Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5344861 — Property damage at 2 Ellesmere Street, Marshland, Christchurch 8083
Published 2 February 2026 · Application 5344861
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Bradley
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $558.14
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $558.14
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears as of 2.9.25 | $20.15 | Rent arrears as of 2.9.25 | |
| Cleaning – carpet stain removal | $200.00 | Cleaning – carpet stain removal | |
| Lock/key replacement | $9.99 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Repairs: wall damage | $300.00 | I allow part of the claim for the wall repairs. I will order the tenant to pay $300 which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the damage that is… | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $558.14 | ||
| Bond | $2,640.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $558.14 |
Claims and awards for application 5344861 — net $558.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears as of 2.9.25
- Amount
- $20.15
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears as of 2.9.25
Cleaning – carpet stain removal
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning – carpet stain removal
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $9.99
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Repairs: wall damage
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- I allow part of the claim for the wall repairs. I will order the tenant to pay $300 which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the damage that is…
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $558.14
Bond
Landlord $2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $558.14
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Amy Elizabeth Baxter, Julieanne Louise Fearon and Jack Matthew Bellam Jones to pay Harcourts Gold Property Management Limited As Agent For Teck Kuong Sia $558.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6178606-017) immediately apportioned as follows: Harcourts Gold Property Management Limited As Agent For Teck Kuong Sia: $558.14 Amy Elizabeth Baxter, Julieanne Louise Fearon and Jack Matthew Bellam Jones: $2,081.86
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenant’s in the singular. 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.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1 The tenancy ended on 2/9/25. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $20.15 and I make an order for rent arrears by consent. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys and security devices. 2 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage 1 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 2 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
- A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3
- 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. 4
- 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. 5
- 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). 6
- 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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
- 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. 9
- 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. 10
- 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 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. 3 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 4 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 6 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(1) RTA. 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The claims Cleaning and rubbish removal
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was stained. The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs and an invoice in support of the claim. The tenant disputed paying for the carpet stain removal but accepted it was caused during the tenancy. The tenant says she tried to have her own carpet cleaner remove the stain, but they were unable to do so. I find that the tenant is responsible for the cost to remove the carpet stain and order the tenant to pay the amount of $200 as claimed. Lock/key replacement
- The tenant did not return all the keys. By consent I make an order that the tenant pay for one key - $9.99. Damage claims Wall damage
- The landlord says the walls were damaged with hooks placed on the walls by the tenant during the tenancy.
- The landlord says the tenant left holes and some areas of damage where the tenant had painted small patches of damage left over from where hooks at been placed. The landlord says they advised that tenant to leave the hooks as soon as they were notified by the owner that it was agreed they could leave the hooks, however it appears the tenant had already removed the hooks and attempted to repair the holes before they were notified to leave them. The landlord is unsure of the date the walls were last painted but say that the claim is for patch repairs only. Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs and an invoice were provided in support of the claim.
- The tenant disputed the claim for wall damage as they say the work completed by the landlord’s contractor was of poor quality, ie not colour matched and that they were advised to leave the command hooks after they had already largely removed them and had the walls patched and painted themselves by their own contractor. The tenant says that the walls were not in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
- On reviewing the photographs, the landlord’s photographs are not clear. It appears that the tenant did attend to part of the repair work required for part of the damage. In addition, one area of damage highlighted by the landlord appears to be a very small dent or black mark in the wall which I consider to be fair wear and tear. I also need to consider what a reasonable charge would be for the amount of work completed. In this case the amount invoiced appears excessive, given the invoice submitted by the landlord for the wall repairs does not appear to be from an independent or third-party business. In taking in account the above matters I allow part of the claim for the wall repairs. I will order the tenant to pay $300 which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the damage that is more than fair wear and tear, and for which the tenant has not disproved liability. The amount ordered is proved. Bond
- The bond is to be distributed to the parties in accordance with the division set out in the order. Filing Fee
- Because the landlord has been wholly or partly successful in their claim, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee: $28. 11 Suppression
- On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102, s4, s40, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5344861?
The tribunal order states: Amy Elizabeth Baxter, Julieanne Louise Fearon and Jack Matthew Bellam
How much money was awarded in case 5344861?
Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $9.99 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $20.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344861?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344861?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13050578-Tribunal_Order.pdf.