Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5415769 — Property damage at Room D, Unit/Flat Unit 3, 44 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton
Published 31 March 2026 · Application 5415769
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Hamilton
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
L Ryken
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,172.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,172.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning and rubbish removal | $424.35 | Cleaning and rubbish removal | |
| Repairs: TV bracket | $102.35 | Repairs: TV bracket | |
| Replace furnishings: Mattress | $500.00 | Replace furnishings: Mattress | |
| Lock/key replacement | $117.30 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,172.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,172.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5415769 — net $1,172.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning and rubbish removal
- Amount
- $424.35
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning and rubbish removal
Repairs: TV bracket
- Amount
- $102.35
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: TV bracket
Replace furnishings: Mattress
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Mattress
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $117.30
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,172.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,172.00
Dismissed claims
- Property Damage — Filing fee
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Aydan Sewell must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Colin Reece $1,172.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing on 31 March 2026. The tenant did not.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
The law
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the keys, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. They must also return all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 1
- “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Keys/Locks
- The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $117.30 to replace the keys and locks.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $117.30. Cleaning and rubbish removal
- The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. No attempt to clean the premises has been made by the tenant. There is rubbish on the floors, which have not been vacuumed or mopped. The kitchen and bathroom have not been cleaned. Bench surfaces, drawers and cupboards have not been wiped down and the walls are very dirty.
- I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $424.35 (including GST) to clean the premises and remove the rubbish. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Mattress 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii), (iv) & (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
- The landlord gave evidence they provided the tenant with a bed base and mattress at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not submit photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence the tenancy began in 2018 and in 2020, the company underwent a software change, which resulted in them losing the entry inspection photographs. The landlord was able to provide photographs taken during an inspection on 19 May 2020. A mattress is present.
- In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence. I find the landlord provided the tenant with a mattress at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the mattress is missing. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the tenant did not return the mattress to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord gave evidence the mattress was approximately 7 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has purchased a new mattress at a cost of $943.00 (including GST). The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount.
- The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They landlord must not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction needs to be made to reflect the principles of betterment and depreciation regarding the mattress. I find a reduction of $443.00 to be reasonable, considering the age of the mattress at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $500.00. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law
- 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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7
- Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. TV bracket
- The landlord submitted photographs taken during a routine inspection on 19 May 2020. A wall mounted television can be seen in the living area/bedroom. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the television is detached from the wall and the wall bracket is missing.
- On the balance of probabilities, I find the bracket was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $204.70 (including GST) to replace the bracket. The invoice includes repairs in relation to a toilet seat and does not separate the costs.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the bracket is granted for $102.35, which is 50% of the total invoice. Toilet seat
- The landlord submitted photographs taken during a routine inspection on 19 May 2020. The toilet seat is not broken. The exit inspection photographs show the toilet seat has become loose. Whilst I am convinced the toilet seat was damaged during the tenancy, I am not convinced the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. This is because the landlord gave evidence the toilet seat dated back to around the early 2000’s. This means it was approximately 10 – 20 years old at the end of the tenancy. It is reasonably foreseeable that a toilet seat might become loose as a result of reasonable, everyday use over this length of time.
- For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the toilet seat is dismissed. Filing fee
- Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Colin Reece has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s4, s40(1), s40(2), s50, s6
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415769?
The tribunal order states: Aydan Sewell must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Colin Reece
How much money was awarded in case 5415769?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $117.30 awarded to landlord; TV Bracket: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mattress: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $424.35 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415769?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415769?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377879-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.