What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5368902?

The tribunal order states: Watson Real Estate Limited Julie Crombie, must pay Brenda Lawson $1814.29

How much money was awarded in case 5368902?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368902?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139501-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5368902?

The tribunal order states: Watson Real Estate Limited Julie Crombie, must pay Brenda Lawson $1814.29

How much money was awarded in case 5368902?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368902?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139501-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 Parker Avenue, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368902 — Property damage

Order

Watson Real Estate Limited Julie Crombie, must pay Brenda Lawson $1814.29 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The relevant background of this matter is: a. The tenancy began on 2 May 2023, a bond of $2600 and two weeks rent in advance ($1300) was paid by MSD. b. During the tenancy damage occurred to internal walls and damage to a wooden deck and weatherboards was caused by the tenant’s dog. c. On 27 January 2025, the landlord served notice on the tenant that the tenancy would end in 90 days, on 28 April 2025, for the purposes of selling the property. d. Before the tenancy ended the tenant had discussed with the property manager about carrying out her own repairs to the damage. She paid: i. $966 for the repair of the wall damage, returning it to a level where it could be painted; ii. $602.71 for repairing broken glass panes; and iii. $184 to steam clean the bedroom carpets. e. The tenancy ended on 28 April 2025, and the correspondence shows that the tenant vacated on this date. f. On May 12, 2025, the property manager texted the tenant as follows: The owner is not happy about the damage the dog has done to the corner of the house and the rail. They also are not happy with the repairs to the walls even though they look okay. There is 285.71 owing in rent. Can I please get you to come inside the bond refund form to cover these damages and rent owing. If you cant [sic] come in let me know and I can cut-and-paste your signature... g. An undated text, which later texts lead me to believe was sent in late May 2025, shows that the tenant texted property manager saying she had the bond refund form, but was unsure what she was agreeing to. The rental agent responded that the bond was for rent owing, and damage to the house cladding and deck. The tenant responded she would sign the form on Friday. The exchange is clear that the damage referred to was not the internal damage. h. Following the above exchange, the property manager cut and pasted the tenant’s signature onto the bond refund form, and on 5 June 2025 the bond was paid to the landlord. i. The tenant had amended and returned the bond form, agreeing to $2000 being paid to the landlord in late August or early September. j. On 11 September 2025, there was an exchange of texts between the tenant and the property manager in which the tenant advised of having contacted the Bond Centre. k. She continued that the Bond Centre “have a form with my signature releasing full bond payment to go to landlord back in June but yet I haven’t signed anything until last week! “ The property manager responded “[t]hat was merely because you had not contacted me so I sent it off. It’s been months now trying to get this sorted. I ham [sic] happy to give you $600 now”.; l. Following this there was a confused exchange of emails in which the property manager incorrectly advised that the refund would come from the Bond Centre. In this exchange the tenant challenged being charged $2000 for the repairs to the dog damages. m. On 18 September 2025, the property manager sent an text saying “At no time did I say that the work was not done professionally, that was the owner’s opinion.... Again we discussed the bond over the phone just after you moved out. This is of both of us. Not just me.” In this text the property manager also referred to losing the management of the property due to the tenant and made comments which were unprofessional. Following this this application was made, and also, although I am unaware of the exact details, the property manager left the employment of the landlord. n. On 9 January 2026, the agreed $600 refund was paid to the tenant.
This matter was heard over two hearings. An adjournment occurred to allow the landlord to produce more evidence. The landlord advised at the first hearing that the tenant was liable for costs beyond the $2000 taken from the bond. I advised that a counterclaim would need to be filed if this was to be pursued. However, no counterclaim was received. At the second hearing I discussed this with the landlord and the landlord invited the tribunal to use its discretion should any liability be found. However, in the absence of a counterclaim no such discretion existed. Therefore, I can only consider the extent to which the landlord may be entitled to retain the $2000 taken from the bond. Issues
To resolve this dispute, I need to consider: a. Did the tenant authorise the use of their signature on the bond full? b. What consequences, if any, are there for the property manager’s use of the tenant’s signature? c. What liability, if any, did the tenant have for the repairs? d. What rent was owing at the end of the tenancy? The signature
For reasons which are not clear to me the landlord had an electronic copy of the tenant’s signature on file. It was not argued that the signature was created without the tenant’s agreement. However, for whatever purpose it was originally obtained, the signature was both retained and used in circumstances which require some questioning.
I note that whatever purpose the signature was retained for, consent for the use of a person’s signature cannot be implied. A signature in this context is normally used as evidence that a person has agreed to something and will be bound by that agreement.
On 12 May 2025, the property manager had proposed that “if you cant [sic] come in let me know and I can cut-and-paste your signature”. In the text referred to at [2] g. above the tenant said that she would “sort form on Fri”. On a date following this the property manager made use of the tenant’s signature on the bond form. The property manager appears to have felt justified in doing so. However, I cannot construe the correspondence referred to above as consent for the signature to be used, in large part because there was no certainty as to what damage was being referred to. Viewing the correspondence and hearing from both the tenant and the property manager it was clear that the tenant’s understanding was that her liability for damage was only to the chewed weatherboards and deck, not to the repaired interior walls.
The Residential Tenancies Act at sections 22A and 22B has specific provisions for the release of bond in the absence of agreement. It is not open to a party to take it into their own hands to have a bond released without consent simply because the other party has not been forthcoming with a response.

Are there consequences for the property managers use of the signature?

The tenant has asked for there to be consequences for the use of her signature. I certainly acknowledge her legitimate concern and dismay at the use of her signature in this manner. However, the Tribunal only has those powers set out in the legislation. The Residential Tenancies Act does not have an allowance for exemplary damages or similar to be awarded in circumstances such as these. I considered whether S 18, which makes a landlord requiring any security or device beyond bond an unlawful act, as it could be argued that retaining signature was a form of security. However, s18 is drafted in a way which means those circumstances have not arisen here.

What liability did the tenant have for repairs?

The landlord has provided a number of invoices to justify the repair costs. These include: a. $1058 for “Prep and paint middle bedroom... *Repaired damaged walls and broken door, replace broken door handle and repaint walls and Windows due to wear and tear”. b. $5000 which includes a number of items for which the landlord has provided no evidence of damage such as hardwood floors, bathroom floors, skirting boards, bathroom linings, and broken doors and handles. It also refers to repairing damaged walls and ceilings-plaster and paint, which appears to be a double up to the above invoice, or is for areas for which there is no evidence of damage. The invoice does refer to “Repair weatherboards (dog chewed)”. The $5000 referred to is not broken down into line items. c. An invoice for $2012.50 which relates entirely to the removal of the kitchen replacement of the kitchen floor and repainting of the kitchen the description includes “*removal of old kitchen floor due to water damage and general damage being done.” There was a damaged kitchen drawer, which the landlord accepted had occurred due to the age of the kitchen cabinetry rather than an act of the tenant. There is no evidence that the tenant did any damage to the kitchen.
A tenant is liable for damage which they or those present in the house with their consent cause. The tenant accepts that her dog caused the damage to the weatherboards, decking, and deck rail. The photos show that after the repairs had been carried out by the tenant to the internal walls there remained plastered but not painted patches of gib, some small areas of paint damage due to tape, and some damage to internal walls.
However, the correspondence between the property manager and the tenant shows that there was an agreement that if the tenant had the work done professionally it would minimise her liability. Later correspondence shows that the property manager considered that the work had been done at a reasonable standard, however the owner did not. A property manager acts as the owners agent. Under the law of agency an agent’s agreement binds the principal. In this case the property manager had agreed to a situation where the tenant could obtain her own repairs. She did so. It is not been open for the property manager, the owner or the landlord to go back on this agreement.
In this instance the landlord has wrongly obtained the tenant’s bond, which has been partially refunded. The onus is on the landlord to prove that any deductions from the bond it has received were justified. If the landlord had provided evidence of the cost to address the unpainted plastered areas, the damage to doors, or the damage to the deck, I would be inclined to adjust the bond payment to allow for these amounts. However, the invoices are not broken down in a manner which allows this to occur. The invoice for $1058 includes an allowance for wear and tear which the tenant is not liable for, and I have no material which allows me to separate this from the painting work. The invoice for $5000 is almost in its entirety relating to matters for which there is no evidence of liability. The invoice for $2012.50 is for a new kitchen.
I find that the label has not proven the loss for any areas of damage which the tenant was liable for. Was rent owing
The tenancy is that she was incorrectly charged rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy and seeks $1300. She has provided written records, as has the landlord. Landlord has provided a written summary which shows that there was two weeks rent in advance paid at the start of the tenancy which was then partially used for the first week of rent. Thereafter, rent was paid up until 19 April 2025, with the tenancy ending on 29 April 2025. The remaining week in advance was used to pay the week to 26 April 2025, leaving a remainder of two days or $185.71 remaining, which was paid out of the bond.
The tenant argued that she moved out earlier on 26 April 2025 and should not be charged for the two days. However, an email was provided showing the notice the termination of the tenancy which did end on 28 April 2025. I find that at the end of the tenancy $185.71 was owing.
I found above that the landlord illegitimately recovered bond. The landlord has not proven damage which would allow for bond to be retained, however, $185.71 of rent was owing at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I find that the landlord must repay the tenant $1814.29 immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368902 — Property damage at 58 Parker Avenue, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368902 — Property damage at 58 Parker Avenue, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are there consequences for the property managers use of the signature?

What liability did the tenant have for repairs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are there consequences for the property managers use of the signature?

What liability did the tenant have for repairs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions