What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223131?

The tribunal order states: Sudhindev Sukumaran and Anupama Balakrishan must pay Goodwin Realty

How much money was awarded in case 5223131?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,207.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,311.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $293.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223131?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12039387-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223131?

The tribunal order states: Sudhindev Sukumaran and Anupama Balakrishan must pay Goodwin Realty

How much money was awarded in case 5223131?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,207.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,311.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $293.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223131?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12039387-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 183 Mount Albert Road, Sandringham, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223131 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223131 — net $1,359.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Damage to flooring (adjusted	$1,207.50	Repairs: Damage to flooring (adjusted
Repairs: Damage to walls	$2,311.50	Repairs: Damage to walls
Rubbish removal	$293.25	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,359.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,359.25

Order

Sudhindev Sukumaran and Anupama Balakrishan must pay Goodwin Realty Limited $1,359.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (6084511-009) to Goodwin Realty Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote video conference.
The landlord has applied for 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims the tenants vacated the premises without removing all rubbish and furniture. Photographic evidence was provided confirming the extent of the furniture and rubbish left behind by the tenants.
The tenant stated during the hearing that they moved out of the property on 7 January 2025 with arrangements made with the neighbour to remove everything and clean the premises.
The tenant accepts the claim for rubbish removal. The landlord also provided an invoice from Frontier Cleaning dated 23 February 2025 in support of this claim.
The amount ordered for rubbish removal is 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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and flooring. The landlord filed exit inspection photographic evidence in support of these claims. The entry inspection report was provided during the hearing.
The evidence clearly shows extensive minor damage to a number of walls as a result of careless acts. The tenants lived at the property with their young child. The walls were in very good condition at the start of the tenancy. I have also sighted an invoice from Brightstar Property Care dated 3 February 2025 for repair costs. The tenant does not dispute the claim for damage to the walls.
The landlord also claims for damage to flooring. They say that the floors were recently sanded and polished prior to the tenants moving into the property on 21 October 2023. This was confirmed in writing by the floor sanding company. The tenants dispute this claim saying that the floors were not in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
This claim was difficult to adjudicate due to the small size of the various entry and exit photographs provided by the landlord. I also note that there was a different property manager at the start of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by Handy Sanders Floor sanding dated 25 January 2025 confirms the amount of $2415.00 for repairs to the entire flooring of the property.
On close inspection, damage to the flooring is evident in some areas of the unit. There are scratches shown in the exit photographs which were not present in the entry photos. The bulk of the damage appears to have been caused to the lounge/lining room area of the flooring. The damage appears consistent with items such as an office chair and a child’s bike. These are careless acts which the tenants must accept responsibility for. I do not accept however that the tenants should be held liable for the cost of sanding and repairing the entire floor area when the evidence does not support this.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am satisfied that the damage was not intentional but rather caused through carelessness.
Having carefully assessed the ‘before and after’ photographs I am not persuaded that the tenants should be liable for repairs to the entire wooden flooring throughout the unit.
Accordingly, I find that a fair assessment is to allow the claim but reduce the award by 50% to reflect this.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Goodwin Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223131 — net $1,359.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Damage to flooring (adjusted	$1,207.50	Repairs: Damage to flooring (adjusted
Repairs: Damage to walls	$2,311.50	Repairs: Damage to walls
Rubbish removal	$293.25	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,359.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,359.25

Order

Sudhindev Sukumaran and Anupama Balakrishan must pay Goodwin Realty Limited $1,359.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (6084511-009) to Goodwin Realty Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote video conference.
The landlord has applied for 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims the tenants vacated the premises without removing all rubbish and furniture. Photographic evidence was provided confirming the extent of the furniture and rubbish left behind by the tenants.
The tenant stated during the hearing that they moved out of the property on 7 January 2025 with arrangements made with the neighbour to remove everything and clean the premises.
The tenant accepts the claim for rubbish removal. The landlord also provided an invoice from Frontier Cleaning dated 23 February 2025 in support of this claim.
The amount ordered for rubbish removal is 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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and flooring. The landlord filed exit inspection photographic evidence in support of these claims. The entry inspection report was provided during the hearing.
The evidence clearly shows extensive minor damage to a number of walls as a result of careless acts. The tenants lived at the property with their young child. The walls were in very good condition at the start of the tenancy. I have also sighted an invoice from Brightstar Property Care dated 3 February 2025 for repair costs. The tenant does not dispute the claim for damage to the walls.
The landlord also claims for damage to flooring. They say that the floors were recently sanded and polished prior to the tenants moving into the property on 21 October 2023. This was confirmed in writing by the floor sanding company. The tenants dispute this claim saying that the floors were not in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
This claim was difficult to adjudicate due to the small size of the various entry and exit photographs provided by the landlord. I also note that there was a different property manager at the start of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by Handy Sanders Floor sanding dated 25 January 2025 confirms the amount of $2415.00 for repairs to the entire flooring of the property.
On close inspection, damage to the flooring is evident in some areas of the unit. There are scratches shown in the exit photographs which were not present in the entry photos. The bulk of the damage appears to have been caused to the lounge/lining room area of the flooring. The damage appears consistent with items such as an office chair and a child’s bike. These are careless acts which the tenants must accept responsibility for. I do not accept however that the tenants should be held liable for the cost of sanding and repairing the entire floor area when the evidence does not support this.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am satisfied that the damage was not intentional but rather caused through carelessness.
Having carefully assessed the ‘before and after’ photographs I am not persuaded that the tenants should be liable for repairs to the entire wooden flooring throughout the unit.
Accordingly, I find that a fair assessment is to allow the claim but reduce the award by 50% to reflect this.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Goodwin Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223131 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 183 Mount Albert Road, Sandringham,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223131 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 183 Mount Albert Road, Sandringham,

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions