What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233814 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5233814?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233814?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12030959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233814 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5233814?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233814?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12030959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Waihora Crescent, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233814 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

29 Waihora Crescent, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233814 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Pani Charles Hanara, Ani Vienna Harieta Tanirau, John James Deegan and Robin Huirau Emery must pay [The landlord/s] $39,332.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant and three guarantors.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant and guarantors have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Pani Charles Hanara, with three guarantors, that is Ani Vienna Harieta Tanirau, Robin Huirau Emery and John James Deegan.
The tenancy commenced on 6 August 2024.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal being claim 5157540, due to rent arrears of $8,272.71. Possession was ordered to return to the landlord on 24 March 2025.
The landlord reports that they could not access the premises for two weeks following the possession order date, as people were continuing to live in the premises. However, when the landlord accessed the premises, they found extensive damage which is the subject of this claim, which I will set out in more detail below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. Lock and Key replacement
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

House cleaning - $750.00

The landlord has claimed $750.00 for cleaning. The photographs at the end of the tenancy confirm that the premises were very unclean, and far from the required standard that the tenant needed to return the dwelling, which was reasonably clean. The invoice supports this claim, it is awarded in full. Lawn moving - $260.00
The photographs, provided by the landlord, confirm that the grounds were overgrown, and not at a standard of being reasonably tidy when the premises were returned. The invoice confirms the cost claimed of $260.00 for lawn mowing, this claim is established and ordered in full. Rubbish collection and removal - $680.00
The landlord has claimed rubbish collection and removal costs of $680. The photographs show extensive rubbish throughout the inside, and outside of the tenancy. The extent of the rubbish would be commensurate with the amount of the claim; this claim is ordered in full. Lock replacement$275.00
The landlord states that keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all keys, and if they fail to do so, the landlord is entitled to have the locks replaced. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Smoke alarm - $208.55
The landlord states that some of the smoke alarms that were provided at the start of the tenancy were missing, and that is supported by photographs, showing the smoke alarm bases on the ceiling. The tenant must return all smoke alarms provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Again, this claim is supported by the invoice, it is awarded in full. Window damage - $7,445.00
The landlord has claimed for extensive window repairs. The evidence is that most, if not all, windows in the house were broken when the premises were returned. I am satisfied that this damage occurred while the tenant was in possession of the premises. The obligation then shifts to the tenant to prove that the windows were not damaged carelessly, or intentionally by the tenant, or somebody in the premises with the consent of the tenant, and the tenant has not proven that. The tenant must be liable for the window repair cost, which includes a requirement for scaffolding. This claim is established and ordered In full. Carpet cleaning - $309.01
As indicated above, the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show extensive staining on the carpets. The landlord seeks the carpet cleaning cost, which again was supported by the invoice. The tenant must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Painter and platering - $15,050.00
This claim is significant, it relates to extensive interior work to walls and doors. The photographs show dents or holes in many of the internal walls and damage to internal doors. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The onus then shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional, and the tenant has not done that. It is difficult to see that this damage would be anything other than intentional, which means the tenant is liable for the full repair cost. The claim is supported by an invoice. The cost seems proportionate to the repairs that would have been needed, and is ordered in full. Builder work inside the house - $5,770.70
This claim relates to internal repairs, including Gib patches, and work to repair doors. Again, I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it would not be fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproven liability. Again, the work would seem to be necessary to address intentional damage, for which the tenant would be entirely liable. This claim is ordered in full. Electrical work $285.00
The evidence is that during the tenancy, the tenant rewired the electrical meter to the premises, no doubt in order to obtain free electricity.
This cost relates to the charges from the electrician to remove the jumper cable, so that the electrical meter would operate properly. The cost for this must be on the tenant. The invoice is provided, and is ordered in full. Loss of rent - $2,960.00
The landlord seeks additional rental of one month. That comprised two weeks in which the tenant still had possession of the premises, and the landlord claims another two weeks for the repairs and cleaning works.
The landlord indicated that it took some months to remediate the premises, but they are only seeking four weeks in total. That is a loss that arises because of the breaches set out above, and I find the tenant is liable for this additional rental. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in the claim, the tenant is liable for the filing fee, paid to commence this proceeding. Bond
The landlord confirmed that the bond has already been released by the Bond Centre, so the bond amount received is deducted from this order. Earlier order combined with this order.
Is indicated above, the Tribunal has previously made an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $8,272.71, which includes a Tribunal filing fee.
The landlord advised that this money has not been paid, so it is sensible that it be included in this order, meaning that the landlord will only need to enforce this single order.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding.
In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression which is ordered as the landlord has wholly succeeded.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Pani Charles Hanara, Ani Vienna Harieta Tanirau, John James Deegan and Robin Huirau Emery must pay [The landlord/s] $39,332.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant and three guarantors.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant and guarantors have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Pani Charles Hanara, with three guarantors, that is Ani Vienna Harieta Tanirau, Robin Huirau Emery and John James Deegan.
The tenancy commenced on 6 August 2024.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal being claim 5157540, due to rent arrears of $8,272.71. Possession was ordered to return to the landlord on 24 March 2025.
The landlord reports that they could not access the premises for two weeks following the possession order date, as people were continuing to live in the premises. However, when the landlord accessed the premises, they found extensive damage which is the subject of this claim, which I will set out in more detail below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. Lock and Key replacement
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

House cleaning - $750.00

The landlord has claimed $750.00 for cleaning. The photographs at the end of the tenancy confirm that the premises were very unclean, and far from the required standard that the tenant needed to return the dwelling, which was reasonably clean. The invoice supports this claim, it is awarded in full. Lawn moving - $260.00
The photographs, provided by the landlord, confirm that the grounds were overgrown, and not at a standard of being reasonably tidy when the premises were returned. The invoice confirms the cost claimed of $260.00 for lawn mowing, this claim is established and ordered in full. Rubbish collection and removal - $680.00
The landlord has claimed rubbish collection and removal costs of $680. The photographs show extensive rubbish throughout the inside, and outside of the tenancy. The extent of the rubbish would be commensurate with the amount of the claim; this claim is ordered in full. Lock replacement$275.00
The landlord states that keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all keys, and if they fail to do so, the landlord is entitled to have the locks replaced. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Smoke alarm - $208.55
The landlord states that some of the smoke alarms that were provided at the start of the tenancy were missing, and that is supported by photographs, showing the smoke alarm bases on the ceiling. The tenant must return all smoke alarms provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Again, this claim is supported by the invoice, it is awarded in full. Window damage - $7,445.00
The landlord has claimed for extensive window repairs. The evidence is that most, if not all, windows in the house were broken when the premises were returned. I am satisfied that this damage occurred while the tenant was in possession of the premises. The obligation then shifts to the tenant to prove that the windows were not damaged carelessly, or intentionally by the tenant, or somebody in the premises with the consent of the tenant, and the tenant has not proven that. The tenant must be liable for the window repair cost, which includes a requirement for scaffolding. This claim is established and ordered In full. Carpet cleaning - $309.01
As indicated above, the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show extensive staining on the carpets. The landlord seeks the carpet cleaning cost, which again was supported by the invoice. The tenant must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Painter and platering - $15,050.00
This claim is significant, it relates to extensive interior work to walls and doors. The photographs show dents or holes in many of the internal walls and damage to internal doors. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The onus then shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional, and the tenant has not done that. It is difficult to see that this damage would be anything other than intentional, which means the tenant is liable for the full repair cost. The claim is supported by an invoice. The cost seems proportionate to the repairs that would have been needed, and is ordered in full. Builder work inside the house - $5,770.70
This claim relates to internal repairs, including Gib patches, and work to repair doors. Again, I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it would not be fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproven liability. Again, the work would seem to be necessary to address intentional damage, for which the tenant would be entirely liable. This claim is ordered in full. Electrical work $285.00
The evidence is that during the tenancy, the tenant rewired the electrical meter to the premises, no doubt in order to obtain free electricity.
This cost relates to the charges from the electrician to remove the jumper cable, so that the electrical meter would operate properly. The cost for this must be on the tenant. The invoice is provided, and is ordered in full. Loss of rent - $2,960.00
The landlord seeks additional rental of one month. That comprised two weeks in which the tenant still had possession of the premises, and the landlord claims another two weeks for the repairs and cleaning works.
The landlord indicated that it took some months to remediate the premises, but they are only seeking four weeks in total. That is a loss that arises because of the breaches set out above, and I find the tenant is liable for this additional rental. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in the claim, the tenant is liable for the filing fee, paid to commence this proceeding. Bond
The landlord confirmed that the bond has already been released by the Bond Centre, so the bond amount received is deducted from this order. Earlier order combined with this order.
Is indicated above, the Tribunal has previously made an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $8,272.71, which includes a Tribunal filing fee.
The landlord advised that this money has not been paid, so it is sensible that it be included in this order, meaning that the landlord will only need to enforce this single order.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding.
In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression which is ordered as the landlord has wholly succeeded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233814 — Property damage at 29 Waihora Crescent, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233814 — Property damage at 29 Waihora Crescent, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION