What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5313094?

The tribunal order states: Kerei Heeney Iwikau must pay Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings

How much money was awarded in case 5313094?

Cleaning: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $393.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313094?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213033-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5313094?

The tribunal order states: Kerei Heeney Iwikau must pay Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings

How much money was awarded in case 5313094?

Cleaning: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $393.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313094?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213033-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 New Road, Taumarunui 3920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313094 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313094 — net $1,970.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$475.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$500.00	Rubbish removal: and lawns
Lock/key replacement	$393.07	Lock/key replacement
Replace heat pump remote	$74.75	Replace heat pump remote
Repairs to carpet lounge	$500.00	Repairs to carpet lounge
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,970.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,970.82

Order

The order dated 13 January 2026 is amended. "Your Local Property Manager Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings " is amended to “Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings". No other changes are made.

Kerei Heeney Iwikau must pay Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings $1,970.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Bergquist appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
There have been two tenancy agreements between the parties relating to this property. The first tenancy commenced on 03 June 2020. On 31 January 2024, the Tribunal terminated the first tenancy for rent arrears. However, the order was not enforced, and on 13 February 2024, the parties entered into a new tenancy agreement.
On 28 January 2025, the landlord again made an application to terminate the tenancy for rent arrears. On 06 May 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy. The termination was enforced, and the tenant vacated the property on 10 June 2025. On 25 July 2025, the landlord filed the claim before me today. The claim was initially scheduled for a remote hearing but was later adjourned for an in person hearing at this Courthouse.
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, ii. Failed to remove all rubbish from the exterior, iii. Failed to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition, iv. Failed to return the keys, v. Failed to account for the heat pump remote, vi. Is responsible for damage to walls and doors, and the carpet in the lounge.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The property is a former state house built in the 1970s, consisting of two bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, lounge, kitchen / dining room, and laundry. From the photographs produced, the property appears to retain most of its original features.
The landlord stated that they engaged a bailiff to enforce the termination. They state the bailiff visited the property, posted a notice on the front door, and then left allowing the tenant time to vacate. The tenant returned to the property, removed most of their possessions from the interior, and then left. The property was left unsecured, and the keys were not return.
Mr Bergquist and another property manager conducted the end of tenancy inspection and prepared an inspection report, together with photographs of the interior and exterior of the property. Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”)
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.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Decision
Having considered the end of tenancy inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean. I accept in the circumstances that the tenant likely had limited opportunity to do so. The photographs of the exterior show various items of household furniture, including a couch, mattress and bed base, chairs, an old fridge, and other items. There is also an abandoned van.
The lawns, although not excessively long, are not in a reasonably tidy condition. There are no gardens to speak of. As stated, the keys were not returned. The locks to the front and back door could not be re keyed and had to be replaced. The heat pump remote could not be located.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, failed to remove all rubbish from the exterior, failed to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition, and failed to return the keys, and to account for the heat pump remote,
Invoices have been produced. The compensation claimed for cleaning, rubbish removal, which includes disposal, lawn mowing, lock, and heat pump remote replacement is reasonable and is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls and doors, and the carpet in the lounge, which they claim has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord is claiming $1,150.00 to replace the carpet, and $1,432.50 to repair the damage ($800.00 for Gib stopping and $632.50 for painting) Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis
In this case the landlord must establish that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy. The relevant tenancy is that commencing on 13 February 2024 and ending on 10 June 2025.
The landlord produced a tenancy inspection report from the beginning of the first tenancy in June 2020, photographs taken during an inspection in November 2024, and a further report which includes photographs conducted on 30 January 2024, shortly before the end of the first tenancy and commencement of the second tenancy on 13 February 2024. The report shows some damage and fair wear and tear to walls throughout the property. Mr Bergquist states that most of this damage was repaired prior to the commencement of the second tenancy. The landlord relies on this material as evidence of the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The next report produced is the end of tenancy conducted by Mr Bergquist on 10 June 2025. The landlord has also produced photographs taken by the contractor engaged in July 2025 to repair the damage claimed. However, these show the damage, not as it may have initially appeared, but after repairs had been commenced but not completed. Carpet
The end of tenancy photographs shows a section of carpet in the lounge, near a cupboard door, which has been cut out. The landlord states that the tenant kept a dog at the property contrary to the tenancy agreement, that the cupboard door showed damage consistent with scratching, and that the carpet was likely similarly damaged and then removed. The inspection report from 30 January 2024 does not show damage to this area. Although the floor is obscured by the tenant’s furniture, the photographs show that the carpet had some minor staining and fair wear and tear.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet has occurred during the tenancy and that it is likely more than fair wear and tear. Considering the nature and the possible cause of the damage I am satisfied that it was likely the result of carelessness.
The landlord has insurance with an excess of $700.00 per claim. Carpet in residential tenancies has a useful lifespan of approximately 10 - 12 years. The carpet in this case was approximately five years old at the end of the tenancy and showed signs of wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy. Allowing for betterment, I reduce the amount claimed by 50% and award the landlord $500.00 toward the replacement of the carpet. Walls
Mr Bergquist alleges that the damage to walls and doors consists of scrapes, dings, and dents exceeding fair wear and tear.
The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy. Although repairs may have been undertaken following the inspection on 30 January 2024 and before the commencement of the tenancy, the nature and extent of those repairs are unclear. As a result, the actual condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy cannot be reliably determined.
The end of tenancy photographs was taken from a distance and are of limited evidential value when making an objective assessment. Even on careful review it is difficult to identify any damage beyond that which may have already existed at the start of the tenancy. The contractor’s photographs are clearer but were taken after repairs had already been commenced, preventing an assessment of the original damage or whether it exceeded fair wear and tear.
Although initially I considered a partial award might be possible, having reviewed the evidence, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient to establish the tenant’s liability. The claim for damage to walls and doors is therefore dismissed. Costs
Because Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313094 — net $1,970.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$475.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$500.00	Rubbish removal: and lawns
Lock/key replacement	$393.07	Lock/key replacement
Replace heat pump remote	$74.75	Replace heat pump remote
Repairs to carpet lounge	$500.00	Repairs to carpet lounge
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,970.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,970.82

Order

The order dated 13 January 2026 is amended. "Your Local Property Manager Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings " is amended to “Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings". No other changes are made.

Kerei Heeney Iwikau must pay Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings $1,970.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Bergquist appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
There have been two tenancy agreements between the parties relating to this property. The first tenancy commenced on 03 June 2020. On 31 January 2024, the Tribunal terminated the first tenancy for rent arrears. However, the order was not enforced, and on 13 February 2024, the parties entered into a new tenancy agreement.
On 28 January 2025, the landlord again made an application to terminate the tenancy for rent arrears. On 06 May 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy. The termination was enforced, and the tenant vacated the property on 10 June 2025. On 25 July 2025, the landlord filed the claim before me today. The claim was initially scheduled for a remote hearing but was later adjourned for an in person hearing at this Courthouse.
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, ii. Failed to remove all rubbish from the exterior, iii. Failed to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition, iv. Failed to return the keys, v. Failed to account for the heat pump remote, vi. Is responsible for damage to walls and doors, and the carpet in the lounge.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The property is a former state house built in the 1970s, consisting of two bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, lounge, kitchen / dining room, and laundry. From the photographs produced, the property appears to retain most of its original features.
The landlord stated that they engaged a bailiff to enforce the termination. They state the bailiff visited the property, posted a notice on the front door, and then left allowing the tenant time to vacate. The tenant returned to the property, removed most of their possessions from the interior, and then left. The property was left unsecured, and the keys were not return.
Mr Bergquist and another property manager conducted the end of tenancy inspection and prepared an inspection report, together with photographs of the interior and exterior of the property. Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”)
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.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Decision
Having considered the end of tenancy inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean. I accept in the circumstances that the tenant likely had limited opportunity to do so. The photographs of the exterior show various items of household furniture, including a couch, mattress and bed base, chairs, an old fridge, and other items. There is also an abandoned van.
The lawns, although not excessively long, are not in a reasonably tidy condition. There are no gardens to speak of. As stated, the keys were not returned. The locks to the front and back door could not be re keyed and had to be replaced. The heat pump remote could not be located.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, failed to remove all rubbish from the exterior, failed to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition, and failed to return the keys, and to account for the heat pump remote,
Invoices have been produced. The compensation claimed for cleaning, rubbish removal, which includes disposal, lawn mowing, lock, and heat pump remote replacement is reasonable and is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls and doors, and the carpet in the lounge, which they claim has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord is claiming $1,150.00 to replace the carpet, and $1,432.50 to repair the damage ($800.00 for Gib stopping and $632.50 for painting) Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis
In this case the landlord must establish that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy. The relevant tenancy is that commencing on 13 February 2024 and ending on 10 June 2025.
The landlord produced a tenancy inspection report from the beginning of the first tenancy in June 2020, photographs taken during an inspection in November 2024, and a further report which includes photographs conducted on 30 January 2024, shortly before the end of the first tenancy and commencement of the second tenancy on 13 February 2024. The report shows some damage and fair wear and tear to walls throughout the property. Mr Bergquist states that most of this damage was repaired prior to the commencement of the second tenancy. The landlord relies on this material as evidence of the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The next report produced is the end of tenancy conducted by Mr Bergquist on 10 June 2025. The landlord has also produced photographs taken by the contractor engaged in July 2025 to repair the damage claimed. However, these show the damage, not as it may have initially appeared, but after repairs had been commenced but not completed. Carpet
The end of tenancy photographs shows a section of carpet in the lounge, near a cupboard door, which has been cut out. The landlord states that the tenant kept a dog at the property contrary to the tenancy agreement, that the cupboard door showed damage consistent with scratching, and that the carpet was likely similarly damaged and then removed. The inspection report from 30 January 2024 does not show damage to this area. Although the floor is obscured by the tenant’s furniture, the photographs show that the carpet had some minor staining and fair wear and tear.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet has occurred during the tenancy and that it is likely more than fair wear and tear. Considering the nature and the possible cause of the damage I am satisfied that it was likely the result of carelessness.
The landlord has insurance with an excess of $700.00 per claim. Carpet in residential tenancies has a useful lifespan of approximately 10 - 12 years. The carpet in this case was approximately five years old at the end of the tenancy and showed signs of wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy. Allowing for betterment, I reduce the amount claimed by 50% and award the landlord $500.00 toward the replacement of the carpet. Walls
Mr Bergquist alleges that the damage to walls and doors consists of scrapes, dings, and dents exceeding fair wear and tear.
The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy. Although repairs may have been undertaken following the inspection on 30 January 2024 and before the commencement of the tenancy, the nature and extent of those repairs are unclear. As a result, the actual condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy cannot be reliably determined.
The end of tenancy photographs was taken from a distance and are of limited evidential value when making an objective assessment. Even on careful review it is difficult to identify any damage beyond that which may have already existed at the start of the tenancy. The contractor’s photographs are clearer but were taken after repairs had already been commenced, preventing an assessment of the original damage or whether it exceeded fair wear and tear.
Although initially I considered a partial award might be possible, having reviewed the evidence, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient to establish the tenant’s liability. The claim for damage to walls and doors is therefore dismissed. Costs
Because Ylpm Limited as Agent for Archie Bellings has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313094 — Property damage at 14 New Road, Taumarunui 3920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313094 — Property damage at 14 New Road, Taumarunui 3920

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions