Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5173046 — Cleanliness at 18E Fyfe Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025
Decided 8 Sept 2025 · Published 8 Sept 2025 · Application 5173046
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Brennan
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,261.89
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,261.89
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $678.61 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal: Exterior | $656.48 | Rubbish removal: Exterior | |
| Rubbish removal: Interior | $302.74 | Rubbish removal: Interior | |
| Repairs: 3 x wall holes | $194.31 | Repairs: 3 x wall holes | |
| Repairs: Replace door |
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,261.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any prior contact with the Registry. A call to the tenant were attempted but unsuccessful. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the call went unanswered.
- The landlord has applied for compensation following 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.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord provided an extensive set of entry and exit photos to support the need at exit for cleaning throughout as well as the removal of items and rubbish from both inside and outside (I note the outside rubbish was placed in discrete piles for ease of later removal). The costs as claimed as accepted.
- 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 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: a. Holes in walls: The landlord claimed the cost of repairing four holes. The cost per hole was $64.77. Only three holes were evidenced in the photos and the awarded amount reflects the cost of three repairs at the per hole cost ($194.31). b. Holes in doors: One wardrobe and one bedroom door has single holes that required repair. Photos evidenced the damage and the cost of repair per hole of $91.86 is considered reasonable ($183.72). c. Door replacement: One door had several holes such that replacement rather than repair was required. The replacement cost was $246.03 (door and installation). The need for replacement was evidenced in photos and the cost of $246.03 is considered reasonable.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. There is no depreciation to be applied to the replacement door.
- The claim for a broken hob was withdrawn by the landlord.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5173046 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities
How much money was awarded in case 5173046?
Cleaning: $678.61 awarded to landlord; 2 Doors - Hole Patching: $183.72 awarded to landlord; 3 X Wall Holes: $194.31 awarded to landlord; Replace Door: $246.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $656.48 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $302.74 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173046?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173046?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12381252-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.