What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5309256?

The tribunal order states: Madison Marie Carson and Freeman Rongonui must pay Lifestyle Property

How much money was awarded in case 5309256?

Cleaning: $21.55 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Floor Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $33.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $57.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309256?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309256?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12410388-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5309256?

The tribunal order states: Madison Marie Carson and Freeman Rongonui must pay Lifestyle Property

How much money was awarded in case 5309256?

Cleaning: $21.55 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Floor Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $33.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $57.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309256?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309256?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12410388-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Tasman Crescent, Carterton, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309256 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309256 — net $713.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Wall repairs	$552.00		Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$57.04		Rubbish removal
Carpet replacement	$250.00		Carpet replacement
Cleaning products	$21.55		Cleaning products
Light bulbs and plugs	$33.34		Light bulbs and plugs
Compensation: Floor compensation		$200.00	Floor compensation
Total award	$913.93	$200.00
Net award	$713.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$713.93

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309256 — net $713.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Wall repairs	$552.00		Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$57.04		Rubbish removal
Carpet replacement	$250.00		Carpet replacement
Cleaning products	$21.55		Cleaning products
Light bulbs and plugs	$33.34		Light bulbs and plugs
Compensation: Floor compensation		$200.00	Floor compensation
Total award	$913.93	$200.00
Net award	$713.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$713.93

Order

Madison Marie Carson and Freeman Rongonui must pay Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited $713.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 (3204137-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited: $713.93 Madison Marie Carson and Freeman Rongonui: $426.07
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today, 15 September 2025.

BACKGROUND

I will set out the specific background more fully below, but note that the tenancy commenced on 19 July 2020, coming to an end on 23 April 2025.
It is also relevant to note that the parties have previously been to mediation in an attempt to resolve matters. From that mediation, it was agreed that $552.00 would be paid by the tenant to the landlord, in relation to wall repairs and, $57.04 for rubbish removal. However, the balance of the landlord’s claims could not be resolved at mediation, and so now come to the Tribunal to be decided. I also note that following the mediation, the tenant filed an application, which is considered today.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Compensation for front door. b. Carpet replacement. c. Cleaning products d. Light bulbs and plugs e. Filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Kitchen floor b. Maintenance (fireplace door, rotting floor board and gaps in door) c. HHS breaches.

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 party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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.

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Front door

The landlord states that there were regular inspections at the premises. At an inspection in May the front door was ok, but it had been damaged at the time of the next inspection. Following discussion with the tenant, the tenant accepted that she would be responsible for the door. However, it turned out that the door that was in place was a hollow-core door and the tenant then changed her position. The landlord disputes that the door deteriorated over time.
The tenant accepts that her children could have damaged the door, but states that over time, issues arose with the door, and she found in her research that the door should not have been used. The tenant says that over time the door swelled and that it could not be shut. Analysis
I accept that the door has been damaged during the course of the tenancy. The question, is whether the tenant is liable for the door repair.
With any claim for damage, the landlord must first establish that the damage is more than fear and tear, and that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Once those two questions are established, then the onus would shift to the tenant to prove the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
The evidence does establish that the door was damaged during the tenancy, but the primary question is whether it was fair wear and tear.
The evidence establishes that the door in question was not an exterior door, but an internal hollow corridor used for exterior purposes. That is supported in the photographs provided, and also a quotation on file. I am not certain who provided the quotation, but it does appear to be from a tradesperson or similar, with the quotation saying.: Door is an internal hollow core door that has been retro-fitted with a glass insert (not standard). Bottom of door has been rebated to fit into frame. Door latch set (mortise type shows signs of wear and latch does not fully slide back and forth (although does close ok at the moment). Evidence of previous repairs (holes that have been filled). Hinges ok for re-use. Dead bolt lock ok. Not cost effective to repair. I would recommend it be replaced with and external door (rather than internal door). No real requirement for a glass panel
It can be accepted that there are fundamental differences between internal and external doors. External doors are obviously more robust, and able to handle the elements and conditions that are found outside the dwelling, whereas internal doors are less robust. Internal doors are frequently hollow core and light, they are not intended to be in moist environments.
In this case the landlord has it would seem, used an internal door for an unintended purpose, that is as an external door. It can be accepted that in those circumstances, the door would not last as well, and it would breakdown faster-it is simply not made for how it was being used. That being the case, I must conclude the landlord has not established that the damage is more than fear wear and tear.
Even if that were not the case, I would have concluded that the tenant has satisfied me, that the damage would not be careless or intentional damage, given the fact that there was a less robust door used externally, so it would be more prone to breaking down and becoming damaged with routine use.
This claim has not been established, so must be dismissed. Claim 2 – Carpet replacement
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy there were stains to the carpet, which could not be removed. The staining was throughout the tenancy. The landlord said that Chemdry came to look at the carpet, and said that the carpet could not be cleaned. The landlord is not sure how old the carpet is, the Property Managers asked the landlord if they knew, but they did not, but it was ‘a few years old’. The Property Manager commenced running this tenancy in 2018, so any replacement was prior to that.
The tenant agrees that the staining was caused by them. The tenant said the carpet was not cleaned before they left. During the tenancy carpet repairs were needed, but the tenant said it was dirty when they started the tenancy. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If the tenant fails to achieve that, then the tenant would be liable for any cost incurred, to remedy that situation.
The challenge in these sorts of cases is normally in deciding whether the premises were returned reasonably clean. In reaching an assessment, what I must do is take into account wide-ranging factors, such as the age of the carpet, the state the carpet was in at the start of the tenancy, the length of the tenancy, and how it was returned. Taking those factors into consideration, I reached the following conclusions: a. The age of the carpet is not clear, The best that could be said, is that it is more than 7 to 8 years old. The property manager states that they took the property over in 2018, and the carpet had not been replaced since, so obviously it is at least 7 to 8 years old. Obviously, carpet does not last forever; it has a natural life. If I refer to the Inland Revenue depreciation guide (IR265), Inland Revenue consider that carpet in a residential tenancy would have an estimated useful life of eight years, that being the case, then that the carpet in this tenancy would be at the end of estimated life. b. In terms of the state of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, the pre- tenancy inspection records that the carpet had at least “some marks” in all rooms, with the rumpus room being described as “heavily stained”. The assessment was signed by both the tenant and landlord. But I nevertheless recognise that the photographs show the carpet to be in generally good condition overall. c. The tenancy term was close to 5 years – a long time. d. At the end of the tenancy, the photographs show far more significant staining than the pre-let photographs, and some of that staining is very noticeable, including noticeable red staining in places. The carpet also appears dirty.
When I step back and consider those factors overall, I consider it would be reasonable to order a contribution towards the carpet replacement only. The cabinet was close to the point of needing replacement, so it would not be fair to require the tenant to pay the full cost of that, but I accept that, given the level of staining and marks, that replacement would now be required. Taking into consideration the factors such as the age of the carpet, the length of the Tenancy, and the pre-and post tenancy staining and marks, I consider that a contribution of $250 towards the carpet replacement would be fair, and that is ordered. Claim 3 – Cleaning products
The landlord states that the owners of the premises did the cleaning for the premises themselves. The landlord claims $21.55 for cleaning products.
The tenant consents to this order being made Claim 4 – Lightbulbs and plugs
The landlord states that there missing sink plugs and lightbulbs. The landlord accepts that some lightbulbs were missing at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that she may have thrown the plug out when cleaning. The tenant states that some light bulbs were missing.
Following discussion, the parties agreed that the sum of $33.34 should be ordered by consent.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Kitchen floor

The tenant said that early on in the tenancy, a rat had chewed through pipes in the kitchen. While they were on holiday, the landlord removed a section of the floor, and replaced it with another board. The tenant considers that the repair was not of a reasonable standard. The tenant says that there was lino on the floor originally, but when the repair was completed, the lino was not replaced, but the board left exposed.
The landlord agrees that there was a water leak, which has caused damage to the floor, and it is agreed that a section of the damaged flooring needed to be replaced. It is agreed that the lino was not replaced, because the owner did not wish that to occur. The property manager agrees that the flooring did look different. Analysis
During the tenancy there was damage to the kitchen floor, and the flooring needed to be replaced. There is no suggestion that the tenant was responsible for that damage, so it fell within the landlords maintenance obligation. I can see from the photographs that the flooring has been replaced, where a large section of the kitchen floor was removed, and replaced with chipboard flooring or similar. However, the original floor was lino, and that lino was not replaced, so the tenant has not had contiguous flooring, and flooring of a different standard – in that they have some lino, and some uncovered chipboard flooring.
Overall, I accept that there has been some diminution in value given the uncovered chipboard panel, which means that the tenant was paying rent for premises, having a particular standard, that was not received. It is fair that the tenant receive some compensation for that.
Overall, the effect for the tenant would have been modest, the best I can do is to step back and consider what would be a fair level of compensation, and I consider a compensation of $200 would be fair in the circumstances. Claim 2 - Maintenance (fireplace door, rotting floor board and gaps in door)
The tenant has concerns around maintenance. The tenant refers to the back door, the floor and fireplace. a. The back door had large gaps and a draught. b. The kitchen floor needed work (as discussed in the claim above). c. In the living room, at one of the last inspections, the tenant raised concerns about rotting of a window sill that was only painted over. d. The fireplace was a freestanding wood burner, and there were cracks in the glass door which was a concern. The tenant said that she had raised with the contractor (Sooty’s) the crack, and they said it was not a problem.
In response, the landlord says: a. With respect to the back door, the premises had passed a healthy homes inspection. There were some issues raised that were fixed, that the landlord believes were fixed, but to the Property Managers knowledge this door was not an issue. The landlord says that this was not raised until the tenant filed her claim, so did not have an opportunity to address this if needed. b. In terms of the kitchen floor that was addressed above. c. With respect to the window sill, it is accepted that over time they can breakdown, it is not an unusual experience, and this was raised with the owners. The owners undertook the repair works to the window sill, and as far as they know, this was addressed. d. In relation to the fireplace glass, the landlord says they have no recollection of this being raised. The Property Manager said that they get a yearly inspection and servicing of woodburners with a specialist fireplace contractor, the last inspection was 8 June 2024 (with ‘Sootys’) and they did not raise any concerns. Analysis
A landlord is responsible for providing maintenance to the premises during the course of the tenancy. The tenants position is that they were for aspects of maintenance that were not sufficiently provided. If that were the case, then compensation could be ordered to compensate any tenant loss, or exemplary damages could be ordered to punish the landlord for not maintaining the premises. a. The tenants position is that the back door had large gaps, which lets in a draught. In response the landlord says that the premises had been assessed for healthy homes compliance, any issues identified from that assessment were corrected, and otherwise the tenant has not raised this problem during the tenancy. On balance, I find this claim has not been established. I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to show that there were gaps or issues with the back door, particularly in light of the fact this had not been raised with the landlord during the tenancy. While landlords are required to maintain the premises, there is also a requirement in the RTA that tenants advise landlords when maintenance is required. This claim has not been established. b. I agree that the kitchen floor required work, but I have addressed this claim above, and it would not be reasonable to order compensation further. c. The tenant has referred to deterioration on a windowsill in the lounge, that was raised with the landlord, and saw the repair being undertaken by the owner, I understand the windowsill was painted. I accept that the windowsill has deteriorated, but I am not persuaded that the landlords actions were manifestly unreasonable, or to put that another way, they remediation undertaken by the owner inadequate. I am satisfied that the window has been maintained as required, so this claim is not established. d. The fireplace glass is cracked, I accept that. However, I also accept that the fireplace has been inspected by a suitably qualified person, who determined that the cracked glass was not a safety issue, and that it did not require replacement. I must accept that, and conclude that there was no obligation on the landlord to maintain the fireplace further, that is replace, the glass on the wood burner door.
The tenants claims around maintenance have not been established, so are dismissed. Claim 3 – Healthy Homes Standards breach
The tenant claims a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant refers to the cracks in the fireplace glass, the floorboard and draughts submitting they would be a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. In terms of the draught, the tenant said that the landlord attended the premises, and closed it ‘with a stick’, which addressed the draught.
The landlord agrees there was an issue with the window. The owners were contacted, and they requested to undertake the work. The Property Manager accepted that further work was needed to the window after they had closed it with wood, but the owner did go back and do further work on the window. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
In terms of the claims performing, the two standards that would be relevant are the heating standard, and the draught stopping standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. a. In terms of the crack to the fireplace glass, if it was that the evidence showed the wood burner was unsafe and could not be used, then it might be that the HHS was breached. However, that is not the evidence here, as I have explained above. A suitably qualified person has considered that the cracks to the glass of the wood burner door were not a safety issue, and that a replacement was not required. Therefore, there has been no HHS breach. b. I am not persuaded that the tenant has identified how the replacement of the floor board would comprise a breach of the HHS, there is insufficient evidence to show that the repair has left a draught or offend any other HHS obligation. c. In terms of draughts, I am not persuade that there is sufficient evidence to show that there were draughts in the premises at an unreasonable level. The tenant noted that they were draughts during the tenancy from a window, the landlord was notified, and I understand the window was maintained, which was what the obligation on the landlord was. I find this claim has not been established.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309256 — Property damage at 19 Tasman Crescent, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309256 — Property damage at 19 Tasman Crescent, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions