What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298260 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5298260?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2 Walls And Door: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Wall: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway Wall And Door: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Walls: $655.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remotes X3: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Removed Curtains: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298260?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457492-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298260 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5298260?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2 Walls And Door: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Wall: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway Wall And Door: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Walls: $655.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remotes X3: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Removed Curtains: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298260?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457492-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

131A Alfriston Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298260 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298260 — net $4,088.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace Heat Pump Remotes x3	$345.00	Replace Heat Pump Remotes x3
Replace Removed Curtains	$500.00	Replace Removed Curtains
Repairs: Blinds	$575.00	Repairs: Blinds
Repairs: Exterior Wall	$460.00	Repairs: Exterior Wall
Repairs: Lounge Walls	$655.00	Repairs: Lounge Walls
Repairs: Bedroom 2 Walls and Door	$950.00	Repairs: Bedroom 2 Walls and Door
Repairs: Hallway Wall and Door	$575.00	Repairs: Hallway Wall and Door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,088.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,088.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pakuranga As Agent For Mukerjee, [The landlord/s] $4,088.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
[The tenant/s] is removed as a party to these proceedings at the request of the applicant. DescriptionLandlord Replace Heat Pump Remotes x3$345.00 Replace Removed Curtains$500.00 Repairs: Blinds$575.00 Repairs: Exterior Wall$460.00 Repairs: Lounge Walls$655.00 Repairs: Bedroom 2 Walls and Door$950.00 Repairs: Hallway Wall and Door$575.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$4,088.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,088.00

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made or by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application has been served on the tenants by email. The landlord was able to provide proof of email addresses for service for [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] but not for [The tenant/s]. As effective service has not been proved on [The tenant/s] the landlord seeks to remove him as a party to these proceedings and continue with the application against the remaining tenants. The Tribunal grants this request.
There is a previous order of the Tribunal made on 7 March 2025 which orders rent and water arrears.
The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025. The landlord advised that the bond was refunded towards the rent arrears and end of tenancy cleaning.
The landlord has now applied for compensation for chattels removal and damages 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 (RTA).
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the three heat pump remotes and the curtains. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs.
The amount ordered in respect of the heat pump remotes is proved. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement heat pump remotes in the sum of $300.00 plus GST totalling $345.00 and this amount is ordered.
In respect of the curtains the landlord advised that the curtains and rods were purchased pre covid days at a cost of approximately $3800.00 but did not provide evidence of the purchase cost and advised that the curtains have not yet been replaced. The photographs show that the curtains are no longer in the premises. However, as they are more than five years old and there is no proof of purchase cost or of the cost to replace the Tribunal must take a cautious approach and orders a nominal lump sum of $500.00 in compensation.

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.
The tenancy agreement records that the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $950.00.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a) Exterior Wall – the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that at the end of the tenancy there were black marks splattered across one side of the house. The property manager that the tenant advised that a pipe had burst causing the damage but stated the tenant did not provide detail of what kind of pipe. The marks are considerable, and the landlord stated the wall had to be sanded off and painted. An invoice for the amount of $400 plus gst was provided. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount sought to remedy the damage is less than than the landlord’s insurance excess. (b) Hole in Wall by entry – the landlord provided photographs showing a hole in the wall caused by the door handle. As there was no door stop provided, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this is beyond fair wear and tear. (c) Damage to Lounge/Dining Walls – the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that during the tenancy there were damage marks to the lounge and dining walls including scrape marks, children’s drawing and affixing holes. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount sought to remedy the damage includes the repair of the hole from the door handle, therefore I have reduced the amount sought and order the tenant to pay the sum of $655.00 in compensation. This amount is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. (d) Damage to Bedroom 2 Wall and Door - the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that during the tenancy there were damage marks to the bedroom wall and door including a hole in the door and children’s drawing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was carelessly caused. The amount sought to remedy the damage is greater than the landlord’s insurance excess, so the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess of $950.00. (e) Damage to Hallway and Door - the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that during the tenancy there were damage marks to the hallway wall and door including extensive scuff marks and children’s drawing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was carelessly caused. The amount sought to remedy the damage is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. (f) Damage to Ranch slider – the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs which prove that during the tenancy the rubber seal came loose from the top of the lounge ranch slider and began to fall out. However, after carefully considering the evidence including that this occurred in the highest part of the door, I find there is insufficient evidence this was beyond fair wear and tear. I find that the tenant is not liable for this damage.
As the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim I order reimbursement of the filing fee. See section 102 (4)(b) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298260 — net $4,088.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace Heat Pump Remotes x3	$345.00	Replace Heat Pump Remotes x3
Replace Removed Curtains	$500.00	Replace Removed Curtains
Repairs: Blinds	$575.00	Repairs: Blinds
Repairs: Exterior Wall	$460.00	Repairs: Exterior Wall
Repairs: Lounge Walls	$655.00	Repairs: Lounge Walls
Repairs: Bedroom 2 Walls and Door	$950.00	Repairs: Bedroom 2 Walls and Door
Repairs: Hallway Wall and Door	$575.00	Repairs: Hallway Wall and Door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,088.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,088.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pakuranga As Agent For Mukerjee, [The landlord/s] $4,088.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
[The tenant/s] is removed as a party to these proceedings at the request of the applicant. DescriptionLandlord Replace Heat Pump Remotes x3$345.00 Replace Removed Curtains$500.00 Repairs: Blinds$575.00 Repairs: Exterior Wall$460.00 Repairs: Lounge Walls$655.00 Repairs: Bedroom 2 Walls and Door$950.00 Repairs: Hallway Wall and Door$575.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$4,088.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,088.00

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made or by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application has been served on the tenants by email. The landlord was able to provide proof of email addresses for service for [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] but not for [The tenant/s]. As effective service has not been proved on [The tenant/s] the landlord seeks to remove him as a party to these proceedings and continue with the application against the remaining tenants. The Tribunal grants this request.
There is a previous order of the Tribunal made on 7 March 2025 which orders rent and water arrears.
The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025. The landlord advised that the bond was refunded towards the rent arrears and end of tenancy cleaning.
The landlord has now applied for compensation for chattels removal and damages 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 (RTA).
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the three heat pump remotes and the curtains. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs.
The amount ordered in respect of the heat pump remotes is proved. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement heat pump remotes in the sum of $300.00 plus GST totalling $345.00 and this amount is ordered.
In respect of the curtains the landlord advised that the curtains and rods were purchased pre covid days at a cost of approximately $3800.00 but did not provide evidence of the purchase cost and advised that the curtains have not yet been replaced. The photographs show that the curtains are no longer in the premises. However, as they are more than five years old and there is no proof of purchase cost or of the cost to replace the Tribunal must take a cautious approach and orders a nominal lump sum of $500.00 in compensation.

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.
The tenancy agreement records that the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $950.00.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a) Exterior Wall – the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that at the end of the tenancy there were black marks splattered across one side of the house. The property manager that the tenant advised that a pipe had burst causing the damage but stated the tenant did not provide detail of what kind of pipe. The marks are considerable, and the landlord stated the wall had to be sanded off and painted. An invoice for the amount of $400 plus gst was provided. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount sought to remedy the damage is less than than the landlord’s insurance excess. (b) Hole in Wall by entry – the landlord provided photographs showing a hole in the wall caused by the door handle. As there was no door stop provided, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this is beyond fair wear and tear. (c) Damage to Lounge/Dining Walls – the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that during the tenancy there were damage marks to the lounge and dining walls including scrape marks, children’s drawing and affixing holes. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount sought to remedy the damage includes the repair of the hole from the door handle, therefore I have reduced the amount sought and order the tenant to pay the sum of $655.00 in compensation. This amount is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. (d) Damage to Bedroom 2 Wall and Door - the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that during the tenancy there were damage marks to the bedroom wall and door including a hole in the door and children’s drawing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was carelessly caused. The amount sought to remedy the damage is greater than the landlord’s insurance excess, so the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess of $950.00. (e) Damage to Hallway and Door - the landlord provided entry and exit photographs which prove that during the tenancy there were damage marks to the hallway wall and door including extensive scuff marks and children’s drawing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was carelessly caused. The amount sought to remedy the damage is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. (f) Damage to Ranch slider – the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs which prove that during the tenancy the rubber seal came loose from the top of the lounge ranch slider and began to fall out. However, after carefully considering the evidence including that this occurred in the highest part of the door, I find there is insufficient evidence this was beyond fair wear and tear. I find that the tenant is not liable for this damage.
As the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim I order reimbursement of the filing fee. See section 102 (4)(b) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298260 — Property damage at 131A Alfriston Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298260 — Property damage at 131A Alfriston Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions