What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389824?

The tribunal order states: Thick Kien Bach and Thi My Duyen Ho must pay Rentout Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5389824?

Carpet Stain Removal: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $136.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389824?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13079170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389824?

The tribunal order states: Thick Kien Bach and Thi My Duyen Ho must pay Rentout Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5389824?

Carpet Stain Removal: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $136.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389824?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13079170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Karetai Crescent, Favona, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389824 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389824 — net $698.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$86.88	Water rates
Carpet stain removal	$212.75	Carpet stain removal
Repairs to laminate bench	$136.62	Repairs to laminate bench
Repair cupboard doors	$84.25	Repair cupboard doors
Wall repairs	$150.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$698.50
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$698.50

Thick Kien Bach and Thi My Duyen Ho must pay Rentout Limited as agent for Benjamin Bond $698.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (6124186-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentout Limited as agents for Benjamin Bond: $698.50 Thick Kien Bach and Thi My Duyen Ho: $2,201.50

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video.

Jay Bhatt and Manish Kumar attended the hearing for the landlord.

The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Thick Kien Bach attended the hearing with his sister Chan Ngyen, who represented the tenants.

How much do the tenants owe for water?

The tenancy began on 21 December 2021 and ended on 13 October 2025.

The tenants accept that they owe $86.88 for the final water invoices.

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. 1

During the tenancy, the carpets were stained in several places. The tenants were unable to clean the stains off when they moved out.

The landlord provided a quote for stain removal work. I make an order for the cost of stain removal.

I am not satisfied that stain removal will fail to adequately remove the stains. I decline to make an order for patching the stained areas.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

The landlords claim for the probable cost of repairing a damaged laminate bench, two small kitchen cupboard doors, a kitchen tile, and walls, and replacing missing blind panels. 2

The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If the landlord does so, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 The landlord provided quotes to repair the damaged items.

I am satisfied by examining the landlord’s entry photographs and later inspection photographs that the laminate bench top suffered some minor damage during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is likely the damage was caused by placing hot pots or pans on the bench, probably early in the tenancy when the tenants did not realise that the benchtop was only made of laminate material. I am not satisfied that the tenants were not careless in respect to the damage. The benchtop is about 10 years old. I reduce the cost to repair the damage by two-thirds to account for depreciation and betterment.

The tenants removed the cupboard doors above the refrigerator void because their fridge was too tall. They replaced the doors at the end of the tenancy. At some point the doors were damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. I apply the same depreciation rate to the landlord’s quote.

The kitchen tiles have a tiny chip. I am not satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

During the tenancy, the tenants attached some fasteners to the walls which caused damage when removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and was caused intentionally. The walls are due for repainting and repair. I order the tenants to contribute $150.00 for their damage.

The kitchen blinds deteriorated due to fair wear and tear. The tenants took away four blind panels that fell away. The tenants undertook to the Tribunal return the four panels to the landlord without delay. No order is required.

In assessing betterment and depreciation into account, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not damaged the item and should not be made better or worse off. Filing fee

The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 4 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 RTA s 104(2)(b).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389824 — net $698.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$86.88	Water rates
Carpet stain removal	$212.75	Carpet stain removal
Repairs to laminate bench	$136.62	Repairs to laminate bench
Repair cupboard doors	$84.25	Repair cupboard doors
Wall repairs	$150.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$698.50
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$698.50

Order

Thick Kien Bach and Thi My Duyen Ho must pay Rentout Limited as agent for Benjamin Bond $698.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (6124186-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentout Limited as agents for Benjamin Bond: $698.50 Thick Kien Bach and Thi My Duyen Ho: $2,201.50

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video.
Jay Bhatt and Manish Kumar attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
Thick Kien Bach attended the hearing with his sister Chan Ngyen, who represented the tenants.

How much do the tenants owe for water?

The tenancy began on 21 December 2021 and ended on 13 October 2025.
The tenants accept that they owe $86.88 for the final water invoices.

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. 1
During the tenancy, the carpets were stained in several places. The tenants were unable to clean the stains off when they moved out.
The landlord provided a quote for stain removal work. I make an order for the cost of stain removal.
I am not satisfied that stain removal will fail to adequately remove the stains. I decline to make an order for patching the stained areas.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

The landlords claim for the probable cost of repairing a damaged laminate bench, two small kitchen cupboard doors, a kitchen tile, and walls, and replacing missing blind panels. 2
The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If the landlord does so, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 The landlord provided quotes to repair the damaged items.
I am satisfied by examining the landlord’s entry photographs and later inspection photographs that the laminate bench top suffered some minor damage during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is likely the damage was caused by placing hot pots or pans on the bench, probably early in the tenancy when the tenants did not realise that the benchtop was only made of laminate material. I am not satisfied that the tenants were not careless in respect to the damage. The benchtop is about 10 years old. I reduce the cost to repair the damage by two-thirds to account for depreciation and betterment.
The tenants removed the cupboard doors above the refrigerator void because their fridge was too tall. They replaced the doors at the end of the tenancy. At some point the doors were damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. I apply the same depreciation rate to the landlord’s quote.
The kitchen tiles have a tiny chip. I am not satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
During the tenancy, the tenants attached some fasteners to the walls which caused damage when removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and was caused intentionally. The walls are due for repainting and repair. I order the tenants to contribute $150.00 for their damage.
The kitchen blinds deteriorated due to fair wear and tear. The tenants took away four blind panels that fell away. The tenants undertook to the Tribunal return the four panels to the landlord without delay. No order is required.
In assessing betterment and depreciation into account, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not damaged the item and should not be made better or worse off. Filing fee
The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 4 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 RTA s 104(2)(b).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389824 — Property damage at 13 Karetai Crescent, Favona, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389824 — Property damage at 13 Karetai Crescent, Favona, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much do the tenants owe for water?

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much do the tenants owe for water?

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions