What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314741 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot And Thompson West Harbour As The Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5314741?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5156874 D…: $5,285.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,416.15 awarded to landlord; Reglazing Of Front Door Window: $180.55 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $865.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314741?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12579807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314741 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot And Thompson West Harbour As The Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5314741?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5156874 D…: $5,285.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,416.15 awarded to landlord; Reglazing Of Front Door Window: $180.55 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $865.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314741?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12579807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

215 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314741 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314741 — net $8,774.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5156874 dated 28/03/2025	$5,285.26	Previous order application 5156874 dated 28/03/2025
Replacement of four interior doors	$2,416.15	Replacement of four interior doors
Reglazing of front door window	$180.55	Reglazing of front door window
Rubbish removal	$865.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,774.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,774.96

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot And Thompson West Harbour As The Agent For Brahm Trust (Trustees: Paul And [The landlord/s] $8,774.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 28 March 2025 under application 5156874.

Reasons

The Tribunal heard an application filed by the landlord seeking compensation for damage and rubbish removal following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Walker, Property Manager, and Mr Werry, Head of Property Management, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join her to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 claims that four internal doors and the glazing in the front door was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord seeks $2,416.15 after paying a contractor to replace the internal doors (like for like) and fitting new door handles. The landlord also seeks $180.55 to replace the glazing in the front door. Invoices in the amount sought were provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs showing the condition of the doors at the commencement of the tenancy. The doors were in good working condition with no defects.
The landlord provided photographs of the doors at the end of the tenancy. Four of the internal doors were badly damaged by the door handles consistent with being smashed in. The window in the front door was broken and patched with cardboard.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant’s during the tenancy and was more likely than not to have been caused intentionally. The amount claimed is awarded.

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 and remove all rubbish, see section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord states the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and seeks $865.00 compensation after paying a contractor to undertake the work. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which showed the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenant vacated the premises on 12 June 2025 but had been allowed to return to the property between 13 - 17 June 2025 to remove all of their belongings and clear the rubbish.
The landlord provided exit photographs which showed the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show there was a large pile of rubbish left in the garage as well as piles of rubbish, personal belongs, furniture, and household items left throughout the property.
The landlord told the Tribunal that the contractors invoice included clearing and disposal costs for four tyres, a queen-sized bed frame and mattress, outdoor furniture, a BBQ, a dog run and kennel, household items and clothing.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to remove all rubbish and in the circumstances the amount claimed is reasonable and awarded. Enforcement and costs
On 28 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 1 April 2025 and water rates. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Barfoot And Thompson West Harbour As The Agent For Brahm Trust (Trustees: Paul And [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314741 — net $8,774.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5156874 dated 28/03/2025	$5,285.26	Previous order application 5156874 dated 28/03/2025
Replacement of four interior doors	$2,416.15	Replacement of four interior doors
Reglazing of front door window	$180.55	Reglazing of front door window
Rubbish removal	$865.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,774.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,774.96

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot And Thompson West Harbour As The Agent For Brahm Trust (Trustees: Paul And [The landlord/s] $8,774.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 28 March 2025 under application 5156874.

Reasons

The Tribunal heard an application filed by the landlord seeking compensation for damage and rubbish removal following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Walker, Property Manager, and Mr Werry, Head of Property Management, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join her to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 claims that four internal doors and the glazing in the front door was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord seeks $2,416.15 after paying a contractor to replace the internal doors (like for like) and fitting new door handles. The landlord also seeks $180.55 to replace the glazing in the front door. Invoices in the amount sought were provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs showing the condition of the doors at the commencement of the tenancy. The doors were in good working condition with no defects.
The landlord provided photographs of the doors at the end of the tenancy. Four of the internal doors were badly damaged by the door handles consistent with being smashed in. The window in the front door was broken and patched with cardboard.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant’s during the tenancy and was more likely than not to have been caused intentionally. The amount claimed is awarded.

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 and remove all rubbish, see section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord states the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and seeks $865.00 compensation after paying a contractor to undertake the work. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which showed the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenant vacated the premises on 12 June 2025 but had been allowed to return to the property between 13 - 17 June 2025 to remove all of their belongings and clear the rubbish.
The landlord provided exit photographs which showed the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show there was a large pile of rubbish left in the garage as well as piles of rubbish, personal belongs, furniture, and household items left throughout the property.
The landlord told the Tribunal that the contractors invoice included clearing and disposal costs for four tyres, a queen-sized bed frame and mattress, outdoor furniture, a BBQ, a dog run and kennel, household items and clothing.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to remove all rubbish and in the circumstances the amount claimed is reasonable and awarded. Enforcement and costs
On 28 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 1 April 2025 and water rates. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Barfoot And Thompson West Harbour As The Agent For Brahm Trust (Trustees: Paul And [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314741 — Property damage at 215 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314741 — Property damage at 215 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

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?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions