What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286801 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 5286801?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,530.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,220.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286801?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12496988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286801 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 5286801?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,530.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,220.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286801?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12496988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 104 Mako Mako Road, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286801 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286801 — net $4,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$380.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,220.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Repairs: wall repairs	$2,530.00	Repairs: wall repairs
Replace smoke alarms	$120.00	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,727.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shannon Pratt must pay [The landlord/s] $4,727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$380.00 Rubbish removal$1,220.00 Cleaning$450.00 Repairs: wall repairs$2,530.00 Replace smoke alarms$120.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,727.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,727.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for an adjournment on the basis that she had another important appointment. She was notified the date of this hearing six weeks ago on 21 August 2025, but did not seek an adjournment until the day before the hearing. The request for an adjournment was denied.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord explained that it had made an application for rent arrears and supplied a rent statement. There is no evidence in the Tribunal’s records that an application for rent arrears was made. As the tenant had not received notice in the Notice of Hearing that rent arrears was to be considered, it would be unjust to proceed with this claim at this hearing.
The landlord is entitled to bring a separate application for the rent arrears.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. It is clear from the photographs that the tenant took what she required, left everything else, including a substantial amount of rubbish and discarded chattels, and made no attempt to clean.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace two smoke alarms.
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 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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage was caused to the kitchen walls by the tenant removing a number of pictures which had been pinned or glued to the painted surfaces. b. There were two areas of broken plaster in the lounge. c. In bedroom 1 there was drawing on the walls and damage caused by numerous pin holes. d. In bedroom 2 there were holes in the walls which had been inexpertly plastered, many dents to the plaster and marks in the paint. e. In bedroom 3 there were many pen marks and a hole in the wall. f. In the bathroom, the mirror had been removed and this had damaged the paint. g. In the hallway there were many pin holes and other damage where pictures had been stuck to the walls and then removed. h. Firewall gib in the garage had been damaged with numerous holes and required replacement. i. The garage roller door mechanism had been damaged.
The photographic evidence supported the landlord’s evidence that this damage had occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The scale and nature of the damage indicates that was intentional damage. The amounts claimed for each item is less than the landlord’s insurance excess.
However, the landlord did not provide receipts in support of any claims and carried out the work himself. The amounts claimed were largely reasonable. Amounts have been awarded in keeping with invoices for similar work which the Tribunal sees in this locality while taking into account betterment and depreciation.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed for the following items which are not accepted: a. Repairs to the shower. There is no evidence showing that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. b. Damage to the back door, a hole in the door to bedroom 1, a door handle missing from bedroom 2 and a cut in the carpet in bedroom 3 was not supported by any photographic evidence.
These claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286801 — net $4,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$380.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,220.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Repairs: wall repairs	$2,530.00	Repairs: wall repairs
Replace smoke alarms	$120.00	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,727.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shannon Pratt must pay [The landlord/s] $4,727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$380.00 Rubbish removal$1,220.00 Cleaning$450.00 Repairs: wall repairs$2,530.00 Replace smoke alarms$120.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,727.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,727.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for an adjournment on the basis that she had another important appointment. She was notified the date of this hearing six weeks ago on 21 August 2025, but did not seek an adjournment until the day before the hearing. The request for an adjournment was denied.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord explained that it had made an application for rent arrears and supplied a rent statement. There is no evidence in the Tribunal’s records that an application for rent arrears was made. As the tenant had not received notice in the Notice of Hearing that rent arrears was to be considered, it would be unjust to proceed with this claim at this hearing.
The landlord is entitled to bring a separate application for the rent arrears.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. It is clear from the photographs that the tenant took what she required, left everything else, including a substantial amount of rubbish and discarded chattels, and made no attempt to clean.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace two smoke alarms.
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 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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage was caused to the kitchen walls by the tenant removing a number of pictures which had been pinned or glued to the painted surfaces. b. There were two areas of broken plaster in the lounge. c. In bedroom 1 there was drawing on the walls and damage caused by numerous pin holes. d. In bedroom 2 there were holes in the walls which had been inexpertly plastered, many dents to the plaster and marks in the paint. e. In bedroom 3 there were many pen marks and a hole in the wall. f. In the bathroom, the mirror had been removed and this had damaged the paint. g. In the hallway there were many pin holes and other damage where pictures had been stuck to the walls and then removed. h. Firewall gib in the garage had been damaged with numerous holes and required replacement. i. The garage roller door mechanism had been damaged.
The photographic evidence supported the landlord’s evidence that this damage had occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The scale and nature of the damage indicates that was intentional damage. The amounts claimed for each item is less than the landlord’s insurance excess.
However, the landlord did not provide receipts in support of any claims and carried out the work himself. The amounts claimed were largely reasonable. Amounts have been awarded in keeping with invoices for similar work which the Tribunal sees in this locality while taking into account betterment and depreciation.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed for the following items which are not accepted: a. Repairs to the shower. There is no evidence showing that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. b. Damage to the back door, a hole in the door to bedroom 1, a door handle missing from bedroom 2 and a cut in the carpet in bedroom 3 was not supported by any photographic evidence.
These claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286801 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 104 Mako Mako Road, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286801 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 104 Mako Mako Road, Levin, Levin 5510

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