What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240174?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Leach must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties

How much money was awarded in case 5240174?

Rubbish Removal: $555.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $565.71 awarded to landlord; Blocked Toilet: $163.59 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240174?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923841-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240174?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Leach must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties

How much money was awarded in case 5240174?

Rubbish Removal: $555.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $565.71 awarded to landlord; Blocked Toilet: $163.59 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240174?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923841-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room A, Unit/Flat 5, 9 Hands Road, Middleton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240174 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Room A, Unit/Flat 5, 9 Hands Road, Middleton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240174 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240174 — net $1,497.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$565.71	Rent arrears
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$555.75	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police	$115.00	Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police
Lock/key replacement	$300.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: blocked toilet	$163.59	Repairs: blocked toilet
Repairs: Ceiling damage due to blocked toilet – insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs: Ceiling damage due to blocked toilet – insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,497.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,497.55

Claims and awards for application 5240174 — net $1,497.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $565.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning: and rubbish removal

Amount: $555.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: and rubbish removal

Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $300.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: blocked toilet

Amount: $163.59
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: blocked toilet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Nathan Leach must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Cheng Family Trust $1,497.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 (5559390-022) to Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Cheng Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Ms Taylor attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 April 2025. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all possessions or rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to confirm that the tenant left considerable rubbish and unwanted possessions in the room and did no cleaning prior to the end of the tenancy.
Suspicious items were left at the premises, and these required safe removal to the police station at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not return the keys and the landlord provided an invoice for lock and key replacement which included a new front door lock and keys for all occupants.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. During the tenancy the toilet became blocked seemingly by flushing improper items. The tenant did not advise the landlord of the damage. b. The blocked toilet caused a leak in the ceiling below which was over the shared kitchen.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to prove the damage and repairs to the blocked toilet.
Once the blocked toilet was repaired the leak to the kitchen ceiling ceased confirming that the blocked toilet was the direct cause of the ceiling leak.
The landlord provided photographs and a quotation to confirm the damage to the ceiling. No evidence was provided as to the insurance position in relation to the ceiling damage.
The damage is scheduled to be repaired in the spring.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
A quotation was provided to prove the cost of repairs to the kitchen ceiling, being $1,265.00.
The insurance excess noted in the tenancy agreement is $650.00 and this is the amount that has been ordered.
I can see no obvious reason why insurance would not be available to cover this loss, but, if insurance is not available for some reason, the amount ordered takes 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 of the property and the use of the kitchen, being a shared kitchen for all occupants of the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Cheng Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240174 — net $1,497.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$565.71	Rent arrears
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$555.75	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police	$115.00	Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police
Lock/key replacement	$300.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: blocked toilet	$163.59	Repairs: blocked toilet
Repairs: Ceiling damage due to blocked toilet – insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs: Ceiling damage due to blocked toilet – insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,497.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,497.55

Claims and awards for application 5240174 — net $1,497.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $565.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning: and rubbish removal

Amount: $555.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: and rubbish removal

Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: suspicious items to police

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $300.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: blocked toilet

Amount: $163.59
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: blocked toilet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Nathan Leach must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Cheng Family Trust $1,497.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 (5559390-022) to Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Cheng Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Ms Taylor attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 April 2025. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all possessions or rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to confirm that the tenant left considerable rubbish and unwanted possessions in the room and did no cleaning prior to the end of the tenancy.
Suspicious items were left at the premises, and these required safe removal to the police station at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not return the keys and the landlord provided an invoice for lock and key replacement which included a new front door lock and keys for all occupants.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. During the tenancy the toilet became blocked seemingly by flushing improper items. The tenant did not advise the landlord of the damage. b. The blocked toilet caused a leak in the ceiling below which was over the shared kitchen.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to prove the damage and repairs to the blocked toilet.
Once the blocked toilet was repaired the leak to the kitchen ceiling ceased confirming that the blocked toilet was the direct cause of the ceiling leak.
The landlord provided photographs and a quotation to confirm the damage to the ceiling. No evidence was provided as to the insurance position in relation to the ceiling damage.
The damage is scheduled to be repaired in the spring.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
A quotation was provided to prove the cost of repairs to the kitchen ceiling, being $1,265.00.
The insurance excess noted in the tenancy agreement is $650.00 and this is the amount that has been ordered.
I can see no obvious reason why insurance would not be available to cover this loss, but, if insurance is not available for some reason, the amount ordered takes 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 of the property and the use of the kitchen, being a shared kitchen for all occupants of the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Cheng Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240174 — Property damage at Room A, Unit/Flat 5, 9 Hands Road, Middleton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240174 — Property damage at Room A, Unit/Flat 5, 9 Hands Road, Middleton,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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