How much money was awarded in case 5390372?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,042.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet Seat: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390372?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5390372?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,042.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet Seat: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390372?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8B Appleton Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390372 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5390372?

The tribunal order states: Rowena Thomspon and Leah Te Haara must pay Marskight Property Management

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390372 — net $282.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30/12/2025	$2,042.86	Rent arrears to 30/12/2025
Water rates to 30/12/2025	$32.13	Water rates to 30/12/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace toilet seat	$220.00	Replace toilet seat
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$282.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$282.99

Rowena Thomspon and Leah Te Haara must pay Marskight Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Neal and Catherine Erstich $282.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00069650) to Marskight Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Neal and Catherine Erstich immediately.

All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 30/12/2025$2,042.86 Water rates to 30/12/2025$32.13 Carpet Cleaning$160.00 Replace toilet seat$220.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,482.99 Bond$2,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$282.99

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by telephone.

Sonia Gardiner attended for the landlord.

The tenants attended for themselves.

The landlord originally applied for rent arrears and termination. Prior to the hearing, the landlord added claims for compensation.

The tenants do not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, water arrears, and carpet cleaning. Orders are made accordingly.

The tenants dispute the landlord’s remaining claims for damage to a bedroom’s wall and to the toilet seat.

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair damage to the premises?

To succeed in a damage claim, the 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 tenants may 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. 1

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. 2

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. 3 Blu Tack damage to bedroom walls

Ms Thompson used Blu Tack to attach posters to her bedroom walls. The wall paint came off with the Blue Tack when it was removed.

Ms Thompson says the previous property manager, Andrea, told her that she could attach posters using Blu Tack. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 RTA s 49B(1). 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

I accept Ms Thompson’s evidence on this point. It is plausible. Ms Thompson told the landlord prior to the hearing that Andrea had told her she could use Blue Tack, but the landlord has not called Andrea as a witness to rebut Ms Thompson’s assertion.

Ms Gardiner pointed out that under the tenancy agreement the tenant needed to obtain written permission to use Blu Tack, Sellotape and the like on walls. I note that term may technically be unlawful because tenants should be permitted to attach items to the premises walls so long as they do not cause damage.

Be that as it may, it would be unfair to the tenant to apply the wording of the tenancy agreement strictly in the circumstances where the landlord has diverted from its own protocols by giving verbal consent. 4

I am satisfied that the damage caused by removing the Blu Tack is more than fair wear and tear. However, I am satisfied that Ms Thompson was not careless in using the Blu Tack. She got the previous property manager’s verbal permission to use Blu Tack to attach posters. She was entitled to rely on that advice and its underlying indication that using Blu Tack was a prudent approach that would not cause damage.

Nor is the property manager necessarily at fault. The bedroom’s paint was thinly applied to wallpaper. The paintwork was probably not done to a suitably robust standard for a residential tenancy.

I dismiss this claim. Cracked toilet seat

During the tenancy, the ceramic toilet seat was cracked.

The tenants say they do not know how it cracked. They surmise the wind may have blown it over during an intense weather event.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants did not cause the damage carelessly.

The tenants have had visitors to the house who have caused other damage to the premises. It is plausible a visitor caused the damage. I do not find the tenants’ alternative explanation plausible. 4 RTA s 85.

I allow this claim and order the landlord the $220.00 it seeks for replacing the toilet seat. Filing fee

The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 5 Bond

I direct the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlord in part-payment of the tenants’ debt under this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390372 — net $282.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30/12/2025	$2,042.86	Rent arrears to 30/12/2025
Water rates to 30/12/2025	$32.13	Water rates to 30/12/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace toilet seat	$220.00	Replace toilet seat
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$282.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$282.99

Order

Rowena Thomspon and Leah Te Haara must pay Marskight Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Neal and Catherine Erstich $282.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00069650) to Marskight Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Neal and Catherine Erstich immediately.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 30/12/2025$2,042.86 Water rates to 30/12/2025$32.13 Carpet Cleaning$160.00 Replace toilet seat$220.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,482.99 Bond$2,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$282.99

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Sonia Gardiner attended for the landlord.
The tenants attended for themselves.
The landlord originally applied for rent arrears and termination. Prior to the hearing, the landlord added claims for compensation.
The tenants do not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, water arrears, and carpet cleaning. Orders are made accordingly.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s remaining claims for damage to a bedroom’s wall and to the toilet seat.

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair damage to the premises?

To succeed in a damage claim, the 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 tenants may 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. 1
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. 2
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. 3 Blu Tack damage to bedroom walls
Ms Thompson used Blu Tack to attach posters to her bedroom walls. The wall paint came off with the Blue Tack when it was removed.
Ms Thompson says the previous property manager, Andrea, told her that she could attach posters using Blu Tack. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 RTA s 49B(1). 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I accept Ms Thompson’s evidence on this point. It is plausible. Ms Thompson told the landlord prior to the hearing that Andrea had told her she could use Blue Tack, but the landlord has not called Andrea as a witness to rebut Ms Thompson’s assertion.
Ms Gardiner pointed out that under the tenancy agreement the tenant needed to obtain written permission to use Blu Tack, Sellotape and the like on walls. I note that term may technically be unlawful because tenants should be permitted to attach items to the premises walls so long as they do not cause damage.
Be that as it may, it would be unfair to the tenant to apply the wording of the tenancy agreement strictly in the circumstances where the landlord has diverted from its own protocols by giving verbal consent. 4
I am satisfied that the damage caused by removing the Blu Tack is more than fair wear and tear. However, I am satisfied that Ms Thompson was not careless in using the Blu Tack. She got the previous property manager’s verbal permission to use Blu Tack to attach posters. She was entitled to rely on that advice and its underlying indication that using Blu Tack was a prudent approach that would not cause damage.
Nor is the property manager necessarily at fault. The bedroom’s paint was thinly applied to wallpaper. The paintwork was probably not done to a suitably robust standard for a residential tenancy.
I dismiss this claim. Cracked toilet seat
During the tenancy, the ceramic toilet seat was cracked.
The tenants say they do not know how it cracked. They surmise the wind may have blown it over during an intense weather event.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants did not cause the damage carelessly.
The tenants have had visitors to the house who have caused other damage to the premises. It is plausible a visitor caused the damage. I do not find the tenants’ alternative explanation plausible. 4 RTA s 85.
I allow this claim and order the landlord the $220.00 it seeks for replacing the toilet seat. Filing fee
The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 5 Bond
I direct the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlord in part-payment of the tenants’ debt under this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390372 — Rent arrears at 8B Appleton Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390372 — Rent arrears at 8B Appleton Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions