What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295399 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5295399?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $425.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,400.01 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $101.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295399?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12648497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295399 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5295399?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $425.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,400.01 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $101.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295399?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12648497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Kellett Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5295399 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5295399 — net $6,203.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs – electrical	$750.00	Repairs – electrical
Repairs – glass windows and doors	$500.00	Repairs – glass windows and doors
Repairs – holes in walls and damaged doors	$1,000.00	Repairs – holes in walls and damaged doors
Water rates	$101.34	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$425.50	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$3,400.01	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,203.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,203.85

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Simon & Vanessa Coles $6,203.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

For nearly five years, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 49 Kellett Road, Ranui, Auckland (the Premises) owned by Simon & Vanessa Coles (the Owner) and managed by Barfoot & Thompson Limited (Property Manager) (together, the Landlord).
The Landlord says that, after the tenancy ended in June 2025, the Tenant failed to pay outstanding water rates, failed to return the keys, failed to clean or remove all rubbish from the house and caused extensive damage to windows, doors and walls, and electrical fittings inside the Premises.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Did the Tenant fail to pay water consumption charges accrued during the tenancy? b. Did the Tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy? c. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy? d. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy? e. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing windows, doors and walls in the

Premises?

f. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?

On 29 October 2025, the Property Manager attended the hearing on behalf of the Landlord, the Tenant did not attend. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
The Landlord stated, by agreement between the parties, the bond of $2,120 was refunded to the Landlord on 30 June 2025. The Landlord has applied the bond received to outstanding water rates and rubbish removal costs (discussed further below). The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Did the Tenant fail to pay water consumption charges accrued during the tenancy?

A landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, or are incurred for common facilities. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 1
The Landlord says when the tenancy ended, there were outstanding water consumption charges of $126.01 to 8 May 2025. When the bond of $2,120 was refunded on 30 June 2025, the Landlord applied $126.01 of the bond to those outstanding water consumption charges.
On or about 1 July 2025, the Landlord received the final water bill for the Premises, for water consumption to 25 June 2025. The Landlord says after the Tenant moved out on 15 June 2025, the Premises was vacant until it was sold in October 2025. On that basis, the Landlord says all water consumption charges recorded in the final water bill are attributable to the Tenant.
The final water bill recorded consumption charges of $101.34 to 25 June 2025. The Landlord seeks payment of that amount.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the amount sought is owed for water consumed during the tenancy. The Premises were not re-let after the tenancy, and the Premises have since been sold. I am satisfied all water consumption recorded in the invoice dated 26 June 2025 is for water consumed during the tenancy.
I make an order for payment of $101.34 for water consumption charges. 1 Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act.

Did the Tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all keys and security or pass cards provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 2
The Landlord says the Tenant did not return the keys for the front and back door, nor the downstairs entryway. The Landlord produced an invoice for $425.50 from a locksmith who attended on 19 June 2025. The Landlord also produced a text message from the Tenant dated 16 June 2025 in which the Tenant confirmed she had lost the keys.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant failed to return the keys and make an order for $425.50 for the cost of changing the locks.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3 A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean. The Landlord has produced photos taken on 19 June 2025 which show the Premises was no cleaned at all. Dirt is visible on surfaces throughout the Premises.
The Landlord produced a quote dated 24 June 2025 for $558 from a cleaning company. At the hearing, the Property Manager stated the house had been cleaned, but that it was organised by the Owner and the Property Manager was unsure whether the Owner had engaged the cleaning company who provided the quote, or whether the Owner arranged another cleaning company, or did it themselves. No final invoice, or other evidence of actual cost incurred, was produced.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Premises was not left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, however I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved they incurred the cost claimed. The Property Manager was unable to state when the cleaning was completed, or the actual cost incurred. No photos were provided to show the condition of the Premises after cleaning had been completed. Without such evidence, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the work was carried out or, if it was, that the Landlord incurred the cost claimed.
The Landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is therefore dismissed. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. 3 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.

Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove their belongings and all rubbish. 4
The Landlord says the Tenants did not remove all of their belongings or rubbish from the Premises. The Landlord has produced photos taken on 19 June 2025 which show furniture, clothing, cutlery, wood and rubbish were left throughout the interior and exterior of the Premises.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 25 June 2025 for $5,394.00 from a rubbish removal company which states 6 bins (each measuring 9m 3 ) were filled with Tenant belongings and/or rubbish and disposed of.
The Landlord says when the bond of $2,120 was refunded on 30 June 2025, the Landlord applied $1,993.99 to the rubbish removal costs. The Landlord now seeks payment of the remaining $3,400.01.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings from the Premises at the end of the tenancy, and that the cost claimed was actually incurred.
I make an order for payment of $3,400.01 for rubbish removal. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing windows, doors and walls in 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, a 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. 5 A Tenant is responsible for any destruction or damage that was intentional. 6
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). 7
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). Where 4 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iii) of the Act. 5 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 6 Section 49B(1) of the Act. 7 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
The Landlord says the Tenant caused extensive damage to the interior of the Premises during the tenancy and sought compensation for the following repairs: a. Electrical repairs $1,025.32; b. Broken glass in joinery $770.50; and c. Holes in walls and damaged internal doors $6,187.00. (together, the Damage)
At the hearing, the Property Manager stated the Owner held insurance for Tenant damage with an excess of $750 per claim. The Property Manager stated the Owner had not made a claim with their insurer for the Damage on the basis the Owner considered the Damage was intentional and therefore a claim would not be accepted by the insurer.
Intentional damage requires evidence the Tenant deliberately caused the damage, for example by punching a wall. By contrast, careless damage is accidental, as a result of a Tenant failing to take reasonable care, such as when moving furniture or some other accident.
I am satisfied the photos taken on 19 June 2025 prove damage to the walls and doors of the Premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. 9 I also accept the Landlord’s submission that damage to the walls and doors was caused intentionally because the size of the holes (for example, the holes in the walls in the hallway, Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 4) appear to be at shoulder height and are consistent with being struck with a person’s fist or shoulder. I am satisfied such damage was therefore likely caused by an intentional punch to the wall/ or door, or shoulder charge to the same.
I am also satisfied the broken glass in the downstairs entry door and bedroom 3 are consistent with having been deliberately broken as they also appear to be at shoulder height, that is, they are consistent with being punched. In addition, the evidence that three windows/doors had broken glass makes it very unlikely that they were accidentally broken – it would be a highly unlikely coincidence that three separate windows broke accidentally.
As for the electrical repairs, being replacement fittings for interior lights, I am satisfied the damage to the lights occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. However, there is no evidence the damage to lights was 8 Section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act. 9 Photos taken during the in-going inspection dated 10 September 2020 show the interior of the Premises was in good condition with no holes in walls and doors were free from damage. intentionally caused, instead, light shades are just missing. I am satisfied it is more likely that the light fittings were broken or removed due to carelessness.
The issue I face is how to quantify the loss the Landlord suffered for damage to electrical fittings, walls and doors, and glass. The Landlord obtained quotes for repairs to the Damage, but did not undertake the work. Instead, the Premises was put on the market for sale and was sold on 28 October 2025. It was sold in an “as is where is” condition. The Landlord submits they could have sold the property for a higher sale price if the Damage had not been present, and therefore seeks compensation based on the quotes obtained to repairs the Damage.
For the damage to electrical fittings, I am satisfied the Landlord could have made a claim under their insurance. The Tenant should not be disadvantaged due to the Landlord’s own choice not to lodge an insurance claim. I therefore award the Landlord $750 for damage to electrical fittings.
For the damage to glass in windows and doors, I award the Landlord $500. I accept the damage was intentional, and therefore the Tenant is liable for the damage caused. While I accept the broken windows (which were boarded up by the Landlord for the purposes of selling the property) would have impacted the appeal of the property to prospective purchasers, it was ultimately the Landlord’s choice to put it on the market in that condition.
For the damage to walls and doors, I award the Landlord $1,000. I accept that damage was also intentional, and therefore the Tenant is liable for the damage caused. However, the Landlord did not produce evidence to demonstrate the actual loss suffered was the amount quoted to repair the damage, nor that the sale price was impacted by that amount. As with the broken glass windows and doors, it was ultimately the Landlord’s choice to put the Premises on the market in that condition. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?
As the Landlord has partly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5295399 — net $6,203.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs – electrical	$750.00	Repairs – electrical
Repairs – glass windows and doors	$500.00	Repairs – glass windows and doors
Repairs – holes in walls and damaged doors	$1,000.00	Repairs – holes in walls and damaged doors
Water rates	$101.34	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$425.50	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$3,400.01	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,203.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,203.85

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Simon & Vanessa Coles $6,203.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

For nearly five years, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 49 Kellett Road, Ranui, Auckland (the Premises) owned by Simon & Vanessa Coles (the Owner) and managed by Barfoot & Thompson Limited (Property Manager) (together, the Landlord).
The Landlord says that, after the tenancy ended in June 2025, the Tenant failed to pay outstanding water rates, failed to return the keys, failed to clean or remove all rubbish from the house and caused extensive damage to windows, doors and walls, and electrical fittings inside the Premises.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Did the Tenant fail to pay water consumption charges accrued during the tenancy? b. Did the Tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy? c. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy? d. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy? e. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing windows, doors and walls in the

Premises?

f. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?

On 29 October 2025, the Property Manager attended the hearing on behalf of the Landlord, the Tenant did not attend. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
The Landlord stated, by agreement between the parties, the bond of $2,120 was refunded to the Landlord on 30 June 2025. The Landlord has applied the bond received to outstanding water rates and rubbish removal costs (discussed further below). The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Did the Tenant fail to pay water consumption charges accrued during the tenancy?

A landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, or are incurred for common facilities. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 1
The Landlord says when the tenancy ended, there were outstanding water consumption charges of $126.01 to 8 May 2025. When the bond of $2,120 was refunded on 30 June 2025, the Landlord applied $126.01 of the bond to those outstanding water consumption charges.
On or about 1 July 2025, the Landlord received the final water bill for the Premises, for water consumption to 25 June 2025. The Landlord says after the Tenant moved out on 15 June 2025, the Premises was vacant until it was sold in October 2025. On that basis, the Landlord says all water consumption charges recorded in the final water bill are attributable to the Tenant.
The final water bill recorded consumption charges of $101.34 to 25 June 2025. The Landlord seeks payment of that amount.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the amount sought is owed for water consumed during the tenancy. The Premises were not re-let after the tenancy, and the Premises have since been sold. I am satisfied all water consumption recorded in the invoice dated 26 June 2025 is for water consumed during the tenancy.
I make an order for payment of $101.34 for water consumption charges. 1 Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act.

Did the Tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all keys and security or pass cards provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 2
The Landlord says the Tenant did not return the keys for the front and back door, nor the downstairs entryway. The Landlord produced an invoice for $425.50 from a locksmith who attended on 19 June 2025. The Landlord also produced a text message from the Tenant dated 16 June 2025 in which the Tenant confirmed she had lost the keys.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant failed to return the keys and make an order for $425.50 for the cost of changing the locks.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3 A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean. The Landlord has produced photos taken on 19 June 2025 which show the Premises was no cleaned at all. Dirt is visible on surfaces throughout the Premises.
The Landlord produced a quote dated 24 June 2025 for $558 from a cleaning company. At the hearing, the Property Manager stated the house had been cleaned, but that it was organised by the Owner and the Property Manager was unsure whether the Owner had engaged the cleaning company who provided the quote, or whether the Owner arranged another cleaning company, or did it themselves. No final invoice, or other evidence of actual cost incurred, was produced.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Premises was not left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, however I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved they incurred the cost claimed. The Property Manager was unable to state when the cleaning was completed, or the actual cost incurred. No photos were provided to show the condition of the Premises after cleaning had been completed. Without such evidence, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the work was carried out or, if it was, that the Landlord incurred the cost claimed.
The Landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is therefore dismissed. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. 3 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.

Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove their belongings and all rubbish. 4
The Landlord says the Tenants did not remove all of their belongings or rubbish from the Premises. The Landlord has produced photos taken on 19 June 2025 which show furniture, clothing, cutlery, wood and rubbish were left throughout the interior and exterior of the Premises.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 25 June 2025 for $5,394.00 from a rubbish removal company which states 6 bins (each measuring 9m 3 ) were filled with Tenant belongings and/or rubbish and disposed of.
The Landlord says when the bond of $2,120 was refunded on 30 June 2025, the Landlord applied $1,993.99 to the rubbish removal costs. The Landlord now seeks payment of the remaining $3,400.01.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings from the Premises at the end of the tenancy, and that the cost claimed was actually incurred.
I make an order for payment of $3,400.01 for rubbish removal. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing windows, doors and walls in 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, a 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. 5 A Tenant is responsible for any destruction or damage that was intentional. 6
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). 7
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). Where 4 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iii) of the Act. 5 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 6 Section 49B(1) of the Act. 7 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
The Landlord says the Tenant caused extensive damage to the interior of the Premises during the tenancy and sought compensation for the following repairs: a. Electrical repairs $1,025.32; b. Broken glass in joinery $770.50; and c. Holes in walls and damaged internal doors $6,187.00. (together, the Damage)
At the hearing, the Property Manager stated the Owner held insurance for Tenant damage with an excess of $750 per claim. The Property Manager stated the Owner had not made a claim with their insurer for the Damage on the basis the Owner considered the Damage was intentional and therefore a claim would not be accepted by the insurer.
Intentional damage requires evidence the Tenant deliberately caused the damage, for example by punching a wall. By contrast, careless damage is accidental, as a result of a Tenant failing to take reasonable care, such as when moving furniture or some other accident.
I am satisfied the photos taken on 19 June 2025 prove damage to the walls and doors of the Premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. 9 I also accept the Landlord’s submission that damage to the walls and doors was caused intentionally because the size of the holes (for example, the holes in the walls in the hallway, Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 4) appear to be at shoulder height and are consistent with being struck with a person’s fist or shoulder. I am satisfied such damage was therefore likely caused by an intentional punch to the wall/ or door, or shoulder charge to the same.
I am also satisfied the broken glass in the downstairs entry door and bedroom 3 are consistent with having been deliberately broken as they also appear to be at shoulder height, that is, they are consistent with being punched. In addition, the evidence that three windows/doors had broken glass makes it very unlikely that they were accidentally broken – it would be a highly unlikely coincidence that three separate windows broke accidentally.
As for the electrical repairs, being replacement fittings for interior lights, I am satisfied the damage to the lights occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. However, there is no evidence the damage to lights was 8 Section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act. 9 Photos taken during the in-going inspection dated 10 September 2020 show the interior of the Premises was in good condition with no holes in walls and doors were free from damage. intentionally caused, instead, light shades are just missing. I am satisfied it is more likely that the light fittings were broken or removed due to carelessness.
The issue I face is how to quantify the loss the Landlord suffered for damage to electrical fittings, walls and doors, and glass. The Landlord obtained quotes for repairs to the Damage, but did not undertake the work. Instead, the Premises was put on the market for sale and was sold on 28 October 2025. It was sold in an “as is where is” condition. The Landlord submits they could have sold the property for a higher sale price if the Damage had not been present, and therefore seeks compensation based on the quotes obtained to repairs the Damage.
For the damage to electrical fittings, I am satisfied the Landlord could have made a claim under their insurance. The Tenant should not be disadvantaged due to the Landlord’s own choice not to lodge an insurance claim. I therefore award the Landlord $750 for damage to electrical fittings.
For the damage to glass in windows and doors, I award the Landlord $500. I accept the damage was intentional, and therefore the Tenant is liable for the damage caused. While I accept the broken windows (which were boarded up by the Landlord for the purposes of selling the property) would have impacted the appeal of the property to prospective purchasers, it was ultimately the Landlord’s choice to put it on the market in that condition.
For the damage to walls and doors, I award the Landlord $1,000. I accept that damage was also intentional, and therefore the Tenant is liable for the damage caused. However, the Landlord did not produce evidence to demonstrate the actual loss suffered was the amount quoted to repair the damage, nor that the sale price was impacted by that amount. As with the broken glass windows and doors, it was ultimately the Landlord’s choice to put the Premises on the market in that condition. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?
As the Landlord has partly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295399 — Property damage at 49 Kellett Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295399 — Property damage at 49 Kellett Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Premises?

Did the Tenant fail to pay water consumption charges accrued during the tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Premises?

Did the Tenant fail to pay water consumption charges accrued during the tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.