What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299914 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 5299914?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299914?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12342892-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299914 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 5299914?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299914?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12342892-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 39 Motatau Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299914 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Michelle Lucille Heatley Kay and Josefa Ratulele luvuenadrua Bativagone must pay [The landlord/s] $12,333.76 immediately, being rent arrears to 21 July 2025, compensation, water bills and reimbursement of filing fee, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,495.40 Water rates$3,865.36 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Rubbish removal$2,440.00 Repairs: 12 walls repaired repainted$2,000.00 Repairs: replaced doors$1,950.00 Lock/key replacement$320.00 Repairs: toilet replacement and shower slide$100.00 Window repairs$500.00 Bulb and holder replacement$450.00 Cleaning$500.00 Lawns and Garden work$200.00 Total award$13728.76 Minus Bond-$1,840.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$11888.76
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for the curtain rods, curtain installation and the toilet.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears were $1495.40 at the end of the tenancy and the water bills were $3865.36.
The tenant does not dispute the rent arrears or water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears and water bills.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a pre let and exit inspection report and photos. The photos show that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, and the rubbish was not removed. The tenant apologised for the state that she left the property in but said she did her best given the competing obligations on her moving out and setting up a new house with her family. The rubbish and possessions such as furniture, household possessions and rubbish were extensive. It required 4 skip bins, labour to load the bins and dumping costs which amounted to $2440.00. The tenant does not dispute the cost of the rubbish removal and the cleaning. The cleaning costs were $500.00.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had to replace the keys to the front door as the tenant said she lost them and would leave the house unlocked during the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for $320.00 for the cost of replacing the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace light bulbs and holders. The tenant does not dispute the cost of $450.00 to replace all the bulbs, heat lamps and ceiling light covers that were broken during the tenancy.
The landlord is claiming for the cost of replacing wooden blinds that were hanging in the lounge. The pre let photos show a large window in the lounge covered with an older wooden blind. The tenant removed the blinds during the tenancy and replaced them with her own drapes. The tenant said the wooden blinds did not help to keep the home warm in winter. She took down the blinds and put them in the shed. The landlord was claiming $870.00 to replace the blinds with curtains and curtain rods.
I am dismissing this claim. The landlord is not replacing the wooden blinds with similar products, but a completely different item. The tenant is not responsible for the cost of replacing the blinds with curtains and rods.
The lawns were damaged during the tenancy as the tenants would park their car on it. This left the grass bald and torn up. The landlord had the lawn resewed and cut the overgrown lawns. The landlord provided an invoice for $200.00 for the lawn mowing and resewing of the grass.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -12 walls were scratched, dented, had holes and drawing on them. -3 internal doors required replacement, in bedroom 1 & 2 and the bathroom. -Toilet cistern was broken, and shower head was missing. -2 broken glass windows.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has provided invoices for the cost of the repairs. The exit photos clearly show the damage to the walls and the doors. The tenant does not dispute that there was damage to the walls and doors.
The tenant said the toilet cistern was broken and she did not tell the landlord. The landlord has replaced the whole toilet and cistern with a brand new one. The house was built in 1960 and it is expected that household items would need to be replaced. I consider that the toilet must be at least 65 years old. I am not awarding the landlord the cost of the replacement toilet. However, I will award $100.00 for the cost of replacing the shower head.
The tenant acknowledged that she broke the windows. The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the windows and a photo showing the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond/filing fee/suppression:
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the landlord immediately to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord seeks suppression of their name and identifying details and as they have been largely successful, I am granting suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299914 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 39 Motatau Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299914 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 39 Motatau Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?