What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313083 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 5313083?

Cleaning: $494.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door & Frame Painting: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Plaster & Paint: $900.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $494.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313083?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313083 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 5313083?

Cleaning: $494.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door & Frame Painting: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Plaster & Paint: $900.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $494.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313083?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313083 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313083 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313083 — net $3,467.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame	$632.50	Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame
Repairs: front door & frame painting	$517.50	Repairs: front door & frame painting
Repairs: plaster & paint	$900.45	Repairs: plaster & paint
Rubbish removal	$494.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$494.50	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$400.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,467.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,467.45

Claims and awards for application 5313083 — net $3,467.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame

Amount: $632.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame

Repairs: front door & frame painting

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: front door & frame painting

Repairs: plaster & paint

Amount: $900.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: plaster & paint

Rubbish removal

Amount: $494.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $494.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Charlott Whaiapu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,467.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by [The landlord’s representative].
The tenant did not attend the video hearing and not answer the calls made to her phone during the hearing. She had been notified of the hearing by email and text and had the hearing link, however did not attend. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy in May 2025. I consider each claim as follows whilst bearing in mind the evidential burden which lies with the applicant and is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

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

The landlord claims compensation for having to remove the tenant’s belongings and clean the property following her departure. [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence is that the tenant just vacated leaving a number of belongings and not attempting any cleaning.
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA states 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.
The photographs of the property substantiate this claim and I consider the amounts sought reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord also claims compensation for having to replace curtains that had been removed by the tenant. Evidence was provided that established that the curtains had been removed during the tenancy.
The amount claimed is just over $1000. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. This is because 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 must consider the age and condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s evidence is that the living room curtains were replaced at the beginning of the tenancy in September 2022. The curtains in the kitchen were replaced at some point between the time [The landlord/s] took on this property in 2021, and the commencement of this tenancy in September 2022. The curtains in the bedroom predated 2021.
The expected lifespan of curtains in New Zealand residential tenancies is approximately eight years. The living room curtains were therefore three years into their expired expected lifespan, the kitchen curtains were four, and the bedroom curtains may well have been close the end of their expected lifespan.
I also take into account that the cost of the curtains was $406, therefore the remainder of the claim can only be attributed to the labour required. $600 worth of labour is excessive for hanging curtains.
In considering the evidence provided and in taking into account depreciation I find that an award of $400 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement of the costs they were put to in replacing and repairing the front door and its frame and plastering and painting a number of sections throughout the property.
To be successful in such a claim, 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.
Regarding the front door damage, [The landlord’s representative] submission is that it appears the front door had been kicked in to gain access while locked. She provided photographs of the damage, which was extensive, and the required repairs.
Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that this damage was caused intentionally. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the repairs, the cost of which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s claim for plastering and repainting walls relates to four lounge walls, four bedroom walls and one wall in the kitchen. [The landlord’s representative] provided photographs of the relevant walls. She said that the tenant had painted murals on some of the walls and before she left repainted them with an unmatching paint. The walls in the kitchen had been damaged by large hooks being installed and paint being chipped off.
On the basis of the evidence, I also find this intentional damage. As such the tenant is liable for the repairs. I have reduced the amount claimed slightly to account for depreciation. The landlord is unaware of the age of the paint therefore it is likely to predate the landlord’s management of the tenancy. The expected lifespan of paintwork in New Zealand residential tenancies is approximately 10 years old. This paintwork appears to have been nearing the end of its expected lifespan. Other orders
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression orders.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313083 — net $3,467.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame	$632.50	Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame
Repairs: front door & frame painting	$517.50	Repairs: front door & frame painting
Repairs: plaster & paint	$900.45	Repairs: plaster & paint
Rubbish removal	$494.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$494.50	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$400.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,467.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,467.45

Claims and awards for application 5313083 — net $3,467.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame

Amount: $632.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: front door & repair frame

Repairs: front door & frame painting

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: front door & frame painting

Repairs: plaster & paint

Amount: $900.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: plaster & paint

Rubbish removal

Amount: $494.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $494.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Charlott Whaiapu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,467.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by [The landlord’s representative].
The tenant did not attend the video hearing and not answer the calls made to her phone during the hearing. She had been notified of the hearing by email and text and had the hearing link, however did not attend. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy in May 2025. I consider each claim as follows whilst bearing in mind the evidential burden which lies with the applicant and is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

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

The landlord claims compensation for having to remove the tenant’s belongings and clean the property following her departure. [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence is that the tenant just vacated leaving a number of belongings and not attempting any cleaning.
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA states 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.
The photographs of the property substantiate this claim and I consider the amounts sought reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord also claims compensation for having to replace curtains that had been removed by the tenant. Evidence was provided that established that the curtains had been removed during the tenancy.
The amount claimed is just over $1000. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. This is because 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 must consider the age and condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s evidence is that the living room curtains were replaced at the beginning of the tenancy in September 2022. The curtains in the kitchen were replaced at some point between the time [The landlord/s] took on this property in 2021, and the commencement of this tenancy in September 2022. The curtains in the bedroom predated 2021.
The expected lifespan of curtains in New Zealand residential tenancies is approximately eight years. The living room curtains were therefore three years into their expired expected lifespan, the kitchen curtains were four, and the bedroom curtains may well have been close the end of their expected lifespan.
I also take into account that the cost of the curtains was $406, therefore the remainder of the claim can only be attributed to the labour required. $600 worth of labour is excessive for hanging curtains.
In considering the evidence provided and in taking into account depreciation I find that an award of $400 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement of the costs they were put to in replacing and repairing the front door and its frame and plastering and painting a number of sections throughout the property.
To be successful in such a claim, 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.
Regarding the front door damage, [The landlord’s representative] submission is that it appears the front door had been kicked in to gain access while locked. She provided photographs of the damage, which was extensive, and the required repairs.
Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that this damage was caused intentionally. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the repairs, the cost of which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s claim for plastering and repainting walls relates to four lounge walls, four bedroom walls and one wall in the kitchen. [The landlord’s representative] provided photographs of the relevant walls. She said that the tenant had painted murals on some of the walls and before she left repainted them with an unmatching paint. The walls in the kitchen had been damaged by large hooks being installed and paint being chipped off.
On the basis of the evidence, I also find this intentional damage. As such the tenant is liable for the repairs. I have reduced the amount claimed slightly to account for depreciation. The landlord is unaware of the age of the paint therefore it is likely to predate the landlord’s management of the tenancy. The expected lifespan of paintwork in New Zealand residential tenancies is approximately 10 years old. This paintwork appears to have been nearing the end of its expected lifespan. Other orders
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313083 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313083 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions