What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5127630 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5127630?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order 5127630 Dated 17/6/20…: $2,667.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,415.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.58 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,449.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127630?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12458708-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5127630 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5127630?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order 5127630 Dated 17/6/20…: $2,667.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,415.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.58 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,449.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127630?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12458708-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5127630 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127630 — net $7,678.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order 5127630 dated 17/6/2025	$2,667.43	Previous order 5127630 dated 17/6/2025
Water rates	$2,449.10	Water rates
Garage door repair	$1,415.00	Garage door repair
Wall repairs	$600.00	Wall repairs
Toilet replacement	$519.58	Toilet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,678.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,678.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Deborah Tuiloma, Emere Tuiloma and James Tuiloma must pay [The landlord/s] $7,678.11 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 June 2025 under application 5127630.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representative/s], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the tenants still did not attend. As they have been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is the second hearing for this application. On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, awarding the landlord $2,667.43. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes
The hearing was adjourned part-heard as the landlord’s evidence was incomplete.
As noted in the order issued after the first hearing, the landlord originally applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. I have accepted the landlord’s oral application for amendment of the application to include water charges, and compensation for additional costs incurred at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord no longer seeks rent arrears, since there is a previous Tribunal order awarding rent to the landlord following termination of the tenancy for abandonment on 5 March 2025. The landlord confirms receiving the bond of $2,360.00.
In this order, the claims to be determined are: • Water charges • Lawnmowing • Car removal • Damage to garage door, toilet and walls

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 5 March 2025. The landlord states that the tenants did not pay any water charges from the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided the Watercare invoices, and seeks $2,449.10 in water charges. On the basis of the landlord’s oral evidence, I am prepared to accept that the invoices were sent to the tenants as they fell due for payment. Therefore, the amount claimed for water charges is awarded above. Lawnmowing
As noted in the first order, the landlord states the tenants agreed to pay for regular lawnmowing, which they arranged. However, while the lawnmowing invoices are noted, as explained at the hearing, due to a lack of evidence to show the tenants agreed to this cost, it is declined. There is also a lack of evidence to show that the lawn needed to be mowed at the end of the tenancy.
At the second hearing, the landlord provided evidence of a text to the tenants with a quotation. While noting that a quotation was sent via text to the tenants, there is no evidence that they agreed to this arrangement.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Car removal
As noted in the earlier order, the landlord claims the cost of removing a car that the tenants left behind, as shown in the photograph produced in evidence. The landlord states it was without an engine, and still remains on the premises. The landlord does not have any further information about the removal costs, so this claim has not been established.
No further evidence was provided at the second hearing, so this claim is dismissed. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. The landlord’s claim for compensation for tenant damage
On the basis of the landlord’s photographic, documentary and oral evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Garage door: the landlord’s evidence is that the garage door was removed by the tenants and had to be replaced. An invoice has been provided, for the cost of $1,415.00. • Toilet: the toilet bowl was damaged and had to be replaced. The invoice for the replacement toilet ($289.58), and the plumber’s invoice ($230.00) has been provided. The total cost is $519.58.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
In determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation has been taken into account. Walls
It is accepted from the photographic evidence that there was damage to the walls in the toilet and kitchen, where shelving had to be removed and the holes patched up. However, the other photographs provided do not clearly show the damage. Some areas of claimed damage is very limited. The landlord did the remedial work, which would appear to be extensive, in view of the evidence provided. Overall, I consider $600.00 to be reasonable compensation for the wall damage, which includes travel. Name suppression and filing fee
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord’s request for the filing fee is awarded on the same basis.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127630 — net $7,678.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order 5127630 dated 17/6/2025	$2,667.43	Previous order 5127630 dated 17/6/2025
Water rates	$2,449.10	Water rates
Garage door repair	$1,415.00	Garage door repair
Wall repairs	$600.00	Wall repairs
Toilet replacement	$519.58	Toilet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,678.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,678.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Deborah Tuiloma, Emere Tuiloma and James Tuiloma must pay [The landlord/s] $7,678.11 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 June 2025 under application 5127630.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representative/s], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the tenants still did not attend. As they have been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is the second hearing for this application. On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, awarding the landlord $2,667.43. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes
The hearing was adjourned part-heard as the landlord’s evidence was incomplete.
As noted in the order issued after the first hearing, the landlord originally applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. I have accepted the landlord’s oral application for amendment of the application to include water charges, and compensation for additional costs incurred at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord no longer seeks rent arrears, since there is a previous Tribunal order awarding rent to the landlord following termination of the tenancy for abandonment on 5 March 2025. The landlord confirms receiving the bond of $2,360.00.
In this order, the claims to be determined are: • Water charges • Lawnmowing • Car removal • Damage to garage door, toilet and walls

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 5 March 2025. The landlord states that the tenants did not pay any water charges from the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided the Watercare invoices, and seeks $2,449.10 in water charges. On the basis of the landlord’s oral evidence, I am prepared to accept that the invoices were sent to the tenants as they fell due for payment. Therefore, the amount claimed for water charges is awarded above. Lawnmowing
As noted in the first order, the landlord states the tenants agreed to pay for regular lawnmowing, which they arranged. However, while the lawnmowing invoices are noted, as explained at the hearing, due to a lack of evidence to show the tenants agreed to this cost, it is declined. There is also a lack of evidence to show that the lawn needed to be mowed at the end of the tenancy.
At the second hearing, the landlord provided evidence of a text to the tenants with a quotation. While noting that a quotation was sent via text to the tenants, there is no evidence that they agreed to this arrangement.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Car removal
As noted in the earlier order, the landlord claims the cost of removing a car that the tenants left behind, as shown in the photograph produced in evidence. The landlord states it was without an engine, and still remains on the premises. The landlord does not have any further information about the removal costs, so this claim has not been established.
No further evidence was provided at the second hearing, so this claim is dismissed. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. The landlord’s claim for compensation for tenant damage
On the basis of the landlord’s photographic, documentary and oral evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Garage door: the landlord’s evidence is that the garage door was removed by the tenants and had to be replaced. An invoice has been provided, for the cost of $1,415.00. • Toilet: the toilet bowl was damaged and had to be replaced. The invoice for the replacement toilet ($289.58), and the plumber’s invoice ($230.00) has been provided. The total cost is $519.58.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
In determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation has been taken into account. Walls
It is accepted from the photographic evidence that there was damage to the walls in the toilet and kitchen, where shelving had to be removed and the holes patched up. However, the other photographs provided do not clearly show the damage. Some areas of claimed damage is very limited. The landlord did the remedial work, which would appear to be extensive, in view of the evidence provided. Overall, I consider $600.00 to be reasonable compensation for the wall damage, which includes travel. Name suppression and filing fee
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord’s request for the filing fee is awarded on the same basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127630 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127630 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions