Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5256880 — Property damage at 511 Mill Road, Takanini, RD 2, Takanini 2582
Decided 21 Nov 2025 · Published 21 Nov 2025 · Application 5256880
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Takanini
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Tam
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $34,934.10
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $34,934.10
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ground cleanup, including overgrown weeds, nails aluminium cans, and glass shards | $3,588.00 | Ground cleanup, including overgrown weeds, nails aluminium cans, and glass shards | |
| Repairs: outdoor light poles damaged by the tenant’s truck | $230.00 | Repairs: outdoor light poles damaged by the tenant’s truck | |
| Repairs: walls | $13,800.00 | Repairs: walls | |
| Repairs: carpet replacement | $10,529.40 |
Order
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Immanuel Enterprises Limited T/As Staywell Property Management As Agent For Mei-Yu Chen $34,934.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing.
- The tenancy of Qing-Liang Zhang at 511 Mill Road, Takanini, RD 2, Takanini 2582 was terminated, and possession granted to Immanuel Enterprises Limited, at midnight on Tuesday 21 January 2025 by Tribunal order dated 21 January 2025 under application 4973575.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 21 January 2025.
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.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Large scale industrial materials were left behind by the tenant who used the premises to house his workers in the insulation supply and installation trade. Rubbish was left inside the premises as well as on the grounds of the property. Work orders previously issued against the tenant under application 4973575 have not been complied with.
- The tenant did not return the garage remote control.
- The curtains were badly soiled. The landlord had to replace them.
- 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.
- 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: walls, carpets, and outdoor light poles. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The damage is likely to be caused intentionally, or due to sheer recklessness whereby the tenant’s workers have misused the premises resulting in the walls and carpets to be continuously and substantially damaged, knowing that damage is a certainty.
- 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(2), s49B(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256880 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Immanuel Enterprises Limited T/As Staywell
How much money was awarded in case 5256880?
Cleaning: $3,588.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawnmowing: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,529.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $13,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5,506.20 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256880?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256880?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12755400-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.