What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5224451?

The tribunal order states: corrects the Order of the same NZTT Number dated 9 July 2025.

How much money was awarded in case 5224451?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Wall: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224451?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13036002-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5224451?

The tribunal order states: corrects the Order of the same NZTT Number dated 9 July 2025.

How much money was awarded in case 5224451?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Wall: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224451?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13036002-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5224451 — Property damage

Order

corrects the Order of the same NZTT Number dated 9 July 2025. The only correction is the amount ordered below in Order 2 and the date of the Order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5224451 — net $4,117.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$207.00	Carpet cleaning
Repairs: Bedroom wall	$2,500.00	Repairs: Bedroom wall
Carpet replacement	$1,400.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,117.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,117.55

Carlene Pavletich-collins must pay Urban Property Services Limited As Agent For Hw Group Ltd $4,117.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The landlord was represented by Ms Di.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy started on 4 March 2022 and ended on 10 February 2025. At the end of the tenancy the parties came to an agreement regarding the bond, rent arrears, outstanding water rates, flea treatment and the replacement of carpet in one of the bedrooms. After these costs were finalised, $16.45 remained from the bond.

This claim relates to three invoices which the parties have not been able to agree on. They are as follows: a. Repairs to walls in bedroom 3 and repaint, ($4,600.00) b. Carpet cleaning, ($207.00) c. Replacement of the lounge carpet, ($3,122.25).

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, see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims the lounge carpet was soiled with magic sand, glue and cat urine. The tenant accepts there was magic sand in the carpet but disputes that there was cat urine.

The landlord had the carpet professionally cleaned, but ultimately decided that the carpet could not be returned to a high enough standard and they decided to replace the carpet. The landlord produced photographs and invoices in support of their claim.

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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 tenant does not dispute that the carpet was damaged by the magic sand, and possible some spots of glue. The question for me to decide is whether the carpet is so badly damaged as to warrant full replacement.

The landlord stated that the tenancy ended because the landlord decided to sell the premises. The tenant stated that this meant they wanted the carpet to be perfect so as to make selling easier. I accept the logic in this argument.

The landlord says the carpet was new at the beginning of the tenancy, and so at the end of the tenancy it was already three years old.

According to the IRD265 Depreciation Schedule, a domestic carpet has a depreciation lifespan of 8 years.

When I look at the end of tenancy photographs, the carpet looks somewhat stained, but I am not persuaded that it is so bad it had no useful life left in it. I am persuaded however that the landlord has suffered loss due to the tenant’s careless acts.

I must take 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.

I have considered the above factors and awarded what I consider to be a reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The landlord is claiming for repairing damage sustained in one of the bedrooms. The tenant accepts responsibility for the damage but disputes the amount charged.

When I look at the photographs, I see one wall is heavily damaged and another wall or two has minor damage. The invoice provided by the landlord does not give any details of the breakdown of costs. I cannot understand how the invoice can be for such a large amount. The invoice is sufficient to cover one to two weeks work plus a substantial amount for materials. The photographs provided do not justify an invoice of this amount.

I have awarded an amount which I consider is a generous amount to cover several days work and substantial material. This is the most that I consider reasonable in the circumstances, based on the information before me.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Urban Property Services Limited As Agent For Hw Group Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5224451 — net $4,117.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$207.00	Carpet cleaning
Repairs: Bedroom wall	$2,500.00	Repairs: Bedroom wall
Carpet replacement	$1,400.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,117.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,117.55

Order

corrects the Order of the same NZTT Number dated 9 July 2025. The only correction is the amount ordered below in Order 2 and the date of the Order.

Carlene Pavletich-collins must pay Urban Property Services Limited As Agent For Hw Group Ltd $4,117.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The landlord was represented by Ms Di.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 4 March 2022 and ended on 10 February 2025. At the end of the tenancy the parties came to an agreement regarding the bond, rent arrears, outstanding water rates, flea treatment and the replacement of carpet in one of the bedrooms. After these costs were finalised, $16.45 remained from the bond.
This claim relates to three invoices which the parties have not been able to agree on. They are as follows: a. Repairs to walls in bedroom 3 and repaint, ($4,600.00) b. Carpet cleaning, ($207.00) c. Replacement of the lounge carpet, ($3,122.25).

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, see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the lounge carpet was soiled with magic sand, glue and cat urine. The tenant accepts there was magic sand in the carpet but disputes that there was cat urine.
The landlord had the carpet professionally cleaned, but ultimately decided that the carpet could not be returned to a high enough standard and they decided to replace the carpet. The landlord produced photographs and invoices in support of their claim.

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 tenant does not dispute that the carpet was damaged by the magic sand, and possible some spots of glue. The question for me to decide is whether the carpet is so badly damaged as to warrant full replacement.
The landlord stated that the tenancy ended because the landlord decided to sell the premises. The tenant stated that this meant they wanted the carpet to be perfect so as to make selling easier. I accept the logic in this argument.
The landlord says the carpet was new at the beginning of the tenancy, and so at the end of the tenancy it was already three years old.
According to the IRD265 Depreciation Schedule, a domestic carpet has a depreciation lifespan of 8 years.
When I look at the end of tenancy photographs, the carpet looks somewhat stained, but I am not persuaded that it is so bad it had no useful life left in it. I am persuaded however that the landlord has suffered loss due to the tenant’s careless acts.
I must take 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.
I have considered the above factors and awarded what I consider to be a reasonable amount in the circumstances.
The landlord is claiming for repairing damage sustained in one of the bedrooms. The tenant accepts responsibility for the damage but disputes the amount charged.
When I look at the photographs, I see one wall is heavily damaged and another wall or two has minor damage. The invoice provided by the landlord does not give any details of the breakdown of costs. I cannot understand how the invoice can be for such a large amount. The invoice is sufficient to cover one to two weeks work plus a substantial amount for materials. The photographs provided do not justify an invoice of this amount.
I have awarded an amount which I consider is a generous amount to cover several days work and substantial material. This is the most that I consider reasonable in the circumstances, based on the information before me.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Urban Property Services Limited As Agent For Hw Group Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224451 — Property damage at 82 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224451 — Property damage at 82 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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