What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5225571?

The tribunal order states: Josh Archibald must pay Holly Brendling and Georgia Rose Brendling

How much money was awarded in case 5225571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rental Income One Week: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $244.22 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe, Bathroom, Bedroom Door: $1,327.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225571?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12088141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5225571?

The tribunal order states: Josh Archibald must pay Holly Brendling and Georgia Rose Brendling

How much money was awarded in case 5225571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rental Income One Week: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $244.22 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe, Bathroom, Bedroom Door: $1,327.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225571?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12088141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 18 Graham Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225571 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5225571 — net $4,512.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$172.60	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: wardrobe, bathroom, bedroom door	$1,327.71	Repairs: wardrobe, bathroom, bedroom door
Lock/key replacement	$244.22	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$2,120.75	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Loss of rental income one week	$620.00	Loss of rental income one week
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,512.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,512.28

Order

Josh Archibald must pay Holly Brendling and Georgia Rose Brendling $4,512.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing and was represented by Mr Haabjoern. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal and ended on 9 March 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Photographs produced by the landlord show that no cleaning whatsoever had been undertaken at the end of the tenancy. Large amounts of dust were evident in all rooms, walls had many dirty marks, the utility areas and cupboards were very dirty, the carpet had not been vacuumed and there were many dirty marks in the carpet.
Large amounts of rubbish and belongings of no value were left inside and outside the premises.
The landlord is also claiming for entry swipe cards and recoding, and a letterbox lock.
These claims are as follows: a. Locksmith for letterbox: $172.60 b. Entrance swipe cards and recoding: $244.22 c. Cleaning full house including carpet and rubbish removal: $2,420.00
The landlord provided photographs and invoices in support of their claims.
I am satisfied the locksmith claims are reasonable and they are proved.
I note that the cleaning was for a full exit clean. A tenant is only required to leave a premises reasonably clean and tidy. A landlord will usually undertake a full deep clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of an exiting tenant. I have made a slight reduction in the amount for cleaning in consideration of this.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. 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 landlord claims the tenant caused the following damage during the tenancy: (The dollar amounts are what the landlord is claiming to repair the damage.) a. Ripped bedroom door, toilet seat, wardrobe door runners: $1,327.71 b. Lawn grass died: $1,202.10
The landlord produced photographs showing the bedroom door to have been ripped on its hinges. A replacement hollow-core door was source, finished and fitted. The toilet seat was broken and the runners on a wardrobe door were bent so the door would not slide. The landlord produced an invoice in support of these repairs.
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I determine the damage to be a combination of careless damage and intentional damage.
The claim is proved.
The landlord also produced photographs showing the courtyard grass to have died. The paved courtyard has weeds growing in the cracks and weeds are all that is growing in the once-grassed area. The landlord referred me to what looks like dog faeces amongst the weeds.
There is no reliable information as to what has caused the grass, which was “ready-lawn” laid at the beginning of the tenancy, to die. Nor was any information presented that tracks the condition of the grass across the two-year tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the tenant caused the grass to die, either with or without the help of a visiting dog. I can draw judicial notice that “ready-lawn” can be prone to dying when newly installed up until the time it is established. Extreme weather can play its part. There is no information as to when the grass died. As such I am not persuaded that the dead lawn is damage caused by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken account of 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. I consider the landlord does not benefit from any betterment by awarding the full repair costs for the items in this application.
The landlord is also claiming $1,860.00 for three weeks’ lost rental income due to the repairs that were required.
I am satisfied the damage caused by the tenant caused a delay in the landlord’s ability to re-tenant their property. I note the tradesperson’s invoice has a record of when the work was undertaken and the work took 7 days. I do not consider there was a large amount of work to be done, and I consider that most of it could have been undertaken whilst beginning the work of finding a tenant. I have awarded one week’s lost rent in consideration of the delay caused by the tenant’s conduct.
Because Holly Brendling, Georgia Rose Brendling has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5225571 — net $4,512.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$172.60	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: wardrobe, bathroom, bedroom door	$1,327.71	Repairs: wardrobe, bathroom, bedroom door
Lock/key replacement	$244.22	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$2,120.75	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Loss of rental income one week	$620.00	Loss of rental income one week
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,512.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,512.28

Order

Josh Archibald must pay Holly Brendling and Georgia Rose Brendling $4,512.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing and was represented by Mr Haabjoern. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal and ended on 9 March 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Photographs produced by the landlord show that no cleaning whatsoever had been undertaken at the end of the tenancy. Large amounts of dust were evident in all rooms, walls had many dirty marks, the utility areas and cupboards were very dirty, the carpet had not been vacuumed and there were many dirty marks in the carpet.
Large amounts of rubbish and belongings of no value were left inside and outside the premises.
The landlord is also claiming for entry swipe cards and recoding, and a letterbox lock.
These claims are as follows: a. Locksmith for letterbox: $172.60 b. Entrance swipe cards and recoding: $244.22 c. Cleaning full house including carpet and rubbish removal: $2,420.00
The landlord provided photographs and invoices in support of their claims.
I am satisfied the locksmith claims are reasonable and they are proved.
I note that the cleaning was for a full exit clean. A tenant is only required to leave a premises reasonably clean and tidy. A landlord will usually undertake a full deep clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of an exiting tenant. I have made a slight reduction in the amount for cleaning in consideration of this.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. 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 landlord claims the tenant caused the following damage during the tenancy: (The dollar amounts are what the landlord is claiming to repair the damage.) a. Ripped bedroom door, toilet seat, wardrobe door runners: $1,327.71 b. Lawn grass died: $1,202.10
The landlord produced photographs showing the bedroom door to have been ripped on its hinges. A replacement hollow-core door was source, finished and fitted. The toilet seat was broken and the runners on a wardrobe door were bent so the door would not slide. The landlord produced an invoice in support of these repairs.
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I determine the damage to be a combination of careless damage and intentional damage.
The claim is proved.
The landlord also produced photographs showing the courtyard grass to have died. The paved courtyard has weeds growing in the cracks and weeds are all that is growing in the once-grassed area. The landlord referred me to what looks like dog faeces amongst the weeds.
There is no reliable information as to what has caused the grass, which was “ready-lawn” laid at the beginning of the tenancy, to die. Nor was any information presented that tracks the condition of the grass across the two-year tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the tenant caused the grass to die, either with or without the help of a visiting dog. I can draw judicial notice that “ready-lawn” can be prone to dying when newly installed up until the time it is established. Extreme weather can play its part. There is no information as to when the grass died. As such I am not persuaded that the dead lawn is damage caused by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken account of 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. I consider the landlord does not benefit from any betterment by awarding the full repair costs for the items in this application.
The landlord is also claiming $1,860.00 for three weeks’ lost rental income due to the repairs that were required.
I am satisfied the damage caused by the tenant caused a delay in the landlord’s ability to re-tenant their property. I note the tradesperson’s invoice has a record of when the work was undertaken and the work took 7 days. I do not consider there was a large amount of work to be done, and I consider that most of it could have been undertaken whilst beginning the work of finding a tenant. I have awarded one week’s lost rent in consideration of the delay caused by the tenant’s conduct.
Because Holly Brendling, Georgia Rose Brendling has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225571 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 18 Graham Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225571 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 18 Graham Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula,

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

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

Frequently asked questions