What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5143768?

The tribunal order states: Ana Moala and Kaifa Kiole must pay Reforma P.M. Limited $362.75

How much money was awarded in case 5143768?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143768?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12006609-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5143768?

The tribunal order states: Ana Moala and Kaifa Kiole must pay Reforma P.M. Limited $362.75

How much money was awarded in case 5143768?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143768?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12006609-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19A Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143768 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143768 — net $362.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair bedroom 1 door	$100.00	Repair bedroom 1 door
Repair master bedroom door	$212.75	Repair master bedroom door
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$362.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$362.75

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Ms Moala stated that she had the authority to represent Mr Kiole at today’s hearing

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the stove/oven and rangehood reasonably clean and have claimed $190.00 as the cost of cleaning.

I am dismissing this part of their claim because there were insufficient photos to support it. I note that an old photo of a dirty oven was provided as evidence and that when the tenant disputed that this was how the oven was left, the landlord realised that in fact it was an old photo and not how the tenants had left the oven.

The landlord also claims $246.10 as the cost of a Gorilla bin they bought from Mitre 10 in which to put all the rubbish left behind by the tenants.

However the photos provided as evidence of the rubbish show only a small amount of rubbish left behind and I am reducing the claimed cost to $50.00.

Are the tenants 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.

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.

The landlord claims $212.75 as the invoiced cost of repairing the master bedroom door.

The photographs show that the tenants have attempted a repair themselves which has made the door very unsightly. This is deemed intentional damage and they are therefore required to pay the invoiced cost of repair.

The landlord also claims $416.39 as the invoiced cost of repairing “wall damage”. However, there was only one photograph provided as evidence of this “wall damage” and that is of a very small area of damage to the door of bedroom 1.

On this evidence I have reduced the amount payable by the tenants to $100.00.

Further to this, the landlord also claims $249.00 as the cost of replacing a mirror cabinet in the bathroom.

I am dismissing this part of the claim because I consider the damage to be fair wear and tear, given that, as the landlord stated, the cabinet was at least 20 years old. After all those years of opening and closing the mirror cabinet doors, a door was inevitably going to fall off. Filing fee reimbursement

I am dismissing the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee. This is because they were not wholly or what I would consider substantially successful with their claim.

I also note here that the bond was released to the tenants in error and had it not been, there may well have been no need to make a claim against the tenants in the Tribunal. Release of the bond

At today’s hearing the tenant stated that they ought not to be held liable for the costs claimed because the bond had been released to them before any claim was made, and the release of the bond meant that their liability was at an end.

As explained at today’s hearing, a release of the bond does in no way indicate that tenants are not liable for issues that have either occurred during the tenancy or at the vacating of a tenancy. If claims are proven, then tenants are liable, regardless of whether or not they have already received the bond. C ter Haar 19 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143768 — net $362.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair bedroom 1 door	$100.00	Repair bedroom 1 door
Repair master bedroom door	$212.75	Repair master bedroom door
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$362.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$362.75

Order

Ana Moala and Kaifa Kiole must pay Reforma P.M. Limited $362.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Ms Moala stated that she had the authority to represent Mr Kiole at today’s hearing
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the stove/oven and rangehood reasonably clean and have claimed $190.00 as the cost of cleaning.
I am dismissing this part of their claim because there were insufficient photos to support it. I note that an old photo of a dirty oven was provided as evidence and that when the tenant disputed that this was how the oven was left, the landlord realised that in fact it was an old photo and not how the tenants had left the oven.
The landlord also claims $246.10 as the cost of a Gorilla bin they bought from Mitre 10 in which to put all the rubbish left behind by the tenants.
However the photos provided as evidence of the rubbish show only a small amount of rubbish left behind and I am reducing the claimed cost to $50.00.

Are the tenants 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.
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.
The landlord claims $212.75 as the invoiced cost of repairing the master bedroom door.
The photographs show that the tenants have attempted a repair themselves which has made the door very unsightly. This is deemed intentional damage and they are therefore required to pay the invoiced cost of repair.
The landlord also claims $416.39 as the invoiced cost of repairing “wall damage”. However, there was only one photograph provided as evidence of this “wall damage” and that is of a very small area of damage to the door of bedroom 1.
On this evidence I have reduced the amount payable by the tenants to $100.00.
Further to this, the landlord also claims $249.00 as the cost of replacing a mirror cabinet in the bathroom.
I am dismissing this part of the claim because I consider the damage to be fair wear and tear, given that, as the landlord stated, the cabinet was at least 20 years old. After all those years of opening and closing the mirror cabinet doors, a door was inevitably going to fall off. Filing fee reimbursement
I am dismissing the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee. This is because they were not wholly or what I would consider substantially successful with their claim.
I also note here that the bond was released to the tenants in error and had it not been, there may well have been no need to make a claim against the tenants in the Tribunal. Release of the bond
At today’s hearing the tenant stated that they ought not to be held liable for the costs claimed because the bond had been released to them before any claim was made, and the release of the bond meant that their liability was at an end.
As explained at today’s hearing, a release of the bond does in no way indicate that tenants are not liable for issues that have either occurred during the tenancy or at the vacating of a tenancy. If claims are proven, then tenants are liable, regardless of whether or not they have already received the bond. C ter Haar 19 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143768 — Property damage at 19A Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143768 — Property damage at 19A Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants 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

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions