What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5269723?

The tribunal order states: Kim Rolleston and Cruz El-uche Lazarus-Diamond must pay Lodge City Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5269723?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5269723?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5269723?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175794-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5269723?

The tribunal order states: Kim Rolleston and Cruz El-uche Lazarus-Diamond must pay Lodge City Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5269723?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5269723?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5269723?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175794-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4D, 44 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5269723 — Property damage

Order

Kim Rolleston and Cruz El-uche Lazarus-Diamond must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Barry And Susan Snyders $1,149.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down for video conference. The tenant had been in touch prior to the hearing, advising the Tribunal of an updated number to call. That number would not connect but the tenant sent a text during the hearing from a similar number. This second number worked and was also called twice but not answered.
The tenant clearly has been in touch and wanted to join. I considered this, as well a prior email exchange between the parties regarding the costs claimed. On balance, I considered it appropriate to continue. If the tenant does wants an audience she should apply for a rehearing, explaining what went wrong today.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already received the bond from the tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2025 after a tenant notice to terminate. The landlord provided rent records prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent is $720.00.

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. The landlord provided an invoice and photos. It claimed a need for cleaning of the shower unit, toilet & vanity, oven and rangehood, and the vinyl flooring in the kitchen. The invoiced amount of $137.00 is awarded.
The tenant did not return the keys. A locksmith invoice for $126.75 was provided. This is awarded.
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 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. No insurance cover was available.
Broken door jamb. The landlord provided photos of this. It was badly damaged by some force. The cost of repair was $370.88, established by an invoice.
Hole in wall. This hole was of a significant size, based on the photo. There were also smaller indentations or marks that required repair. The cost of repair was $888.03, established by an invoice.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord and tenant engaged in email communication in early July. The landlord advised the tenant of the costs which were accepted at that time. A fast-track mediated order was mutually agreed upon but given this hearing date was already set, the landlord was advised to continue to the hearing, this being the quicker resolution.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Barry And Susan Snyders has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Kim Rolleston and Cruz El-uche Lazarus-Diamond must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Barry And Susan Snyders $1,149.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down for video conference. The tenant had been in touch prior to the hearing, advising the Tribunal of an updated number to call. That number would not connect but the tenant sent a text during the hearing from a similar number. This second number worked and was also called twice but not answered.
The tenant clearly has been in touch and wanted to join. I considered this, as well a prior email exchange between the parties regarding the costs claimed. On balance, I considered it appropriate to continue. If the tenant does wants an audience she should apply for a rehearing, explaining what went wrong today.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already received the bond from the tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2025 after a tenant notice to terminate. The landlord provided rent records prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent is $720.00.

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. The landlord provided an invoice and photos. It claimed a need for cleaning of the shower unit, toilet & vanity, oven and rangehood, and the vinyl flooring in the kitchen. The invoiced amount of $137.00 is awarded.
The tenant did not return the keys. A locksmith invoice for $126.75 was provided. This is awarded.
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 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. No insurance cover was available.
Broken door jamb. The landlord provided photos of this. It was badly damaged by some force. The cost of repair was $370.88, established by an invoice.
Hole in wall. This hole was of a significant size, based on the photo. There were also smaller indentations or marks that required repair. The cost of repair was $888.03, established by an invoice.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord and tenant engaged in email communication in early July. The landlord advised the tenant of the costs which were accepted at that time. A fast-track mediated order was mutually agreed upon but given this hearing date was already set, the landlord was advised to continue to the hearing, this being the quicker resolution.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Barry And Susan Snyders has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5269723 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4D, 44 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

Tenancy Tribunal case 5269723 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4D, 44 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

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?

Property management

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?

Property management