What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240739?

The tribunal order states: Wayne Stewart must pay Anne Michelle Walters and Basil Gerard Walters

How much money was awarded in case 5240739?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $682.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Fixed Fees Water: $448.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Carpet: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Light Fitting: $11.71 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Spouting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; To Fences: $1,270.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $30.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240739?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196450-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240739?

The tribunal order states: Wayne Stewart must pay Anne Michelle Walters and Basil Gerard Walters

How much money was awarded in case 5240739?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $682.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Fixed Fees Water: $448.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Carpet: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Light Fitting: $11.71 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Spouting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; To Fences: $1,270.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $30.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240739?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196450-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

94 Collingwood Road, Waiuku, Auckland 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240739 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240739 — net $3,827.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$30.40		Water rates
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$682.50		Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Garage door remotes	$260.00		Lock/key replacement: Garage door remotes
Garage carpet	$1,560.00		Garage carpet
Carpet Cleaning: Dining room	$103.50		Carpet Cleaning: Dining room
Carpet - insurance excess	$550.00		Carpet - insurance excess
Repairs: to fences	$1,270.00		Repairs: to fences
Repairs: spouting	$1,000.00		Repairs: spouting
Repairs: light fitting	$11.71		Repairs: light fitting
Repairs: painting	$1,500.00		Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Fixed fees water		$448.00	Fixed fees water
Total award	$6,995.11	$448.00
Net award	$3,827.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,827.11

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240739 — net $3,827.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$30.40		Water rates
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$682.50		Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Garage door remotes	$260.00		Lock/key replacement: Garage door remotes
Garage carpet	$1,560.00		Garage carpet
Carpet Cleaning: Dining room	$103.50		Carpet Cleaning: Dining room
Carpet - insurance excess	$550.00		Carpet - insurance excess
Repairs: to fences	$1,270.00		Repairs: to fences
Repairs: spouting	$1,000.00		Repairs: spouting
Repairs: light fitting	$11.71		Repairs: light fitting
Repairs: painting	$1,500.00		Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Fixed fees water		$448.00	Fixed fees water
Total award	$6,995.11	$448.00
Net award	$3,827.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,827.11

Order

Wayne Stewart must pay Anne Michelle Walters and Basil Gerard Walters $3,827.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5507761-005) to Anne Michelle Walters and Basil Gerard Walters immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 31 July 2025.
The property is a 3-bedroom brick and tile home in Waiuku. The house was flooded in cyclone Gabrielle, and therefore extensively refurbished before the tenancy began, the work that was completed at the property before this tenancy included new gib, painting, carpet and floorcoverings throughout the house and new carpet in the garage. A fence outside the property was also replaced.
The condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy was akin to a new build.
The tenancy began on the 27 October 2023 and ended on the 7 February this year after the tenant gave notice.
Whilst the tenancy was in the tenant’s name, the tenant’s family members Connor and Stacey and their children lived at the property during the tenancy. It was unclear how often the tenant stayed at the property, but he tells me that there were periods he would stay at the property.
Connor works as a contractor, and this means that he would sometimes have heavy machinery at the property.
During the tenancy the landlord conducted regular inspections of the property.
The landlords claim that the tenant caused damage to the property and failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. They are seeking reimbursement of the following costs which they say they have incurred as a result of the tenant leaving the property not in a clean and tidy condition and causing damage to the property. a. Cleaning of property after tenant left $682.50. b. Spouting and fascia $1932.00 c. Plastering and Painting of walls and front door $2231.00 d. Carpet cleaning in lounge $103.50 e. Replacement carpet – as stain could not be removed $550 (insurance excess). f. Repairs to front fence $920.00 g. Replacement garage door remotes $260.00 h. Garage carpet replacement $1830.00 i. Outside light fitting $11.71 j. Driveway fence repairs $557.94 k. Water care bill $57.58 l. Claim for 4 weeks rent which the landlord says was lost due to the condition of the property. $2920.00 m. Filing fee $27.00
The landlord has asked for the bond to be paid to them in partial satisfaction of any award made. Water.
The landlord was seeking payment of the full water bill of $57.58. The landlord has been charging the tenants for the fixed bill for water during the tenancy. The amount the tenants owe for the January water bill is $30.40.
The landlords should not have charged the tenants the fixed water charges for the tenancy. The tenancy was 16 months. The average fixed water cost is usually between $27-28 per month. I therefore credit the tenant $448.00. ($28 x16). Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenants obligation is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and free from rubbish. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
The obligation to leave a property reasonably clean and free for rubbish is not just for the inside of the property but is also for the exterior as well, particularly if the tenant is responsible for the lawns and gardens as they were here.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy, they show large items of rubbish, a drum, old car seat and other items left on the outside of the property. The lawns are unkempt as is the garden, there is a large pile of green waste at the property. The landlord had a contractor come and remove the rubbish- the landlord also helped the contractor but did not charge for his time.
The photographs show a very full trailer load of rubbish taken from the property. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The tenant objects to the price of the rubbish removal. The tenant says “the quote to remove a small amount of rubbish from the property is excessive.” And also, that the trailer load of rubbish was mainly the landlord’s own rubbish which he brought in the trailer and then added the rubbish left behind by Connor and Stacey. This is disputed by the landlord.
The landlord provided me with photographs of the property and then the full trailer. The items in the trailer appear to be those only from the property. The landlord also provided me with statements from the neighbours who witnessed the landlord turning up with an empty trailer and then loading it up. I am satisfied that the items in the trailer were from the property.
The invoice provided did not distinguish between labour and tip fees. However, the Tribunal sees these types of claim every day and I am satisfied that the amount awarded is reasonable for the work that was completed.
The tenant said that Connor was going to clean the yard up but didn’t because he became annoyed that his items had been moved by the builders who were fixing the fence. I do not consider that this excuse the tenant from his obligation to leave the property in a reasonable condition.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the total cost of the invoice from the contractor who did the work. The fees are reasonable for the work that was done. I award the landlord $682.50. Garage door remotes.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must 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 did not return the garage door remotes. The tenant says that one garage door remote had stopped working during the tenancy and had been returned to the landlord, and the other was returned to the landlord at the end.
The landlord says that he did not receive both remotes back. The landlord says that they never received a remote during the tenancy.
The landlord had to get new garage door remotes, because it was missing one it had to have the remotes reprogrammed.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not return both garage door remotes and award the full cost of replacement of 2 remotes because I am satisfied that with one remote missing the landlord had to replace the remotes and have them reprogrammed. I award the landlord $260.00. Damage.
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 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. 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. Garage carpet.
I am satisfied that the carpet, which was new at the beginning of the tenancy, was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The carpet had burn marks on the carpet, these burn marks have permeated the carpet. The landlord submitted that this was likely caused by welding occurring in the garage, as in one photograph that the landlord had from the occupants Facebook page, showed a welding device in the garage. The tenant says that the carpet was not damaged by him and that he does not know how the carpet became burned. He also says that it is a usual use of the garage to fix cars or other items and that if the carpet has become damaged it is through ‘wear and tear’ or using the garage in a way it was meant to be used.
Whilst I accept that when landlords have carpet garage, that they should expect wear that is usual for a garage, for instance stains from tyres on the cars parked in the garage, this damage was far in excess of the type of damage that would be typical of a residential garage.
The landlords brought a piece of the garage carpet to the hearing, it was extensively damaged with burn holes and staining. I do not consider that this damage was usual wear. If a person was working on the cars, then I would expect them to take precautionary steps to prevent damage to the carpet, and I would certainly not expect them to use a welding machine in a carpeted garage. I have therefore treated this damage as intentional.
I am satisfied that the carpet needed to be replaced because of the damage. I award the cost of the carpet less depreciation of 2 years to the landlord. The amount awarded is $1560.00. Carpet in lounge and dining room.
The landlord says that the carpet had to be replaced because of a large orange stain on the carpet. The landlord says that they were never informed of the stain, and that during inspections the area was often covered by a rug.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord tried to remove the carpet stain by having professional cleaners try and remove the stain, they could not do so. The landlord had to replace the carpet, in the whole area (dining and lounge) due to the location of the stain and that the carpet specialists said that they could not just repair the carpet by adding a new piece as it would be too noticeable.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused carelessly, and therefore the tenant is liable for the insurance excess only for the replacement carpet and the attempted stain removal by the carpet cleaners.
I award the landlord $103.50 for stain removal and $550.00 for the insurance excess. Repairs to the fences.
There are two fences that had to be repaired. One was a side fence that was newly erected at the beginning of the tenancy, that the tenant’s son cut through without permission in order to make a rudimentary gate. The other was back fence that ran adjacent to the driveway. The tenant had removed the fence to get his digger into the back of the property but did not reinstate the whole fence at the end, leaving two rails off- one of which was broken off.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of repairs to the side fence, and the back fence.
The costs of the repair to the side gate was $920.00 and I award the full cost.
The costs of the repair to the back gate was $557.94. I award $350.00. This takes into account that the fence was older at the beginning of the tenancy, and that the landlord having had the fence repaired has been put in a better position than the fence was at the beginning of the tenancy. Repairs to the spouting and fascia
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the spouting and fascia in three places. There was damage above the garage, damage to the side and damage on the other side.
The tenant denies damaging the spouting and fascia and says it was more than likely caused by storm damage, falling branches or was preexisting at the beginning of the tenancy. In an email the tenant sent to the landlord on the 25 February 2025, the tenant says that the landlord only pointed out two places of damage, and that the damage above the garage was done before the tenancy by the landlord’s builder. The tenant says that the damage to the side of the house occurred by a tree branch from an adjoining property falling on the guttering.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the damage to the spouting and fascia on the side of the house was more than likely as a result of the tenant using machinery on the side of the house than a branch from the tree next door falling on it. I say this because the nature of the damage indicates that something from below the spouting fascia has hit the spouting/ fascia rather than something from above. The landlord provided photographs that showed the tenant used heavy machinery in this area. This was the only area where the fascia appeared to be broken and was also the most extensive damage of the three lots of damage to the spouting.
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the spouting above the garage, or the other damage. It was unclear when this damage had occurred and it appeared that there had been an incident, close to when the tenancy began where something on the landlord’s builders van had collided with the spouting.
I award the landlord $1000.00 for the damage to the spouting caused by the tenant. The light fitting.
The landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing the light fitting at the front door having no cover.
I am satisfied that the cover as removed during the tenancy and award the landed the cost of the replacement cover of $11.71. Painting.
The landlord is claiming $2331.00 for painting the property because the tenant removed a bracket from the wall, damaged the front door by affixing sticker to the front door which peeled off the paint when removed. Repairing holes in the soffit where security cameras had been attached and repainting of the garage walls which were marked.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage and also a statement from the professional cleaner who said “There is ingrained exhaust staining on the paintwork – this cannot be removed by cleaning it would need to be repainted. There is also marks on the walls caused by large objects scraping against the walls. The skirting boards have the exhaust staining. The staining looks like what you would find in an automotive shop wall. It is not cleanable.”
The tenant says that the damage to the paint is wear and tear, especially in the garage.
I consider that the damage to the paint work is more than wear and tear in the garage. Again, I accept that garages are to be used to store cars and therefore you may expect some exhaust markings, but it appears that this garage was used to repair classic cars. I accept the evidence of Ms Foley that this was exhaust fumes that could not be cleaned. I consider that the damage is in excess of usual fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the wall when removing a bracket and also damaged the front door when affixing stickers to it.
I have awarded the landlord $1500 for the costs of painting. This takes into account depreciation and betterment. Rent – for the time that the property was being repaired.
The landlord seeks rent from the tenant to cover the period that the work was carried out. The landlord submits that if the tenant had not breached their obligations, then the landlord would not have had to do the work and would have been able to place their tenants in the property straight away.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlords have not proven this claim for the following reasons: a. The landlord cannot prove to me that they had tenants who were ready to move in on the day the tenants were leaving. There was no firm agreement as to when the new tenants would take possession. b. The landlord’s tenants who did move in, were existing tenants who lived in another of the landlord’s property. They remained in that property paying rent until this premises was ready. c. It is likely that had those tenants been able to move in after this tenant left, that the new tenants old property would have remained vacant for some weeks whilst the landlord found new tenants for that property. Filing fee
Because Anne Michelle Walters, Basil Gerard Walters has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240739 — Property damage at 94 Collingwood Road, Waiuku, Auckland 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240739 — Property damage at 94 Collingwood Road, Waiuku, Auckland 2123

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions