Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5295879 — Property damage at 3 Balmain Street, Newlands, Wellington 6037
Decided 21 January 2026 · Published 21 January 2026 · Application 5295879
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Boys
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,498.07
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,498.07
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning | $320.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Lock and door handle repairs | $916.99 | Lock and door handle repairs | |
| Cleaning | $780.00 | Cleaning | |
| Repairs: painting, and walls | $953.00 | Repairs: painting, and walls | |
| Repairs: dishwasher | $355.00 | Repairs: dishwasher | |
| Rubbish removal | $950.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Gardening | $196.08 | Gardening | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $4,498.07 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,498.07 |
Claims and awards for application 5295879 — net $4,498.07 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $320.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Lock and door handle repairs
- Amount
- $916.99
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock and door handle repairs
Cleaning
- Amount
- $780.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Repairs: painting, and walls
- Amount
- $953.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: painting, and walls
Repairs: dishwasher
- Amount
- $355.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: dishwasher
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $950.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Gardening
- Amount
- $196.08
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Gardening
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $27.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $4,498.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,498.07
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Wi Taingahue must pay Real Estate Wellington Property Limited T/A As Concord Property Management As Agent For Matthias Siew $4,498.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the initial hearing on 19 August 2025. After this hearing I issued an order relating to the rent arrears. However, the tenant wish to bring evidence to support his defence that he had left the premises clean and tidy. He says that damage had been caused by the Police forcefully entering the premises, and by an unknown person breaking into the premises after he had vacated. The landlord also wished to adduce further evidence. Therefore, the matter was adjourned part heard and a further hearing was set down.
- A second hearing was set down for 23 September 2025. However, the tenant was unable to attend the hearing as he had contracted covid.
- At today’s hearing when the tenant made no appearance at the appointed time, I chose to delay starting hearing to allow for lateness. However, after a reasonable period of time the tenant had failed to appear, and I elected to hear the matter in his absence.
- 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 landlord alleges at the end of the tenancy there were various issues including: a. personal possessions and rubbish left in the property; b. damage to walls, painted surfaces including windowsills, and to ceilings; c. damage to the handle of a door which went onto a decked area; d. damage to the letterbox and to a lock box; e. damage to a frame, pane, the dish draw will, and casement stay of kitchen windows; f. stains on carpets, and g. grubby floors and kitchen cabinets.
- There is a conflict in the evidence about the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant’s evidence is that: a. some of the items left belonged to the previous co-tenant, and to the owner; b. the handle of the door onto the deck, letterbox, and lockbox were damaged by the police when they executed a warrant; c. his mother had assisted him to clean the premises to a high standard; d. the damage to the windows in the kitchen, to the dish draw, marks on the kitchen floor, and some items left in the kitchen were due to an unknown person breaking in after he had vacated the premises.
- The landlord says that: a. the items left belonged either to the tenant or the former cotenant; b. inspection photos taken before the police visited the property show that the handle of the door onto the deck was damaged prior to the visit; c. evidence from the cleaners who attended the property was that the house was not left in a clean and tidy state.
- The Tribunal is a civil body which means that facts must be proven to the balance of probabilities. This means that evidence must show that it is more likely than not that a fact or circumstance has occurred. Where there are two depictions of events put forward by the parties to a dispute with no additional evidence neither depiction can be proven to be more likely than not to occurred. When this happens, the Tribunal must look to which party has to prove a fact to reconcile the matter.
- In this instance the evidence in the form of post inspection photos invoices and comments provided by the cleaners, carpet cleaners, locksmiths, and tradesmen who attended the property is that the property was not left in a reasonably clean state. One of the reasons for the adjournment was for the tenants to have his mother attend as a witness as to the condition of the property. However, he did not take this opportunity. As the landlord has provided evidence that the property was not reasonably clean, the onus is on the tenant to prove otherwise. He has not provided evidence showing that the premises were in fact in a reasonably clean state. Therefore, I find that the costs of cleaning are justified and are awarded in full.
- The tenant says that some of the items and rubbish lifted property belonged to the owner or his previous co-tenant. However, the owner has provided a statement advising that the items did not belong to him, and co-tenants are jointly and severally liable to others breaches of the tenancy agreement. I find that the cost of removing and disposing of personal items and rubbish were justified and are awarded in full.
- The tenant says that the garden areas which needed weeding and tidying were not part the tenancy and the owner was liable for these costs. However, I note that the lease says tenants are liable for maintaining the garden, and the areas in question do form part of the tenancy. I find that the tenant is liable for the costs of tidying the gardens.
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.
- Reviewing the damage listed above I note that: a. The impact damage to walls and doors is clearly either intentional or careless. Each instance of damage would be less than the applicable excess. The tenant is liable to repair this damage. b. The repairs to locks and door handles were necessary as locks and handle components had been removed. This is not the type of damage that can occur accidentally, rather it is intentional damage. The tenant is liable to repair this damage. c. The damage to the letterbox and lockbox was caused by the police when they executed the warrant. It is an inherent in the police requiring a warrant that they are at the premises without the consent of the tenant. Therefore, the tenant is not liable for the damage caused. d. The damage to the window in the kitchen was caused by someone breaking in. It is unclear who this was in there is no evidence to show that this was the tenant or a person connected to the tenant. I except the tenants evidence that this occurred after he had vacated. However, I cannot accept that the damage and mess left inside the kitchen were caused by this possible burglar. The tenant is not liable for the damage to the window, but is liable for the damage to the dishwasher. e. I note that the landlord’s claim also included the management charge. This is not a cost which is claimable as damages. This
- Because Real Estate Wellington Property Limited T/A As Concord Property Management As Agent For Matthias Siew has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s17, s21, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5295879?
The tribunal order states: Wi Taingahue must pay Real Estate Wellington Property Limited T/A As Concord
How much money was awarded in case 5295879?
Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Gardening: $196.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $916.99 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Painting, And Walls: $953.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $950.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295879?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295879?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13005040-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.