What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223295?

The tribunal order states: Marama Sarah Anderson must pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5223295?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.16 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,010.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $412.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223295?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11979246-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223295?

The tribunal order states: Marama Sarah Anderson must pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5223295?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.16 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,010.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $412.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223295?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11979246-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Snell Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223295 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223295 — net $1,970.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,010.60	Rent arrears
Paint repairs	$253.00	Paint repairs
Wardrobe repair	$187.16	Wardrobe repair
Carpet replacement depreciated 20	$1,600.00	Carpet replacement depreciated 20
Carpet cleaning	$460.00	Carpet cleaning
Lawn restoration (compensation	$100.00	Lawn restoration (compensation
Cleaning; rubbish removal; replace curtain lining	$412.51	Cleaning; rubbish removal; replace curtain lining
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,970.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,970.27

Marama Sarah Anderson must pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited as agent for B Shankaran & S Saini $1,970.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6453233-009) to Iron Bridge Property Management Limited as agent for B Shankaran & S Saini immediately.

The landlord’s application for compensation for loss of rent and interest costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Williams and Ms Patel represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Claims accepted by tenant

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for rent arrears, paint patches, a wardrobe repair, and carpet cleaning. I have allowed those claims (marked *) by consent. Disputed claims

The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims for carpet replacement, lawn remediation, and cleaning and rubbish removal. Unsuccessful claim

The landlord seeks 50% of the cost of lost rent and interests costs because the owner believes the delay in renting the premises again was the tenant’s fault.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not provide for reimbursement of a landlord’s interest costs.

On occasion, the Tribunal will consider a loss of rent claim, but only when the premises have been significantly damaged. Here, the claims made by the landlord are the usual kind of claims the Tribunal determines at the end of tenancies.

The premises were not left in such a state as to justify a loss of rent claim. Generally, the tenant left the premises in a reasonable condition, even though some work was required. Landlords must expect to have to do some repair and maintenance work between tenancies.

The landlord’s claim for lost rent and for interest costs is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with her 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) RTA.

Generally, the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean state. However, the oven and the shower require further cleaning and the landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of that.

The tenant said she left the wheelie bins out for collection, but a tenant’s responsibility is to remove all rubbish when they vacate. The tenant believes that contractors might have placed rubbish in the bins. That is speculation. The landlord confirmed there were no contractors at the premises before the final inspection on 25 November 2025.

Part of the invoice for cleaning and rubbish removal included the replacement of a curtain lining which the tenant accepted.

I find that the landlord’s claim for cleaning and rubbish removal is proved by the invoice and photos produced in evidence; the curtain lining replacement claim is accepted.

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in the lounge and in a bedroom wardrobe was damaged by cat soiling. Carpet cleaning did not remedy the problem; the carpet in those areas had to be replaced.

The tenant accepted that her cats caused the damage, though she queried the extent of the damage.

I am satisfied that the invoice for the carpet replacement was just in respect of the cat damaged carpet.

The landlord is insured but animal damage was excluded from cover. The excess amount is $500.00. The insurer would apply multiple excesses even if the claim had been accepted.

I have depreciated the carpet replacement claim by 20% to allow for the fact that the carpet was 3 years old. Carpet in residential tenancy premises usually has an expected lifespan of between 12 and 20 years.

A landlord is entitled to be returned to the position they would have been in if the damage had not occurred, not better or worse off.

The landlord has sought compensation for lawn remediation after the tenant’s dog caused damage.

The premises were newly built and the lawn newly laid at the start of the tenancy (seed sown).

The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show that the tenant had filled all the holes in the lawn and had sown grass seed.

The landlord’s claim is based on a quotation. The landlord’s representative said the owner had incurred costs of more than $2,000.00 but those costs were not the direct result of the damage caused by the tenant’s dog. An irrigation system was installed.

In a sense the landlord would have incurred costs regardless of the damage caused (and partly remedied) given the more extensive lawn work undertaken.

I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 for the damage to the lawn, largely remedied by the tenant, which, over time might have resulted in the lawn seed growing back. Result

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears ($1,010.60) and damage and carpet cleaning ($900.16). I find proved the landlord’s claims for carpet replacement (depreciated); cleaning, rubbish removal, and replacing a curtain lining; and partial lawn restoration ($2,112.51). As well I award the landlord the filing fee.

After payment of the bond to the landlord, the tenant must pay the landlord $1970.27. Name suppression

On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223295 — net $1,970.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,010.60	Rent arrears
Paint repairs	$253.00	Paint repairs
Wardrobe repair	$187.16	Wardrobe repair
Carpet replacement depreciated 20	$1,600.00	Carpet replacement depreciated 20
Carpet cleaning	$460.00	Carpet cleaning
Lawn restoration (compensation	$100.00	Lawn restoration (compensation
Cleaning; rubbish removal; replace curtain lining	$412.51	Cleaning; rubbish removal; replace curtain lining
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,970.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,970.27

Order

Marama Sarah Anderson must pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited as agent for B Shankaran & S Saini $1,970.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6453233-009) to Iron Bridge Property Management Limited as agent for B Shankaran & S Saini immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for loss of rent and interest costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Williams and Ms Patel represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Claims accepted by tenant
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for rent arrears, paint patches, a wardrobe repair, and carpet cleaning. I have allowed those claims (marked *) by consent. Disputed claims
The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims for carpet replacement, lawn remediation, and cleaning and rubbish removal. Unsuccessful claim
The landlord seeks 50% of the cost of lost rent and interests costs because the owner believes the delay in renting the premises again was the tenant’s fault.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not provide for reimbursement of a landlord’s interest costs.
On occasion, the Tribunal will consider a loss of rent claim, but only when the premises have been significantly damaged. Here, the claims made by the landlord are the usual kind of claims the Tribunal determines at the end of tenancies.
The premises were not left in such a state as to justify a loss of rent claim. Generally, the tenant left the premises in a reasonable condition, even though some work was required. Landlords must expect to have to do some repair and maintenance work between tenancies.
The landlord’s claim for lost rent and for interest costs is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with her 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) RTA.
Generally, the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean state. However, the oven and the shower require further cleaning and the landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of that.
The tenant said she left the wheelie bins out for collection, but a tenant’s responsibility is to remove all rubbish when they vacate. The tenant believes that contractors might have placed rubbish in the bins. That is speculation. The landlord confirmed there were no contractors at the premises before the final inspection on 25 November 2025.
Part of the invoice for cleaning and rubbish removal included the replacement of a curtain lining which the tenant accepted.
I find that the landlord’s claim for cleaning and rubbish removal is proved by the invoice and photos produced in evidence; the curtain lining replacement claim is accepted.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in the lounge and in a bedroom wardrobe was damaged by cat soiling. Carpet cleaning did not remedy the problem; the carpet in those areas had to be replaced.
The tenant accepted that her cats caused the damage, though she queried the extent of the damage.
I am satisfied that the invoice for the carpet replacement was just in respect of the cat damaged carpet.
The landlord is insured but animal damage was excluded from cover. The excess amount is $500.00. The insurer would apply multiple excesses even if the claim had been accepted.
I have depreciated the carpet replacement claim by 20% to allow for the fact that the carpet was 3 years old. Carpet in residential tenancy premises usually has an expected lifespan of between 12 and 20 years.
A landlord is entitled to be returned to the position they would have been in if the damage had not occurred, not better or worse off.
The landlord has sought compensation for lawn remediation after the tenant’s dog caused damage.
The premises were newly built and the lawn newly laid at the start of the tenancy (seed sown).
The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show that the tenant had filled all the holes in the lawn and had sown grass seed.
The landlord’s claim is based on a quotation. The landlord’s representative said the owner had incurred costs of more than $2,000.00 but those costs were not the direct result of the damage caused by the tenant’s dog. An irrigation system was installed.
In a sense the landlord would have incurred costs regardless of the damage caused (and partly remedied) given the more extensive lawn work undertaken.
I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 for the damage to the lawn, largely remedied by the tenant, which, over time might have resulted in the lawn seed growing back. Result
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears ($1,010.60) and damage and carpet cleaning ($900.16). I find proved the landlord’s claims for carpet replacement (depreciated); cleaning, rubbish removal, and replacing a curtain lining; and partial lawn restoration ($2,112.51). As well I award the landlord the filing fee.
After payment of the bond to the landlord, the tenant must pay the landlord $1970.27. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223295 — Property damage at 15 Snell Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223295 — Property damage at 15 Snell Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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