What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5324142?

The tribunal order states: Ellie Renee Coombe must pay Stuart Martin Millar and Maria Faye Millar

How much money was awarded in case 5324142?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $794.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324142?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13314693-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5324142?

The tribunal order states: Ellie Renee Coombe must pay Stuart Martin Millar and Maria Faye Millar

How much money was awarded in case 5324142?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $794.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324142?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13314693-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Grey Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324142 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5324142 — net $3,493.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: False power point repair - Temporary	$50.33	Repairs: False power point repair - Temporary
Repairs: False power point repair - Final	$175.00	Repairs: False power point repair - Final
Repairs: Sink cleaning	$100.00	14. I find this is best considered as a cleaning claim (rather than damage).
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$1,550.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement
Repairs: Wall repair	$750.00	Repairs: Wall repair
Repairs: French door repair - Final	$794.73	Repairs: French door repair - Final
Repairs: French door repair - Temporary	$45.00	Repairs: French door repair - Temporary
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,493.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,493.06

Order

Ellie Renee Coombe must pay Stuart Martin Millar and Maria Faye Millar $3,493.06 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This decision follows earlier orders relating to this tenancy. I have already considered the tenant’s application which has been dismissed. I have also already considered the landlord’s first two applications (made prior to the tenant vacating the premises).
The third landlord application (5324142) was heard in part with an order making an initial award on 16 December 2025. This decision relates to the final outstanding parts of that application and brings all applications to a close.
The remaining parts of the landlord’s third application relate to compensation for repairs for: i. Damage to kitchen sink ii. Damage to carpet iii. Damage to French Doors – Temporary and permanent fix iv. Damage to walls v. Wall damage caused by the false power point/safe in wall of lounge – Temporary and permanent fix

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 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.
A 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. This means where appropriate the Tribunal takes into account depreciation. In calculating this the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are key factors. Sink
The landlord says the tenant has damaged the kitchen sink with paint and scratches.
I am satisfied there was paint left all over the sink at the end of the tenancy. I accept that not all the paint could be removed by the first cleaner. This was proven by photographs.
The landlord was going to replace the sink but has now engaged a specialist cleaner who has removed the remaining paint at the cost of $100. An invoice is provided. The landlord says they will now just accept the scratches in the sink.
I find this is best considered as a cleaning claim (rather than damage). I accept that the tenant did not leave the sink reasonably clean and tidy (see RTA section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v)). I accept that specialist cleaning was needed and that the sum of $100 is reasonable. The sum ordered is proven. Window by French door
The landlord says the tenant broke a window forming part of the set of windows next to the French doors. The landlord says that the framing around the window was also broken and even cut by the tenant. The landlord provided photographic evidence of this – both before and after the break.
A temporary repair was first done. The landlord says that a tradesperson first painted the wood that the tenant had put over the window white and has made sure it was sealed until a full repair could be done. The landlord claims $45 for this temporary repair and then also claims $794.73 for the final repair that involved creating some new framing for the window and installing new glass.
The landlord says a temporary repair was done so that the property could be rented out more quickly as they struggled to locate a tradesperson to undertake the work – some people who were contacted suggesting a whole new door was needed. The landlord just wanted the window / surround fixed.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I consider it is more likely than not to be intentional.
I accept that it was reasonable to undertake these repairs including the initial temporary repair and that the overall sum claimed is reasonable. I consider the landlord is in no better position by this repair, so no deduction is made for betterment and depreciation.
The sum ordered is proven. Carpets
The landlord says the tenant caused damage to the carpets in the lounge, bedroom 1 and bedroom 2. The landlord provided a number of photographs showing a mixture of multiple burn marks and stains across the premises. The carpets were new during the course of the tenancy in 2023. They have since been replaced and an invoice has been provided showing carpet and installation costs.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the amount of marks and the nature of the damage I consider it is more likely than not to be intentional.
The Tribunal must consider depreciation and betterment. The landlord explained that the carpet was replaced when the property was refurbished in February 2023. There has been a delay in the replacement and so the carpet at the time of replacement was three years old (replacement took place in February 2026).
The Inland Revenue Department’s schedule of depreciation shows that carpet has a life of eight years. It is therefore appropriate to deduct 3/8th from the amount the landlord has been charged ($,2481) being an award of $1,550.00 Walls
The landlord says that the property was renovated during the tenancy in 2023 and provides evidence of this. This includes evidence of extensive work undertaken to the walls in the lounge and bedroom. The landlord says the tenant poorly patched and poorly painted a number of places in the lounge. The landlord accepts that one hole (kitchen side wall) was sufficiently patched and makes no claim for this. The landlord says the other walls were not sufficiently patched and painted. The landlord also says that there was damage done to a wall in the bedroom. There the gib has seemingly been pushed in. This needed to be cut out and new gib put in its place. Photographs of the damage were provided.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I consider this damage more likely than not to be intentional. The landlord claims $1,120.
I award the landlord $750 in respect of this damage which is a sum I consider to be reasonable and this also takes into account the landlord has painted walls in the lounge when undertaking repairs. That would have removed marks that would otherwise be fair wear and tear and the walls were last painted around three years ago – the landlord therefore has had some betterment and so some depreciation must apply. False power point
The landlord says a false power box has been installed by the tenant by the French doors in the living room. The landlord discovered this when a worker at the property tried to use the socket outlet for vacuuming. The box transpired to be fake (the landlord says it could be used like a safe).
The landlord says that they know the home very well having spent a considerable amount of time there and having renovated in 2023. They spent time extensively gibbing the walls during this tenancy (a photograph was provided of the work in progress during renovation which supported this). A photograph of the lounge, after the renovation, shows no power point (or similar) in the area indicated by the landlord.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I consider it is more likely than not to be intentional.
The landlord seeks $50.33 for the temporary repair of the false power box and $250 for the full repair cost. The temporary repair involved capping the power point so that the new tenant did not think this was a real power point. The final repair involved gibbing the wall and repainting the wall.
I am satisfied that the temporary repair was necessary and reasonable so that a new tenant could move in swiftly and so a contractor could be arranged for a later date.
As set out above in relation to the other wall repairs, some depreciation is required to take into account the fact the landlord has gained some benefit in having this wall being repainted. I award $175.00. Filing fee and suppression
I award the landlord the filing fee in respect of this third application. They have been substantially successful in the claim. The landlord does not seek suppression of its identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5324142 — net $3,493.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: False power point repair - Temporary	$50.33	Repairs: False power point repair - Temporary
Repairs: False power point repair - Final	$175.00	Repairs: False power point repair - Final
Repairs: Sink cleaning	$100.00	14. I find this is best considered as a cleaning claim (rather than damage).
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$1,550.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement
Repairs: Wall repair	$750.00	Repairs: Wall repair
Repairs: French door repair - Final	$794.73	Repairs: French door repair - Final
Repairs: French door repair - Temporary	$45.00	Repairs: French door repair - Temporary
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,493.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,493.06

Order

Ellie Renee Coombe must pay Stuart Martin Millar and Maria Faye Millar $3,493.06 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This decision follows earlier orders relating to this tenancy. I have already considered the tenant’s application which has been dismissed. I have also already considered the landlord’s first two applications (made prior to the tenant vacating the premises).
The third landlord application (5324142) was heard in part with an order making an initial award on 16 December 2025. This decision relates to the final outstanding parts of that application and brings all applications to a close.
The remaining parts of the landlord’s third application relate to compensation for repairs for: i. Damage to kitchen sink ii. Damage to carpet iii. Damage to French Doors – Temporary and permanent fix iv. Damage to walls v. Wall damage caused by the false power point/safe in wall of lounge – Temporary and permanent fix

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 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.
A 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. This means where appropriate the Tribunal takes into account depreciation. In calculating this the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are key factors. Sink
The landlord says the tenant has damaged the kitchen sink with paint and scratches.
I am satisfied there was paint left all over the sink at the end of the tenancy. I accept that not all the paint could be removed by the first cleaner. This was proven by photographs.
The landlord was going to replace the sink but has now engaged a specialist cleaner who has removed the remaining paint at the cost of $100. An invoice is provided. The landlord says they will now just accept the scratches in the sink.
I find this is best considered as a cleaning claim (rather than damage). I accept that the tenant did not leave the sink reasonably clean and tidy (see RTA section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v)). I accept that specialist cleaning was needed and that the sum of $100 is reasonable. The sum ordered is proven. Window by French door
The landlord says the tenant broke a window forming part of the set of windows next to the French doors. The landlord says that the framing around the window was also broken and even cut by the tenant. The landlord provided photographic evidence of this – both before and after the break.
A temporary repair was first done. The landlord says that a tradesperson first painted the wood that the tenant had put over the window white and has made sure it was sealed until a full repair could be done. The landlord claims $45 for this temporary repair and then also claims $794.73 for the final repair that involved creating some new framing for the window and installing new glass.
The landlord says a temporary repair was done so that the property could be rented out more quickly as they struggled to locate a tradesperson to undertake the work – some people who were contacted suggesting a whole new door was needed. The landlord just wanted the window / surround fixed.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I consider it is more likely than not to be intentional.
I accept that it was reasonable to undertake these repairs including the initial temporary repair and that the overall sum claimed is reasonable. I consider the landlord is in no better position by this repair, so no deduction is made for betterment and depreciation.
The sum ordered is proven. Carpets
The landlord says the tenant caused damage to the carpets in the lounge, bedroom 1 and bedroom 2. The landlord provided a number of photographs showing a mixture of multiple burn marks and stains across the premises. The carpets were new during the course of the tenancy in 2023. They have since been replaced and an invoice has been provided showing carpet and installation costs.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the amount of marks and the nature of the damage I consider it is more likely than not to be intentional.
The Tribunal must consider depreciation and betterment. The landlord explained that the carpet was replaced when the property was refurbished in February 2023. There has been a delay in the replacement and so the carpet at the time of replacement was three years old (replacement took place in February 2026).
The Inland Revenue Department’s schedule of depreciation shows that carpet has a life of eight years. It is therefore appropriate to deduct 3/8th from the amount the landlord has been charged ($,2481) being an award of $1,550.00 Walls
The landlord says that the property was renovated during the tenancy in 2023 and provides evidence of this. This includes evidence of extensive work undertaken to the walls in the lounge and bedroom. The landlord says the tenant poorly patched and poorly painted a number of places in the lounge. The landlord accepts that one hole (kitchen side wall) was sufficiently patched and makes no claim for this. The landlord says the other walls were not sufficiently patched and painted. The landlord also says that there was damage done to a wall in the bedroom. There the gib has seemingly been pushed in. This needed to be cut out and new gib put in its place. Photographs of the damage were provided.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I consider this damage more likely than not to be intentional. The landlord claims $1,120.
I award the landlord $750 in respect of this damage which is a sum I consider to be reasonable and this also takes into account the landlord has painted walls in the lounge when undertaking repairs. That would have removed marks that would otherwise be fair wear and tear and the walls were last painted around three years ago – the landlord therefore has had some betterment and so some depreciation must apply. False power point
The landlord says a false power box has been installed by the tenant by the French doors in the living room. The landlord discovered this when a worker at the property tried to use the socket outlet for vacuuming. The box transpired to be fake (the landlord says it could be used like a safe).
The landlord says that they know the home very well having spent a considerable amount of time there and having renovated in 2023. They spent time extensively gibbing the walls during this tenancy (a photograph was provided of the work in progress during renovation which supported this). A photograph of the lounge, after the renovation, shows no power point (or similar) in the area indicated by the landlord.
I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I consider it is more likely than not to be intentional.
The landlord seeks $50.33 for the temporary repair of the false power box and $250 for the full repair cost. The temporary repair involved capping the power point so that the new tenant did not think this was a real power point. The final repair involved gibbing the wall and repainting the wall.
I am satisfied that the temporary repair was necessary and reasonable so that a new tenant could move in swiftly and so a contractor could be arranged for a later date.
As set out above in relation to the other wall repairs, some depreciation is required to take into account the fact the landlord has gained some benefit in having this wall being repainted. I award $175.00. Filing fee and suppression
I award the landlord the filing fee in respect of this third application. They have been substantially successful in the claim. The landlord does not seek suppression of its identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324142 — Property damage at 24 Grey Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324142 — Property damage at 24 Grey Street, Normanby, Hawera 4614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions