What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5148671?

The tribunal order states: Moturangi McManus-Thomas and Morgana- Jean Thomas must pay Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 5148671?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Power, Water, Gas Outgoings: $520.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $599.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $549.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Vacuum: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,017.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148671?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11986181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5148671?

The tribunal order states: Moturangi McManus-Thomas and Morgana- Jean Thomas must pay Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 5148671?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Power, Water, Gas Outgoings: $520.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $599.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $549.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Vacuum: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,017.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148671?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11986181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1103, 19 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148671 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148671 — net $4,012.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,017.75	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Power, water, gas outgoings	$520.32	Power, water, gas outgoings
Replace missing vacuum	$299.00	Replace missing vacuum
Replace damaged hob	$599.00	Replace damaged hob
Replace damaged bed base	$549.00	Replace damaged bed base
Insurance excess for replacement of 2x doors and repair of holes in walls	$500.00	Insurance excess for replacement of 2x doors and repair of holes in walls
Insurance excess for loss of rent	$500.00	Insurance excess for loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,012.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,012.07

Order

Moturangi McManus-Thomas and Morgana- Jean Thomas must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu Acting Agent For Bannerman, Sandy $4,012.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim for missing chattels in the sum of $665 and the insurance excess of $1,000 for the carpet replacement is withdrawn at the landlord’s request.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Ms Williams. The tenants did not join the video hearing and calls to their cell phone numbers in the application diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenants received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term starting on 10 May 2024 and due to end on 9 May 2025. However, the tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal under application 5008928 on 9 December 2024. Orders were also made for rent arrears and refund of the bond in full to the landlord.

How much is owed for outgoings?

The landlord provided power, gas and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos produced in evidence.
The premises were provided fully furnished. At the end of the tenancy a vacuum cleaner that was purchased just before the tenancy started was missing. Given that the item was brand new, I do not need to reduce the replacement cost for depreciation and award the landlord the full cost incurred.
There were also numerous other chattels missing at the end of the tenancy such as crockery, cutlery, soft furnishings and the like. However, the landlord was unable to collate all the evidence that would be required to prove the age of the items and their replacement costs so that the Tribunal could properly determine the claims. The landlord withdrew these claims.

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 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.
Where damage is proved and results in items being replaced, I must consider 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The damage detailed in the following paragraphs was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was intentional. The landlord noted that the premises appeared to be in reasonable condition with no major damage during an inspection that took place before the tenancy was terminated for rent arrears. After they obtained possession, following a termination order from the Tribunal, multiple damage had been caused and many fixtures, chattels and furnishings supplied were damaged or missing. It is the extent of the damage throughout the premises that makes it intentional in the sense that, at best, the tenant failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it or, at worst, it looks deliberately caused. Two doors damaged in bathroom and master bedroom and wall damage in lounge and bedroom 2
The damage was extensive requiring replacement of the doors and repairs to the walls. The landlord’s insurer covered the costs and only applied one excess of $500 to all the damage across the four rooms. The landlord wishes to recover the excess from the tenants. The landlord noted that the apartment was fully refurbished approximately 18 months before this tenancy ended. I am satisfied that the excess claimed is less than the remediation costs after applying depreciation. Therefore, the excess is awarded. Bed base damage
The wooden slats on the base of the bed were broken beyond repair and the base needed to be replaced at a cost of $679 (discounted to $549) , which was not covered by insurance. The bed base was approximately 3 years old and current depreciation guidelines estimate that furnishing like beds should last 10 years or more. However, it appears that the landlord has replaced the base with a less expensive option and also received a discount of $130 on the price. Therefore I consider the full cost should be awarded. Broken cooktop
The ceramic cooktop was smashed and required replacement at a cost of $599 which was not covered by insurance. The cooktop was installed approximately 18 months before the tenancy ended and current depreciation guidelines estimate that it should last 10-15 years. However, it appears that the landlord has replaced the cooktop with a less expensive option. Therefore, I consider the full cost should be awarded. Loss of rent
The landlord’s insurer covered partial loss of rent calculated at a weekly rate of $600 from the date the tenancy ended on 9 December 2025 until 10 February 2025, the date remedial work was completed, and the premises were able to be re-advertised for let. The insurer applied an excess of $500 which the landlord seeks from the tenants. I consider the claim is justified because the intentional damage caused by the tenants and the remedial work required as a result significantly delayed the landlord’s ability to re-let the premises despite their reasonable efforts to mitigate the loss.
As the landlords have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 19 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148671 — net $4,012.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,017.75	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Power, water, gas outgoings	$520.32	Power, water, gas outgoings
Replace missing vacuum	$299.00	Replace missing vacuum
Replace damaged hob	$599.00	Replace damaged hob
Replace damaged bed base	$549.00	Replace damaged bed base
Insurance excess for replacement of 2x doors and repair of holes in walls	$500.00	Insurance excess for replacement of 2x doors and repair of holes in walls
Insurance excess for loss of rent	$500.00	Insurance excess for loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,012.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,012.07

Order

Moturangi McManus-Thomas and Morgana- Jean Thomas must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu Acting Agent For Bannerman, Sandy $4,012.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim for missing chattels in the sum of $665 and the insurance excess of $1,000 for the carpet replacement is withdrawn at the landlord’s request.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Ms Williams. The tenants did not join the video hearing and calls to their cell phone numbers in the application diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenants received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term starting on 10 May 2024 and due to end on 9 May 2025. However, the tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal under application 5008928 on 9 December 2024. Orders were also made for rent arrears and refund of the bond in full to the landlord.

How much is owed for outgoings?

The landlord provided power, gas and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos produced in evidence.
The premises were provided fully furnished. At the end of the tenancy a vacuum cleaner that was purchased just before the tenancy started was missing. Given that the item was brand new, I do not need to reduce the replacement cost for depreciation and award the landlord the full cost incurred.
There were also numerous other chattels missing at the end of the tenancy such as crockery, cutlery, soft furnishings and the like. However, the landlord was unable to collate all the evidence that would be required to prove the age of the items and their replacement costs so that the Tribunal could properly determine the claims. The landlord withdrew these claims.

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 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.
Where damage is proved and results in items being replaced, I must consider 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The damage detailed in the following paragraphs was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was intentional. The landlord noted that the premises appeared to be in reasonable condition with no major damage during an inspection that took place before the tenancy was terminated for rent arrears. After they obtained possession, following a termination order from the Tribunal, multiple damage had been caused and many fixtures, chattels and furnishings supplied were damaged or missing. It is the extent of the damage throughout the premises that makes it intentional in the sense that, at best, the tenant failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it or, at worst, it looks deliberately caused. Two doors damaged in bathroom and master bedroom and wall damage in lounge and bedroom 2
The damage was extensive requiring replacement of the doors and repairs to the walls. The landlord’s insurer covered the costs and only applied one excess of $500 to all the damage across the four rooms. The landlord wishes to recover the excess from the tenants. The landlord noted that the apartment was fully refurbished approximately 18 months before this tenancy ended. I am satisfied that the excess claimed is less than the remediation costs after applying depreciation. Therefore, the excess is awarded. Bed base damage
The wooden slats on the base of the bed were broken beyond repair and the base needed to be replaced at a cost of $679 (discounted to $549) , which was not covered by insurance. The bed base was approximately 3 years old and current depreciation guidelines estimate that furnishing like beds should last 10 years or more. However, it appears that the landlord has replaced the base with a less expensive option and also received a discount of $130 on the price. Therefore I consider the full cost should be awarded. Broken cooktop
The ceramic cooktop was smashed and required replacement at a cost of $599 which was not covered by insurance. The cooktop was installed approximately 18 months before the tenancy ended and current depreciation guidelines estimate that it should last 10-15 years. However, it appears that the landlord has replaced the cooktop with a less expensive option. Therefore, I consider the full cost should be awarded. Loss of rent
The landlord’s insurer covered partial loss of rent calculated at a weekly rate of $600 from the date the tenancy ended on 9 December 2025 until 10 February 2025, the date remedial work was completed, and the premises were able to be re-advertised for let. The insurer applied an excess of $500 which the landlord seeks from the tenants. I consider the claim is justified because the intentional damage caused by the tenants and the remedial work required as a result significantly delayed the landlord’s ability to re-let the premises despite their reasonable efforts to mitigate the loss.
As the landlords have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 19 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148671 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1103, 19 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148671 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1103, 19 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outgoings?

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

How much is owed for outgoings?

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