What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298281 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5298281?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12529716-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298281 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5298281?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12529716-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Whai Hua Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298281 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298281 — net $878.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Intentional damage	$1,250.00	Repairs: Intentional damage
Repairs: Careless damage	$2,400.00	Repairs: Careless damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$878.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$878.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust $878.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6500849-012) to Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust immediately.
The landlord shall dispose of the trampoline and other goods left at the premises by the tenant by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $878.00.
Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the in-person hearing held on the 8 October 2025. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord is seeking $6000 compensation for damage to the property and an order allowing the landlord to dispose of the tenant’s goods left at the property.
At the beginning of the tenancy the house was brand new. The tenancy was for a duration of almost 2 years and the tenant lived in the property with her 4 others who the landlord thought were the tenant’s children.
During the tenancy the landlord had some difficulty conducting inspections, they say they were only able to conduct 4 inspections over the tenancy due to the tenant asking for inspection dates to be changed etc.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord completed an outgoing inspection. Both the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and accompanying photographs were provided in evidence to the Tribunal. The exit report details the damage to the property and the photographs support the written report. The report shows a property that has been damaged including. a. Extensive staining in many areas of the carpet including a large orange stain in bedroom 3, and a smaller red stain in the middle of the room in bedroom 1. b. Considerable damage to walls throughout the home included scribbling on the walls, dents and scrapes in the walls, a hole in the wall, and damage to the half wall at the top of the stairs. c. Two doors were removed from a wardrobe in bedroom 3. d. Broken toilet seat and the broken toilet roll holder. e. Broken door stoppers.

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.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage the damage to the property as set out in paragraph 5 above.
Whilst damage or wear is often more noticeable in a tenancy that was brand new at the beginning of a tenancy, the inspection report shows a property which has damage which is well above what would be expected wear for a tenancy of this duration and for these occupants. The landlord has proven that the tenant is liable for the damage.

What compensation should be awarded?

Compensation should restore a party to the position that it was in before the breach occurred. This means that the landlord should be restored to the position that they would have been in had the tenant not damaged the property. This does not mean that the landlord is restored back to a condition that they property was in at the beginning of the tenancy i.e. a brand-new condition, but to the position that the property would have been in had there been the usual wear and tear of a family living in this house for almost two years.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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.
I am satisfied that the removal of the doors, the hole in the wall and the damage to the half wall at the top of the stairs was intentional, but that the remaining damage was careless.
The landlord was successful in claiming insurance for repairing the damage. The landlord is seeking the insurance excess of $6000 for the damage.
The landlord provided me with a scope of works from NZI and a breakdown of the insurance excesses applied by the landlord’s insurance broker. The scope of works identifies each area (room) of the property and breaks down what work is needed to remedy damage that area, it then gives a global figure of the cost of remedying the damage in each room. It does not go so far as to breakdown how much was for carpet or wall damage etc.
The areas or rooms in the scope of works do not match the ‘events’ areas in the excess breakdown. In the NZI scope of works there are effectively 8 areas, 7 rooms and 1 miscellaneous item. In the McLarens’ excess breakdown there are 6 areas, and an excess is applied to each. Each excess is $1000 making a total of $6000. Compensation for intentional damage.
The tenant is liable for the total repair cost for the hole in the wall, the damage to the doors and the damage at the top of the stairs because I have determined that those are classified as intention. The price of repairing those items were not separately quantified in the scope of works, so I have awarded a sum of $500 for the doors, $250 for the hole in the walls and $500 for the damage to the top of the stairs, these amounts are consistent with amounts awarded by the Tribunal in other damages cases. Compensation for careless damage.
The tenant is only liable for the 4 weeks rent or the insurance excess, or the actual cost of repairs whatever one is lesser for the remaining damage which has been caused carelessly.
A further complication in assessing the maximum award that the tenant is liable for is that the in the insurance statement in the tenancy agreement the landlord recorded the excess as $400 per event not $1000.00 per event.
The purpose of s49B is that tenants receive the benefit of the landlord’s insurance for careless damage, but that the landlord is not out of pocket for the excess either.
The purpose of requiring the landlord to state the insurance excess amount in tenancy agreements is to put the tenant on notice that if they break something or cause damage carelessly, that they will be liable for the that amount of excess.
As the landlord had to pay six excesses then the total the tenant may have thought that they were liable for, considering the insurance statement given by the landlord is $2400. (6 x$400). This amount is less than 4 weeks rent $2800.00 and so the maximum that the tenant could be liable for in this case, for the careless damage is $2400.00.
I have decided to award the full amount of $2400 because I consider that the damage to have been caused by the tenant throughout the house and the cost of remedying it to be well in excess of that amount. The carpet alone in each room where it had to be replaced would have been more than this amount even taking into account depreciation, as would the wall damages and painting.
When making my award I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Disposal of goods.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods, including a trampoline that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has tried to contact the tenant but she has not responded to requests to pick up goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Some of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. The landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds, and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord may dispose of any goods that have no saleable value.
Because Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298281 — net $878.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Intentional damage	$1,250.00	Repairs: Intentional damage
Repairs: Careless damage	$2,400.00	Repairs: Careless damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$878.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$878.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust $878.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6500849-012) to Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust immediately.
The landlord shall dispose of the trampoline and other goods left at the premises by the tenant by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $878.00.
Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the in-person hearing held on the 8 October 2025. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord is seeking $6000 compensation for damage to the property and an order allowing the landlord to dispose of the tenant’s goods left at the property.
At the beginning of the tenancy the house was brand new. The tenancy was for a duration of almost 2 years and the tenant lived in the property with her 4 others who the landlord thought were the tenant’s children.
During the tenancy the landlord had some difficulty conducting inspections, they say they were only able to conduct 4 inspections over the tenancy due to the tenant asking for inspection dates to be changed etc.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord completed an outgoing inspection. Both the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and accompanying photographs were provided in evidence to the Tribunal. The exit report details the damage to the property and the photographs support the written report. The report shows a property that has been damaged including. a. Extensive staining in many areas of the carpet including a large orange stain in bedroom 3, and a smaller red stain in the middle of the room in bedroom 1. b. Considerable damage to walls throughout the home included scribbling on the walls, dents and scrapes in the walls, a hole in the wall, and damage to the half wall at the top of the stairs. c. Two doors were removed from a wardrobe in bedroom 3. d. Broken toilet seat and the broken toilet roll holder. e. Broken door stoppers.

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.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage the damage to the property as set out in paragraph 5 above.
Whilst damage or wear is often more noticeable in a tenancy that was brand new at the beginning of a tenancy, the inspection report shows a property which has damage which is well above what would be expected wear for a tenancy of this duration and for these occupants. The landlord has proven that the tenant is liable for the damage.

What compensation should be awarded?

Compensation should restore a party to the position that it was in before the breach occurred. This means that the landlord should be restored to the position that they would have been in had the tenant not damaged the property. This does not mean that the landlord is restored back to a condition that they property was in at the beginning of the tenancy i.e. a brand-new condition, but to the position that the property would have been in had there been the usual wear and tear of a family living in this house for almost two years.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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.
I am satisfied that the removal of the doors, the hole in the wall and the damage to the half wall at the top of the stairs was intentional, but that the remaining damage was careless.
The landlord was successful in claiming insurance for repairing the damage. The landlord is seeking the insurance excess of $6000 for the damage.
The landlord provided me with a scope of works from NZI and a breakdown of the insurance excesses applied by the landlord’s insurance broker. The scope of works identifies each area (room) of the property and breaks down what work is needed to remedy damage that area, it then gives a global figure of the cost of remedying the damage in each room. It does not go so far as to breakdown how much was for carpet or wall damage etc.
The areas or rooms in the scope of works do not match the ‘events’ areas in the excess breakdown. In the NZI scope of works there are effectively 8 areas, 7 rooms and 1 miscellaneous item. In the McLarens’ excess breakdown there are 6 areas, and an excess is applied to each. Each excess is $1000 making a total of $6000. Compensation for intentional damage.
The tenant is liable for the total repair cost for the hole in the wall, the damage to the doors and the damage at the top of the stairs because I have determined that those are classified as intention. The price of repairing those items were not separately quantified in the scope of works, so I have awarded a sum of $500 for the doors, $250 for the hole in the walls and $500 for the damage to the top of the stairs, these amounts are consistent with amounts awarded by the Tribunal in other damages cases. Compensation for careless damage.
The tenant is only liable for the 4 weeks rent or the insurance excess, or the actual cost of repairs whatever one is lesser for the remaining damage which has been caused carelessly.
A further complication in assessing the maximum award that the tenant is liable for is that the in the insurance statement in the tenancy agreement the landlord recorded the excess as $400 per event not $1000.00 per event.
The purpose of s49B is that tenants receive the benefit of the landlord’s insurance for careless damage, but that the landlord is not out of pocket for the excess either.
The purpose of requiring the landlord to state the insurance excess amount in tenancy agreements is to put the tenant on notice that if they break something or cause damage carelessly, that they will be liable for the that amount of excess.
As the landlord had to pay six excesses then the total the tenant may have thought that they were liable for, considering the insurance statement given by the landlord is $2400. (6 x$400). This amount is less than 4 weeks rent $2800.00 and so the maximum that the tenant could be liable for in this case, for the careless damage is $2400.00.
I have decided to award the full amount of $2400 because I consider that the damage to have been caused by the tenant throughout the house and the cost of remedying it to be well in excess of that amount. The carpet alone in each room where it had to be replaced would have been more than this amount even taking into account depreciation, as would the wall damages and painting.
When making my award I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Disposal of goods.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods, including a trampoline that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has tried to contact the tenant but she has not responded to requests to pick up goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Some of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. The landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds, and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord may dispose of any goods that have no saleable value.
Because Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Cody Carnachan And Tara Carnachan. As Trustees Of Cody & Tara Carnachan Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298281 — Property damage at 51 Whai Hua Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298281 — Property damage at 51 Whai Hua Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions