What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5175471?

The tribunal order states: Region Salamasina Taisau must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5175471?

Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit Held: $195.43 awarded to tenant; Paint Over Marks On Bathroom Wall: $46.82 awarded to landlord; Patch And Paint Hole In Wall: $62.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $662.11 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $227.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175471?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5175471?

The tribunal order states: Region Salamasina Taisau must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5175471?

Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit Held: $195.43 awarded to tenant; Paint Over Marks On Bathroom Wall: $46.82 awarded to landlord; Patch And Paint Hole In Wall: $62.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $662.11 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $227.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175471?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 38, 123 Church Street, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175471 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 38, 123 Church Street, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175471 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175471 — net $953.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$227.06		Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet	$662.11		Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet
Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall	$62.87		Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall
Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall	$46.82		Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall
Rent credit held		$195.43	Rent credit held
Total award	$1,148.86	$195.43
Net award	$953.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$953.43

Claims and awards for application 5175471 — net $953.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal

Amount: $227.06
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet

Amount: $662.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet

Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall

Amount: $62.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall

Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall

Amount: $46.82
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Region Salamasina Taisau must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $953.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are withdrawn by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord attended the telephone hearing represented by Ms Gray. The Tribunal attempted to call the tenant at the telephone number for them in the application, but the call went unanswered. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings nor leave the grounds tidy as shown in photos produced in evidence at the hearing.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in bedroom 1 was stained and had to be replaced; there was a hole in the wall that had to be repaired, plastered and painted; there were drawing s on the bathroom wall that had to be painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which was likely careless.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has taken into account betterment and depreciation of the bedroom carpet. 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 landlord noted that the carpet was only one year old at the end of the tenancy and should have lasted for 8 years. I find that the claim is reasonable and proved. K Stirling, 09 June 2025

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175471 — net $953.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$227.06		Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet	$662.11		Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet
Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall	$62.87		Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall
Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall	$46.82		Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall
Rent credit held		$195.43	Rent credit held
Total award	$1,148.86	$195.43
Net award	$953.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$953.43

Claims and awards for application 5175471 — net $953.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal

Amount: $227.06
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet

Amount: $662.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: removal and replacement of carpet

Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall

Amount: $62.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: patch and paint hole in wall

Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall

Amount: $46.82
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: paint over marks on bathroom wall

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Region Salamasina Taisau must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $953.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are withdrawn by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord attended the telephone hearing represented by Ms Gray. The Tribunal attempted to call the tenant at the telephone number for them in the application, but the call went unanswered. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings nor leave the grounds tidy as shown in photos produced in evidence at the hearing.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in bedroom 1 was stained and had to be replaced; there was a hole in the wall that had to be repaired, plastered and painted; there were drawing s on the bathroom wall that had to be painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which was likely careless.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has taken into account betterment and depreciation of the bedroom carpet. 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 landlord noted that the carpet was only one year old at the end of the tenancy and should have lasted for 8 years. I find that the claim is reasonable and proved. K Stirling, 09 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175471 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 38, 123 Church Street, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175471 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 38, 123 Church Street, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions