What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325181 about?

The tribunal order states: Mele Kakala Veatupu to pay Willrock Investments Limited $1,228.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5325181?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325181?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12623430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325181 about?

The tribunal order states: Mele Kakala Veatupu to pay Willrock Investments Limited $1,228.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5325181?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325181?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12623430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 220 Old Taupo Road, Hillcrest, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325181 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325181 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs insurance excess	$1,200.00	Repairs insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,228.00

Order

Mele Kakala Veatupu to pay Willrock Investments Limited $1,228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (3545166-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Willrock Investments Limited: $1,228.00 Mele Kakala Veatupu: $272.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2022 and ended on 23 December 2024. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00 on each and every claim.
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 landlord claims that the carpets were damaged during the tenancy.
The carpets had been newly installed a matter of months before the commencement of this tenancy.
The terms of the tenancy agreement between the parties allowed the tenant to have a dog at the premises.
The landlord’s evidence was that she had been told by the tenant that the dog was an elderly dog, and importantly from the landlord’s perspective, was an “outside dog”.
The tenant admitted having told the landlord that the dog was an outside dog. But, despite this, said that she allowed the dog to sleep in its own bed inside the house.
The landlord said that she carried out an inspection along with the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord didn’t note anything of significance and indicated to the tenant that she would arrange for the bond to be released.
Approximately one week later the landlord returned to the premises. She opened the doors and was hit by a what she referred to as a “wet dog” smell. The replacement tenants also attended and indicated that they were not prepared to move in as a result of the smell.
The landlord contacted a carpet cleaner. The carpet cleaners said that they would be unable to remove the smell.
The landlord made a claim on their insurance policy. The insurance assessor attended the premises. The claim has been accepted by the insurer. The quote for the replacement carpets in three areas of the house is $2,850.00.
The landlord’s insurer’s propose imposing an excess of $400.00 on each room. Each room amounts to a separate claim under the terms of the policy.
Having reviewed the evidence, and considering the burden of proof as set out above, I consider that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant having accepted that there was no smell present at the commencement of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proven.
As Willrock Investments Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325181 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs insurance excess	$1,200.00	Repairs insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,228.00

Order

Mele Kakala Veatupu to pay Willrock Investments Limited $1,228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (3545166-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Willrock Investments Limited: $1,228.00 Mele Kakala Veatupu: $272.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2022 and ended on 23 December 2024. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00 on each and every claim.
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 landlord claims that the carpets were damaged during the tenancy.
The carpets had been newly installed a matter of months before the commencement of this tenancy.
The terms of the tenancy agreement between the parties allowed the tenant to have a dog at the premises.
The landlord’s evidence was that she had been told by the tenant that the dog was an elderly dog, and importantly from the landlord’s perspective, was an “outside dog”.
The tenant admitted having told the landlord that the dog was an outside dog. But, despite this, said that she allowed the dog to sleep in its own bed inside the house.
The landlord said that she carried out an inspection along with the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord didn’t note anything of significance and indicated to the tenant that she would arrange for the bond to be released.
Approximately one week later the landlord returned to the premises. She opened the doors and was hit by a what she referred to as a “wet dog” smell. The replacement tenants also attended and indicated that they were not prepared to move in as a result of the smell.
The landlord contacted a carpet cleaner. The carpet cleaners said that they would be unable to remove the smell.
The landlord made a claim on their insurance policy. The insurance assessor attended the premises. The claim has been accepted by the insurer. The quote for the replacement carpets in three areas of the house is $2,850.00.
The landlord’s insurer’s propose imposing an excess of $400.00 on each room. Each room amounts to a separate claim under the terms of the policy.
Having reviewed the evidence, and considering the burden of proof as set out above, I consider that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant having accepted that there was no smell present at the commencement of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proven.
As Willrock Investments Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325181 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 220 Old Taupo Road, Hillcrest, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325181 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 220 Old Taupo Road, Hillcrest, Rotorua 3015

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