What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296920?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Mcgahan must pay Andersen Family Limited $2,081.66 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5296920?

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 5296920?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317717-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296920?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Mcgahan must pay Andersen Family Limited $2,081.66 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5296920?

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 5296920?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317717-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat a, 18A Beaumont Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296920 — Rent arrears

Order

Sarah Mcgahan must pay Andersen Family Limited $2,081.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person in Whakatane. The tenant attended by phone
The tenancy has ended. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond ($2,000 held by the landlord) and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has previously been directed to file her cross-application. She had not filed her cross-application for this hearing and indicated at the start of the hearing she does not intent to file a cross-application but at the end of the hearing said she may do so. I have advised her to seek legal advice about this issue. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 2 The tenancy ended on 10 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
By consent I make an order for rent arrears of $2,814.26. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for 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. 5
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not remove all rubbish. By consent I make an order for compensation for rubbish removal of $155.22.

LOCK REPLACEMENT

The landlord says the tenant did not return the keys. He claims $59.33 to replace the lock. The tenant says she returned the keys to the letterbox as requested by the landlord. The landlord disputes saying the tenant could put the keys in the letter box.
I am dismissing the claim for the lock replacement because: a. The landlord lives in Rotorua on the weekend (in the adjacent unit to this tenancy) but works away during the week. I consider it likely for convenience he would have suggested the keys be placed in the letterbox as the tenancy ended during the week. b. The landlord has only provided a bunnings quote (from September 2025) in support of the claim, which was obtained after he says he purchased the keys in July 2025. In the absence of the actual receipt, I cannot be satisfied that he paid the amount claimed. The invoice should have been retained and submitted in support of the claim.

SHOWER TRAY

The landlord claims $487 compensation for damage to the shower tray.
The landlord says the shower was installed approximately two years before this tenancy commenced and was installed by a plumber. The landlord says the shower base cracked during the tenancy. He suggests it cracked because the weight limit was exceeded. He has provided a quote in support of the claim and said he has replaced the entire shower himself.
The tenant says she stood in the shower, and it cracked suddenly. She says it appeared to have a gap underneath it.
The claim for the shower tray is dismissed because: a. I consider a shower base should be able to withstand any person’s weight. The tenant has used the shower normally. I consider this damage falls within fair wear and tear. b. If I am wrong about that I consider the tenant has proven she did not carelessly or intentionally damage the shower.

BROKEN POWER POINT

The landlord says a power point was damaged during this tenancy. A photograph was provided in support of the claim.
The tenant says she has no knowledge of the damage, when or how it occurred or whether the damage was present at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am dismissing the claim for power point replacement because - a. No pre-tenancy photographs were provided to show the damage was not present at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The landlord has only provided a bunnings quote (from September 2025) in support of the claim. In the absence of the actual receipt, I cannot be satisfied that he paid the amount claimed. The invoice or receipt, if any, should have been retained and submitted in support of the claim.

DOOR DAMAGE

The landlord says a door was damaged during the tenancy. He says it was in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy but cracked at the end. The landlord claims $59.75 compensation for this damage.
The tenant says the door was of poor quality and partly damaged at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am dismissing the claim for the door replacement because: a. No pre-tenancy photographs were provided to show the damage was not present in part at the commencement of the tenancy. I cannot rule out that there was a degree of damage to this door at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has therefore not proven this damage was caused solely during this tenancy. b. If I am wrong in that finding, the landlord has only provided a bunnings quote in support of the claim. In the absence of the actual receipt, I cannot be satisfied that he paid the amount claimed. The invoice or receipt, if any, should have been retained and submitted in support of the claim.

WINDOWS DAMAGE AND WINDOW HANDLES

The tenant agreed to pay compensation for ranchslider windows which were damaged during the tenancy. The amount ordered for the ranchslider windows is $636.60
The landlord claims compensation for the window repair for the living room window and two window latches, one for the living room window and one for the bedroom.
The tenant said that shortly after the tenancy commenced the living room window latch was loose and snapped off. She took the bedroom window latch and tried to install it, however in the process she broke the living room window.
Excluding the first window latch breaking, the subsequent damage to the bedroom window latch and window is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. I consider the first window latch damage was likely fair wear and tear. I consider the subsequent damage was careless and the tenant should have not attempted to replace the broken window latch but should have required the landlord to attend to this.
Only a quote has been provided. The quote is for $318.58. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when only quotes are provided. That is because the landlord may not actually pay the amount quoted. However, I accept that the window will need to be replaced. The quote for replacing the glass and two window latches does not itemise labour and materials. I will therefore deduct $30 from the quote to reflect that the tenant is not responsible for the first window latch damage. The amount ordered is $288.58

HEATER

The landlord says a heater was installed in approximately 2022. The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the heater was underneath the rubbish pile left by the tenant. The landlord claims $399 compensation for a replacement heater.
The tenant accepts there was a heater present at the commencement of the tenancy and she says it was still installed at the end of the tenancy when she vacated.
In reviewing the evidence, including the photograph of the heater uninstalled at the end of the tenancy, I consider it is more likely than not that the heater was removed and placed in the rubbish pile.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In assessing the claim for compensation the following matters are relevant: a. An electric heater has an estimated useful lifespan of 5 years. 12 b. Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when only quotes are provided. That is because the landlord may not actually pay the amount quoted.
In taking into account these factors I will order compensation of $100 which is a contribution to the eventual replacement heater.

CURTAINS

The landlord says the curtains throughout the premises were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The claim is for blind replacement in the living room only. The claim is for - 12 IR265 General depreciation rates – residential property chattels a. Nets – $58.80. b. Blind rod- $105. c. Curtains-$162.
The landlord said the living room curtains were approximately 5 years old.
The tenant says she removed the living room curtains and replaced them with her own, which she then took with her at the end of the tenancy. She agreed the curtains would have been approximately 5 years old. She says there was no nets at the commencement of the tenancy, and she left the curtain rail.
Because no pre-tenancy photographs have been provided I am dismissing the claim for the nets and curtain rod. Curtains have an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years. 13 In taking into account betterment and depreciation I will order compensation of $60. Bond / Filing fee / Suppression
The bond held by the landlord is deducted from the amount ordered
Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered the tenant reimburse the filing fee paid for the application. 14
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296920 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat a, 18A Beaumont Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296920 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat a, 18A Beaumont Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCK REPLACEMENT

SHOWER TRAY

BROKEN POWER POINT

DOOR DAMAGE

WINDOWS DAMAGE AND WINDOW HANDLES

HEATER

CURTAINS

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCK REPLACEMENT

SHOWER TRAY

BROKEN POWER POINT

DOOR DAMAGE

WINDOWS DAMAGE AND WINDOW HANDLES

HEATER

CURTAINS

Property management