What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5025789?

The tribunal order states: Kalena Hemi and Dywayne Eiao must pay Team Group Rentals Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5025789?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025789?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858850-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5025789?

The tribunal order states: Kalena Hemi and Dywayne Eiao must pay Team Group Rentals Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5025789?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025789?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858850-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 5, 370 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5025789 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025789 — net $10,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$3,000.00	ate. The tenant is ordered to pay $7,800.00 in compensation for the repairs and $3,000.00 for the carpets.
Repairs	$7,800.00	ich is 80% of the total claimed to be appropriate. The tenant is ordered to pay $7,800.00 in compensation for the repairs and $3,000.00 for the carpets.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,827.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,827.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025789 — net $10,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$3,000.00	ate. The tenant is ordered to pay $7,800.00 in compensation for the repairs and $3,000.00 for the carpets.
Repairs	$7,800.00	ich is 80% of the total claimed to be appropriate. The tenant is ordered to pay $7,800.00 in compensation for the repairs and $3,000.00 for the carpets.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,827.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,827.00

Order

Kalena Hemi and Dywayne Eiao must pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Oren Alazraki & Ronit Alazraki-Houllou and Oren Alazraki $10,827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 13 May 2025.
The matter had been part heard on 5 March 2025. The tenant did not attend that hearing. Following that hearing, rent arrears, compensation and exemplary damages were awarded to the landlord totalling $2,776.22. The bond of $2,520.00 was released to the landlord, leaving a total payable by the tenant to the landlord of $256.22.
The hearing was adjourned for consideration of the remaining claims by the landlord seeking compensation for damage to the carpet and painting. I invited the landlord to seek details of the current insurance position.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The policy referred to in the tenancy agreement carries an excess of $750.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Orders have already been made by the Tribunal for compensation for some damage (see the Tribunal’s order dated 5 March 2025)
This order relates to damage to the carpet, walls and ceiling.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpets
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the carpet in the lounge. The landlord provided photos of stains in the lounge. Some of the damage is shown by a sliding door, which the landlord suggested had occasionally been left open by the tenant, allowing rain and muddy feet to make the marks on the carpet. More stains were shown at the entrance to the kitchen.
The tenant accepted that the sliding door had been left open from time to time, which allowed rain onto the carpet and that some mud or dirt may have worked its way into the carpet. She said that on occasion her partner would wear his work boots inside the house. The tenant said that she had arranged for the carpets to be cleaned before leaving the house.
The landlord instructed Jaes Carpets to investigate the potential for repairs. Jaes said that the carpets would need to be removed because of mould. The landlord made a claim on its insurance policy which was accepted by its insurers. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $750.00.
The carpet in the upstairs back bedroom was damaged. The landlord thought that the damage may have been caused by a nail polish spill. Jaes said that the carpet would need to be replaced. The estimated cost of replacement is $1,150.00 . The claim on the landlords insurance policy has been accepted and the landlord seeks compensation for the excess of $750.00.
The tenant said that the carpet in the upstairs back bedroom had been stained with a raspberry drink spillage, rather than with nail polish. I accept that the damage was not intentional, but was as a result of the tenant’s careless action.
The carpet in the upstairs front bedroom was damaged. The insurer has accepted the claim and the landlord seeks compensation for the insurance excess of $750.00.
The carpet in the hallway and stairwell is damaged. The claim was not accepted by the insurer and the landlord seeks compensation for replacement of $1,000.00.
The tenant said that before leaving the property, she had the carpets cleaned by professional cleaners . She accepted that from time to time the sliding door had been left open and that this may have resulted in the carpet becoming damp. She said that she had repeatedly reminded her children to remove her shoes but they did not.
The carpets were new at the commencement of the tenancy. At the first hearing of this matter, the landlord said that the owner’s insurance claim for the carpet costs had been declined. I invited the landlord to file a memorandum on the issue of the insurance claim and reasons for it being declined. Most claims have now been accepted by the insurance company and the landlord’s claims with regards to the carpet are with the exception of one claim limited to the applicable excess.
I have considered the evidence provided by the parties and the extensive photos provided by the landlord. The photos support the landlord’s claim.
The damage to the carpet is more than fear wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is ordered to pay the insurance excess of $750.00 on three claims and $750.00 on the stairwell claim, totalling $3,000.00 in compensation. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in setting the compensation amounts. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Walls
The landlord says that there has been damage to the walls in the lounge, kitchen, dining room and the ceiling of the dining room. The damage occurred as a result of the tenant making pin holes in the walls rather than using 3m command hooks as required. The repair costs amount to $2,150.00. The landlord does not have insurance cover for the damage and the full amount is claimed.
There were two gouges in the wall to the lounge. It appeared to the landlord that the tenant had tried to fix the damage, but had used the wrong product. The contractor instructed by the landlord confirmed that this had been the situation and that the painting and materials used had been substandard. This has meant more work than might otherwise have been required to simply repair the original damage, has been required. The landlord suggested that the damage may have been caused intentionally by the tenant. I do not accept that any evidence provided supports that proposition .
The landlord was not sure how the damage had been caused. The repair cost was $1,200.00. The landlord filed a claim under their insurance policy which was accepted and the landlord seeks compensation for the insurance excess of $750.00.The tenant said that the gouges had been caused by the children using their electric scooters. Stairwell/ foyer
The landlord suggested that the work carried out by the tenant to repair the walls has made the matter worse. The plaster had not been sanded properly. The landlord's claim under its insurance policy has been accepted and the landlord seeks compensation of $750 being the insurance policy excess. Upstairs back bedroom
The damage was referred to by the landlord as being pin holes which have been poorly repaired. The costs for repairs was $2,150.00. The landlord explained that the insurance company had not accepted the claim and sought full compensation. Upstairs front room
The damage was referred to by the landlord as being pin holes which have been poorly repaired. The costs for repairs was $2,150.00. The landlord explained that the insurance company had not accepted the claim and sought full compensation. Front bedroom ceiling
The landlord said that there were ‘gouges” in the ceiling. These were accepted as accidental. The insurance excess on the claim is $750.00. Hallway
The damage was referred to by the landlord as being pin holes which have been poorly repaired. The costs for repairs was $1,050.00. The landlord explained that the insurance company had not accepted the claim and sought full compensation.
The tenant’s evidence was that she was a commercial cleaner and that her partner had been a plasterer for 11 years. She said that her partner had used a yellow putty which seals the holes permanently. Over a period of time the putty will turn white when it is sanded back. Once it is painted over, this acts as a sealant.
The tenant suggested the house had been new when they moved in and that there had been some “settling” which had caused various cracks throughout the house. The tenant said that the work on the walls was done by them as they were moving out and accepted that it may have been “patchy.”
The landlord’s evidence was supported by photos of the areas damaged and an invoice for the repairs. The tenant accepted that she had not filed any supporting evidence.
The Tribunal conducts an inquiry of this nature in two parts. The first inquiry is whether the damage occurred during the tenancy and whether it amounted to fear wear and tear? The burden of proving this is on the landlord.
In this first inquiry, I prefer the evidence of the landlord that the damage has occurred during the course of this tenancy.
A tenant is not liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. The damage referred to by the landlord does not in the Tribunal’s fall within the meaning of fair wear and tear.
The burden of proof in the second inquiry is on the tenant. They must show that it is more likely than not that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. I have already indicated that in the Tribunal’s view, the damage caused in this matter was not caused intentionally. The limited and unsupported evidence of the tenants is such that the tenants have been unable to disprove liability and the landlords claims for compensation are proven.
The landlord’s claims for compensation (excluding carpets) amounts to $9,750.00. This figure includes both excesses under the policy where cover has been accepted and the full claim amounts where it has not. Each “full claim” is for an amount less than the equivalent of four weeks rent.
In setting the compensation figure, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The premises were new at the commencement of the tenancy and so the depreciation figure is limited. Having considered the factors above, I consider a figure which is 80% of the total claimed to be appropriate. The tenant is ordered to pay $7,800.00 in compensation for the repairs and $3,000.00 for the carpets.
The landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenants name and details are not suppressed.
In the Tribunal’s order dated 5 March 2025, it was noted that the issue of reimbursement of the filing fee would be made at this hearing. The landlord having been substantially successful in this matter, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord. .
parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent [and water rates]?
The tenancy ended on [date]. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy [specify details].

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: [list]. The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amount of time scheduled for this hearing was not enough to address all of the claims and evidence. [Add other details/reasons]
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.
Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Oren Alazraki & Ronit Alazraki- Houllou and Oren Alazraki claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of [specify] people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant [insert details]. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[insert analysis of intention and factors in subs 109(3)(a) to (d)]
Because Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Oren Alazraki & Ronit Alazraki-Houllou, Oren Alazraki has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. or
Because Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Oren Alazraki & Ronit Alazraki-Houllou, Oren Alazraki has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025789 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 370 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025789 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 370 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions