Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5304685 — Property damage at 26A Moewai Park Road, Whitianga 3510
Published 5 March 2026 · Application 5304685
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Lost Rent
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Whitianga
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Henry
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,033.75
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $5,033.75
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $221.95 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Replacement element | $103.56 | Replacement element | |
| Replacement wheelie bins | $145.00 | Replacement wheelie bins | |
| Missing security cameras | $100.00 | Missing security cameras | |
| Rubbish removal | $53.04 | Rubbish removal | |
| Repairs to garden shed | $543.20 | Repairs to garden shed | |
| Replacement curtains | $100.00 | Replacement curtains | |
| Repairs to kitchen cabinetry | $1,240.00 | Repairs to kitchen cabinetry | |
| Replace and install french doors | $1,179.00 | Replace and install french doors | |
| Repairs to walls, doors and ceilings | $300.00 | Repairs to walls, doors and ceilings | |
| Lost rent while repairs were undertaken | $1,020.00 | Lost rent while repairs were undertaken | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $5,033.75 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $5,033.75 |
Claims and awards for application 5304685 — net $5,033.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $221.95
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Replacement element
- Amount
- $103.56
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement element
Replacement wheelie bins
- Amount
- $145.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement wheelie bins
Missing security cameras
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Missing security cameras
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $53.04
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Repairs to garden shed
- Amount
- $543.20
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to garden shed
Replacement curtains
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement curtains
Repairs to kitchen cabinetry
- Amount
- $1,240.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to kitchen cabinetry
Replace and install french doors
- Amount
- $1,179.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace and install french doors
Repairs to walls, doors and ceilings
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to walls, doors and ceilings
Lost rent while repairs were undertaken
- Amount
- $1,020.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lost rent while repairs were undertaken
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $5,033.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $5,033.75
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Della Jazmyne Furse must pay Philip John Thomson, Susan Joyce Thomson And Paul Lindsay Ritchie As Trustees Of The Pj & Sj Thomson Family Trust $5,033.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
- The landlord’s claims for: compensation for damage to the front door, the windows, door latches, door handles and gate; mileage and accommodation costs are dismissed; and for suppression, are dismissed.
Reasons
- This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place on 15 January 2026 at Thames District Court. Mr Thomson attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
- To say that the landlord was not prepared for the hearing is an understatement. The landlord attended the hearing with a full file of documents. However, it seems that the documents were in no particular order because when a particular document was requested the landlord struggled to locate it in the file. The landlord advised that he had a number of receipts which had not been uploaded to the file. The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide those receipts. When the hearing reconvened, the landlord produced approximately 30 invoices in no particular order.
- During the hearing, the landlord expressed concern that the Tribunal rarely finds in favour of the landlord. This is simply not true. Landlords and tenants are expected to prove their case. This includes ensuring that on the day of the hearing any documents that have not been uploaded to the file can be easily produced.
- Many of the sums claimed were for work the landlord had done himself. The landlord had not recorded the time it had taken him to perform the work. Ideally, where a landlord is claiming for their own time, the landlord should be able to produce records (like a tradesperson who charges by the hour would be able to do) including the nature of the work undertaken, the date on which the work was done and the time taken. Photographs showing that the work has been completed is also useful evidence to support such a claim. Rent arrears:
- The landlord has not claimed for rent arrears. The landlord said that the tenant owed rent arrears and the bond of $1560 has been set off against rent arrears. However, the Bond Refund Form signed by both parties provides that the bond has been set off against rent arrears and repairs.
- On 02 February 2026, the landlord was asked by the Tribunal to provide a rent summary proving the amount of rent owed. The landlord replied to this response saying that he could not provide a rent summary.
- Landlords are required to keep accurate records of rent charged and paid. Bank statements are not sufficient. Section 29(3) of the RTA provides that: On the written request of the tenant, the landlord shall also give to the tenant a written statement of the period to which any payment of rent relates.
- Section 30 of the RTA provides that: Every landlord under a tenancy to which this Act applies shall keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing— (a)all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3); and ...(1A) The records must be kept for 7 tax years after the tax year to which they relate. ...
- That means that the landlord’s rent records should be kept up to date at all times and easily produced to either the tenant on request or the Tribunal.
- Section 30(2) of the RTA provides that a breach of section 30(1) of the RTA is an unlawful act. This means that tenants can claim for exemplary damages for breaches of section 30(1) (see section 109 and schedule 1A of the RTA). The tenant has not made any claims against the landlord, and I make no such award.
- However, I am concerned that the reason why the landlord could not produce a rent summary for the Tribunal is because the landlord has not kept proper records of rent.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- Claim for replacement - locks: a. The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord has provided an invoice showing that it cost $221.95 (including GST) to replace the locks and keys. b. This claim is proved and I award $221.95 (including GST) for this claim.
- Claim for missing chattels - element: a. The landlord says that an element was removed from the stove top during the tenancy and has provided an invoice of $103.56 to replace the element. b. This claim is proved, and I award $103.56 (including GST) for this claim.
- Claim for missing chattels – wheelie bins: a. The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the wheelie bins provided at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice showing that it cost $145.00 (including GST) to replace these items. b. This claim is proved and I award $145 (including GST) for the missing wheelie bins.
- Claim for missing chattels - security cameras: a. The landlord says that during the previous tenancy, the tenant asked for security cameras to be installed. The landlord said they contributed $500 to the cost of the installing the cameras. The landlord said that they became aware that the cameras had been removed from the premises without the landlord’s permission in 2020. b. The landlord said they have not replaced the cameras and do not intend to do so. c. The chattels list in the tenancy agreement does not record the security cameras. However, the landlord has provided an invoice showing the cameras were purchased and delivered to the address of the premises. d. I am satisfied that the cameras were installed at the premises with the tenancy and that they were removed during the tenancy. However, as the landlord has not and does not intend to replace them, it is difficult to ascertain the loss suffered by the landlord. In the District Court decision of Rux v Kapiti Coast District Council [1998] 3 NZLR 452 the Court refused to award full repair cost because the applicant did not intend to carry out the necessary repairs. e. The primary aim in awarding damages is to place the injured party in the position they would have been in had the contract or tort not been breached. f. I note that the Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Guidance, IR265, 2025 1 provides that security systems have a useful lifespan of 10 years. So, if I had awarded replacement costs this would have been significantly less than the sum claimed as I am obliged to take betterment and depreciation into account. g. I accept that the cameras were taken during the tenancy. I award nominal damages of $100.00.
- Claim for rubbish disposal: a. The landlord says that the tenant left rubbish at the premises and has provided an invoice for $53.04 (including GST) to dispose of the rubbish. b. Where a tenant has left rubbish that needs to be disposed of, it is good practice to provide the Tribunal will photographic evidence of the rubbish. This evidence was not provided. However, given that the tenant did not attend the hearing and therefore did not dispute this claim and that an invoice has been provided, I am satisfied that the tenant did leave rubbish at the premises. c. This claim is proved, and I award $53.04 (including GST). 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-businesses-and-organisations/types-of-business- expenses/depreciation, retrieved on 05 March 2026.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
- Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
- Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
- Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
- 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 landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
- Damage to the garden shed: a. The landlord said that in 2017 he built a shed in the garden of the premises. The landlord said on 7 May 2024 he became aware that the garden shed had caught fire. The landlord provided a video showing that the shed existed and was damaged by a fire. The landlord is claiming $1,030.00 to replace the shed. The landlord believes that the damage was intentionally caused by a person the tenant allowed at the premises. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless or that the person who allegedly started the fire was not at the premises with the tenant’s permission. c. The landlord says the sum of $1,030.00 includes his time and purchasing of materials. The invoices provided for materials to repair the garden shed come to $423.00. The landlord also claims 4 hours work to carry out the repairs. I accept that these costs are reasonable and award $543.20 (including GST) being reimbursement for the materials supported by an invoice and $120 for the landlord’s time at $30 per hour.
- Damage to curtains: a. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the curtains during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs showing that there were dirty marks on the curtains. The landlord says, and I accept, that the curtains had a strong smell of smoke. The landlord was asked if they tried washing the curtains. The landlord said that the smell and damage to the curtains was such that they did not consider that would be successful. The landlord is claiming $871.09 (including GST) to replace the curtains and has provided invoices to support this claim. b. The landlord advised that the curtains were installed before the tenancy started in 2016 or 2017. The landlord did not provide photographs of the curtains from the start of the tenancy. The pre- inspection report does not record damage to the curtains or any other issue with their condition. However, this report is not signed by the parties, so I place little weight on it. c. Given the state of the curtains in the photographs provided from the end of the tenancy, I consider it is unlikely that the tenant would have accepted the curtains in this condition at the start of the tenancy. I find that the damage to the curtains was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was not intentional or careless. d. As set out above, I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The IRD Guidance provides that curtains in residential premises have a useful lifespan of 8 years. I find consider that the curtains were at least 8 years old at the end of the tenancy. However, I accept that they may have lasted longer than 8 years and award nominal damages of $100.00.
- Damage to the kitchen units: a. The landlord claims that kitchen cabinetry was damaged during the tenancy. At the hearing, the landlord provided photographs showing the damaged cabinetry. The landlord did not provide photographs of the cabinetry from the start of the tenancy. The pre tenancy inspection report does not record any damage to the cabinets. However, as set out above, the reports are not signed by the tenant, so I place little weight on it. b. The damage to the cabinetry was such that I find it is unlikely the premises would have been let in that condition. I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproven that the damage was intentional or careless. c. The landlord is claiming $4,302.13 to replace the cabinetry and has provided a quotation to support this. The landlord advised that the work has been done and, apart from preparing the cabinetry, he did it himself. The landlord has provided an invoice of $1150.00 for preparing the kitchen cabinetry. The landlord is also claiming his time to install the cabinets which he said was “probably 8 hours”. I am not willing to award 8 hours work on this basis. Instead, I award 3 hours at $30 per hour being $90. The total sum awarded for this claim is $1,240.00 (including GST).
- Damage to the front door: a. The landlord says the tenant damaged the door during the tenancy and is claiming $500 to repair the door. The landlord said at the hearing that he did this work himself and that it took “approximately 8 hours”. b. The landlord did not have a photograph to show the damage to the door. As set out above, the pre-tenancy inspection report has not been signed by the tenant so I place little weight on it. The only evidence is two receipts for small amounts which the landlord says was for paint and glue to repair the door. c. This is the landlord’s claim and the landlord has the burden of proof. On the basis of the evidence provided, I am not willing to find that the door was damaged during the tenancy. d. This claim is dismissed.
- Damage to the French doors: a. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the French doors during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the doors were damaged at the end of the tenancy. There are no photographs showing the condition of the French doors at the start of the tenancy. As set out above, the pre-tenancy inspection report has not been signed by the tenant, so I place little weight on it. b. That said, the condition of the doors are such that I consider it is unlikely the premises would have been let in that condition. I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproven that the damage was intentional or careless. c. The landlord has provided a quotation of $3,509.43 to repair the doors. The landlord said he did not use the provider but did most of the work himself. The landlord has provided an invoice of $999.00 for a French door. The landlord has estimated that time it took him to repair the door as follows: 16 hours to repair and repaint the doors; 4 hours to find a replacement door at the yards. d. Given that the landlord has not kept records to support the claim for his time, I am not willing to award 20 hours. Instead, I award 6 hours for the landlord’s time at $30 per hour: $180.00 (including GST). The total sum awarded for this claim is $1179.00 (including GST).
- Damage to the walls, doors and ceilings: a. The landlord is claiming $4,370.00 for damage to walls, doors and ceilings. The landlord has provided a quotation for this work. The landlord said he did this work himself. b. The landlord says that the interior of the premises was last painted in 2017. That means that at the end of the tenancy it has been approximately 7-8 years since the interior had been painted. c. Both pre tenancy inspection reports (not signed by the tenant) record some damage to the paintwork. The photographs provided show what appears to be marks / wholes in the walls which have been patched. d. The landlord says that if looked after by the tenant, interior paint work should last 15 years. Real estate agents and other commentators say that interior paintwork can be expected to need repainting every 5 to 8 years in a tenanted residential premises. 2 e. The sum claimed by the landlord is based on 70 hours of work. The landlord has not kept a record of the time spent. The landlord has provided invoices for the paint and other material to perform the work. f. I find that the tenant did cause damage to the paintwork. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that this damage was intentional or careless. However, I also find that the premises were due to be repainted. g. For this reason, I make an award of nominal damages of $300.00 2 https://harcourts.net/nz/resources/investors-and-tenants/common-rental-property-expenditure, https://ecopainter.co.nz/how-often-should-you-repaint-your-homes-interior-and-exterior/, retrieved on 02 February 2026.
- Damage to the windows, door latches, handles, and gate; a. The landlord says that he needed to repair the putty in the windows after being broken and had to replace broken window, door latches and handles and that were damages and is claiming $500.00 to repair this damage. b. There were no photographs of this damage. This is the landlord’s claim and, on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the damage has been done. c. This claim is dismissed.
- Claim for travel and accommodation: a. The landlord has claimed for mileage costs to travel from their home in Hamilton to the premises and accommodation and related costs to stay near the premises while the work was being carried out. In Crosbie v Tuwhakairiora Callis Te Kawa [2024] NZTT 4939757, the Tribunal declined an applicant’s claim for travel costs saying: The Tribunal generally does not award travel costs to landlords who own properties outside of the area where they live – these are considered to be part of the cost of operating a business in another area. b. I agree that travel costs are part of the cost of operating a business and should not be awarded. I consider this principle also applies to costs with staying out of town i.e. accommodation and food costs. c. I would have considered the landlord’s claim for mileage for travel to and from the cabinet makers. However, I am not willing to make such awards without some records or at least calculations of the amount of mileage claimed. d. The claims for travel, accommodation and food are dismissed.
- Claim for lost rent: a. The landlord claims 3 weeks’ lost rent. The landlord says he was unable to rent out the premises for 3 weeks due to the extent of work that had to be done and is claiming 3 weeks’ rent. b. I accept that the work undertaken would have taken some time. However, the landlord has not kept proper records, and I am not satisfied that 3 weeks was a reasonable period of time for the work to be performed. I consider 2 weeks to be reasonable and award this sum. Filing fee:
- The landlord has not been wholly successful with his claim. I find that he has, substantially succeeded with his claims. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression:
- The landlord has asked for suppression of his name. Section 95A(1) of the RTA provides that: The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- In this case, due to my concerns about the landlord’s failure to keep proper records and to provide a rent summary for this tenancy, I consider that it is in the public interest for the landlord’s name to be published. The public has an interest in landlords complying with the record keeping requirements under the RTA.
- The landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s29(3), s3, s30, s30(1), s30(2), s4, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s95A(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: lost rent
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5304685?
The tribunal order states: Della Jazmyne Furse must pay Philip John Thomson, Susan Joyce Thomson
How much money was awarded in case 5304685?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Security Cameras: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $221.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $103.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $543.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,240.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install French Doors: $1,179.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $53.04 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304685?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Lost Rent.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304685?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233070-Tribunal_Order.pdf.