tenants to view the property on 3 February 2025?
The tenants claim a global amount of $1,000 compensation for breaches of the Act and a general claim of stress relating to the dispute over refund of the bond.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, 3 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenants claim that, by sending prospective tenants to view the premises on the evening of 3 February 2025, the landlord breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment under s 38 of the Act.
The tenants say six or seven prospective tenants arrived at the premises on the evening of 3 February 2025. Mr Cappel met them as they approached the premises. He says he met some of the people outside on the driveway, while others walked around the side of the house. He does not believe any entered the interior of the premises. Mr Cappel says he told the prospective tenants it was not an agreed viewing time and asked them to leave. While some of the prospective tenants were rather “persistent”, he says they all left shortly after arriving. Mr Cappel then contacted the property manager who apologised for the mistake. Mr Cappel produced text messages between himself and Ms Qiang in support.
The tenants say the prospective tenants arriving unannounced was an invasion of their privacy.
The landlord accepts the property manager handling the viewings made a mistake. Ms Qiang says she immediately offered her apologies. The landlord says the property manager handling the viewings made a mistake by sending prospective tenants to view the premises on the evening of 3 February 2025, instead of the agreed time of 5:30pm on 5 February 2025. 3 [2020] NZDC 17667.
While I accept having prospective tenants arrive at the premises unexpectedly on 3 February 2025 was inconvenient to the tenants, I am not satisfied it amounts to a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment such that compensation is appropriate. That is because the breach was minor (the prospective tenants did not enter the house), the duration was brief (the prospective tenants left after Mr Cappel asked them to) and the effect of the breach was limited to inconvenience (the tenants did not experience any actual loss and this event did not cause significant stress).
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. Did the landlord breach the conditions of the tenants’ consent permitting the landlord to hold a viewing by failing to secure the premises after the viewing on 5

February 2025?

The tenants say they consented to the landlord entering the premises for the purposes of holding a viewing for prospective tenants at 5:30pm on 5 February 2025. 4 Although not explicitly stated, essentially, their claim is that while they gave such consent, 5 it was subject to the reasonable (implied) condition that the landlord secure the premises after the viewing was complete. 6 The tenant says when they returned to the premises shortly before 9:50pm on 5 February 2025, they found a ranchslider door left open. By doing so, the tenants say the landlord breached the conditions of the tenant’s consent to the viewing.
The tenants say they experienced a break-in in 2023 at the same premises where $2,000 worth of items were stolen. While no items had been taken from the premises on 5 February 2025, they say finding the ranchslider door left open was particularly worrying given the past burglary at the same premises. They say the open ranchslider would have been visible to anyone who walked down the driveway.
The landlord says the property manager who conducted the viewing (who was not present at the hearing) was contacted and stated he believed he had locked all doors at the premises. The landlord does not accept that the ranchslider door was left open as alleged by the tenants.
I am satisfied the ranchslider door was left open. The tenant produced a copy of a text message sent to Ms Qiang at 9:51pm on 5 February 2025 which included a photograph showing the ranchslider door open. The tenant says this was how they found the door when they arrived home that evening. I am satisfied the tenant did not have any reason to invent the allegation that the door was left open by the property manager who attended the viewing. 4 As recorded in text messages dated 3 February 2025. 5 Pursuant to s48(3)(a) of the Act. 6 Pursuant to s48(3A)(b) of the Act.
I am also satisfied that the tenants’ consent for the landlord to enter the premises to show the house to prospective tenants was given with the implied condition that the property be left secure. While there was no evidence of the parties discussing such a condition, I am satisfied it is generally understood that a property manager who holds a viewing without the tenants present will ensure the premises is left secure.
I am satisfied it is appropriate to award the tenants compensation for the landlord’s breach of the terms of the tenants’ consent for the following reasons: a. By leaving the ranchslider open, the landlord exposed the tenants to the risk of others entering their home and/or taking their belongings; b. The duration was several hours, given the viewing would have concluded by 6pm or 6:30pm at latest, and was not remedied until approximately 9:30pm; c. Finding the property unsecured was particularly concerning for the tenants as they had experienced a burglary at the premises previously.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider $200 an appropriate amount to compensate the tenants for the landlord’s failure to secure the premises on 5 February 2025. Should the landlord compensate the tenants for general stress relating to the manner in which the tenancy ended?
The answer to this question is no. A party cannot make a general claim seeking compensation for stress during a tenancy. A claim that entitles an award by way of compensation can only be made in relation to an identified breach of the party’s statutory rights.
In this case, the tenant has made claims for breaches of their rights under the Act: breach of quiet enjoyment (s38 of the Act), and breach of reasonable conditions attached to tenant’s consent to landlord’s entry (s48(3) of the Act). The tenant cannot also seek compensation for “general stress” relating to the correspondence between the parties regarding the bond, and/or the communications leading up to the Tribunal hearing.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for general stress.

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, neither party is entitled to reimbursement of their filing fees. Should either party’s name be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See s 95A(4) of the Act.
Both the tenants and the landlord applied for suppression of their names. As neither party’s application was wholly or substantially successful, neither party is automatically entitled to name suppression. Even so, I have considered whether, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, either of the party’s names should be suppressed. I decline to make suppression orders for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenants and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenants’ interests.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218840 — Property damage at 51A West Tamaki Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218840 — Property damage at 51A West Tamaki Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

February 2025?

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

February 2025?

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions