Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5381141 — Property damage at 26 Mission Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110
Published 22 March 2026 · Application 5381141
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Tauranga
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,124.82
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,124.82
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs contribution | $2,631.46 | Repairs contribution | |
| Curtain cleaning | $297.00 | Curtain cleaning | |
| Lawn contribution | $60.00 | Lawn contribution | |
| Water rates to 26 September 2025 | $108.36 | Water rates to 26 September 2025 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,124.82 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,124.82 |
Claims and awards for application 5381141 — net $3,124.82 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Repairs contribution
- Amount
- $2,631.46
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs contribution
Curtain cleaning
- Amount
- $297.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Curtain cleaning
Lawn contribution
- Amount
- $60.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawn contribution
Water rates to 26 September 2025
- Amount
- $108.36
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates to 26 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $3,124.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,124.82
Dismissed claims
- Garage Remote Batteries — Damage to the premises Legal principles
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Kellie Walters and David Jeffrey must pay Melissa Anne Lovell $3,124.82 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (3583910-009) immediately as follows: Melissa Anne Lovell $3,124.82 Kellie Walters and David Jeffrey$75.18
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenancy commenced on 22 June 2024 and ended on 26 September 2025.
- Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for compensation, outgoings, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Although the landlord asserts losses well in excess of the bond, they have expressly limited their claimed amounts for each individual item to ensure that their total claim is also limited to the bond amount.
- I have therefore assessed each claim, based on the amount claimed by the landlord, rather than based on the actual total costs.
- The landlord has provided significant evidence in support of their claims, and I confirm that I have reviewed and considered this evidence, even if there is no direct reference. This includes evidence that was brought to the hearing in respect of the carpet damage. Water rates
- The tenancy ended on 26 September 2025. The landlord produced water rates invoices showing a balance of $108.36 for metered usage to the final reading.
- The tenants do not dispute this amount. I am satisfied the charge is lawful, relates solely to consumption during the tenancy and is proved. End of tenancy obligations
- 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Grass and garden
- The landlord claims $135.00 for garden works, including labour and materials, asserting the grass was patchy and holes required refilling.
- The statutory test is not whether the lawns were returned to the same condition as at the commencement of the tenancy, nor whether they met the owner’s preferred standard or presentation. The test is whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
- On the evidence before me, although some of the grass may not have been in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy it did not fall below the statutory threshold. Seasonal variation, wear from ordinary use, and aesthetic preference do not amount to a breach.
- The photographs do, however, show some larger holes, that I don’t consider likely to have been caused by persistent bad weather, and it is therefore appropriate to award a proportion of the claimed amount of $60.00 towards the sought lawn costs. Curtain cleaning
- The landlord claims $297.00 for curtain cleaning. The amount is based on the landlord’s time to remove, hand wash, dry and replace totalling 11 hours.
- The evidence shows that the curtains were left with marks and soiling, including hand marks, that went beyond ordinary presentation at the end of a tenancy.
- Curtains form part of the premises provided for tenant use and are required to be returned in a reasonably clean condition. Although some minor soiling over the course of a tenancy is to be expected, the condition the curtains were left in required additional cleaning to meet the statutory standard.
- The cost claimed is reasonable, support by evidence, and proportionate to the work required.
- $297.00 for curtain cleaning is allowed. Garage remote batteries
- The landlord claims $13.18 for replacement batteries.
- The tenant says that although the garage remote was provided, the batteries went flat almost immediately, and they did not use it.
- Flat batteries at the end of a tenancy are generally considered ordinary maintenance and natural wear and tear. Tenants are not responsible for replacing consumable batteries that have discharged under normal use.
- By contrast, tenants are responsible for smoke alarm batteries, which are safety-critical and required to be operational under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- Accordingly, the claim for garage remote batteries is dismissed. Damage to the premises Legal principles
- A landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. Tenants may avoid liability if they show the damage was not caused by carelessness or intentional conduct. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 40, 41, 49B.
- Depreciation and betterment are applied to ensure the landlord is restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant complied, without receiving a windfall. Landlord’s claims
- The landlord claims for the following repairs as a result of damage they say was caused during the tenancy: a. Blind replacement at $430.00 – due to one of the blinds being broken. b. Carpet replacement that they paid $8,469.94 for but only claim $612.67 towards – due to staining, discolouration and animal urine. c. Curtain replacement of three sheers that they paid $1,020.00 for but only claim $680.00 towards – due to holes, pulls and fraying of the curtains. d. Door jamb and windowsill repair (paint, fill and sandpaper) of $117.06 – due to scratches on the kitchen windowsill and jamb. e. Fence repair of $344.43 – due to it being hit and damaged. f. Kitchen bench repair of $289.00 – due to a chip in the stone bench. g. Laundry toe kick replacement of $158.30 – due to it being left wet resulting in water damage.
- The landlord only claims for the bond amount and is not seeking any further costs despite the total amount of repairs totalling more than $11,000.00. Photographs, inspection reports and evidence of costings have been provided in support of the claims.
- The tenants say that the damage to the blind was minor and likely fair wear and tear. They say that they didn’t have a cat at the property, so dispute any animal damage, and there was staining to the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy. They say that there was only a tiny hole in the sheer curtains and this was likely fair wear and tear. With respect to the fence, they say that it was not perfect at the commencement of the tenancy, was dragging on the floor and had to be picked up to open.
- The tenants do not dispute the kitchen bench chip and are happy to pay for that damage, but they dispute the laundry kick toe as they never had any flooding that would have caused this damage. Discussion
- I have reviewed the evidence and submissions for each individual claim and find as follows: a. Blind replacement – the evidence provided shows that the blind was broken beyond ordinary use. The cost claimed is reasonable and proved. $430.00 is allowed. b. Carpet contribution – I find that although the carpet did have some age and wear prior, it had been noted to be in excellent condition at the commencement of the tenancy and the staining during the tenancy went beyond fair wear and tear. The photographs after the tenancy ended show staining that has reached into the substrate below the carpet and underlay. Full replacement would however result in substantial betterment. The modest contribution claimed appropriately (if not excessively) accounts for depreciation. $612.67 is allowed. c. Curtain replacement (three sheers) – I find that the sheers were damaged beyond ordinary wear and tear. Depreciation has been applied to reflect the curtains’ limited lifespan and age. $680.00 is allowed. d. Windowsill/jamb repair – I find that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The repair cost is modest and reasonable. $117.06 is allowed. e. Fence repair – I find that although the fence was not new, the damage caused during the tenancy exceeded fair wear and tear. The fence was not completely replaced and has only been repaired in response to the damage caused. $344.43 is allowed. f. Kitchen bench repair – I find that the repair cost for the kitchen bench is reasonable and was not disputed. $289.00 is allowed. g. Laundry toe kick replacement – I find that the evidence provided shows that this was damaged during the tenancy and there was no evidence provided to show the tenants had alerted the landlord to any relevant incident. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. $158.30 is allowed.
- The total amount awarded towards the claimed damages is $2,631.46. These damages are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- Depreciation and betterment have been considered across all items to ensure the landlord is restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant complied with their obligations, without being better off.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee.
- I have not awarded name suppression to either party. It was not sought by the landlord, and the tenants have not sufficiently advanced any grounds that would outweigh the public interest in publication. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 22 March 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s19, s2016, s24, s26, s40, s40(1), s7, s9, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381141?
The tribunal order states: Kellie Walters and David Jeffrey must pay Melissa Anne Lovell $3,124.82 from
How much money was awarded in case 5381141?
Cleaning: $297.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Contribution: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,631.46 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.36 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381141?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381141?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13219256-Tribunal_Order.pdf.