Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5331419 — Property damage at 2 Saint Aidans Way, Tawa, Wellington 5028
Published 5 February 2026 · Application 5331419
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Tam
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $769.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $769.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light bulbs/batteries | $138.00 | Light bulbs/batteries | |
| Rubbish removal | $92.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Curtain hanging | $69.00 | Curtain hanging | |
| Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy condition | $150.00 | Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy condition | |
| Repairs: toilet vinyl replacement, less depreciation | $200.00 | Repairs: toilet vinyl replacement, less depreciation | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $120.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Net award | $769.00 | ||
| Bond | $3,320.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $769.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5331419 — net $769.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Light bulbs/batteries
- Amount
- $138.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Light bulbs/batteries
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $92.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Curtain hanging
- Amount
- $69.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Curtain hanging
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy condition
- Amount
- $150.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy condition
Repairs: toilet vinyl replacement, less depreciation
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: toilet vinyl replacement, less depreciation
Lawns and Garden work
- Amount
- $120.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and Garden work
Net award
Landlord $769.00
Bond
Landlord $3,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $769.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Adarsh Lal and Rahul Peethambaran to pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited As Agent For Jl Yan Family Trust $769.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (3659178-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited As Agent For Jl Yan Family Trust: $769.00 Adarsh Lal and Rahul Peethambaran: $2,551.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 26 November 2025 and 29 January 2026.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of part of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- The landlord had to rehang the curtains and replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 toilet vinyl was badly stained and damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided before and after tenancy photos contained in their Palace software.
- The tenant vehemently disputes the landlord’s photographs adduced into evidence. The tenant maintains that the toilet vinyl at the commencement of the tenancy is similar to the condition at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant puts the landlord to strict proof. The tenant insists on production of metadata of the original photograph of the pre-tenancy inspections.
- The landlord has not raised this issue to do with toilet vinyl staining during the tenancy, despite multiple inspections being carried out over the tenancy.
- The tenant says that screenshots embedded in word documents may be edited, and therefore constitutes weak and unreliable evidence.
- The tenant says that strong proof of careless urination is required.
- Further, the commencement tenancy photographs by the landlord were taken one month before the tenant’s move in date.
- Given the one month gap, and for the above reasons, the tenant invited me to completely dismiss this case.
- However, I find that the toilet vinyl has been stained during the tenancy.
- Section 97(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
- Section 97(5) RTA further states that the Tribunal may in any proceedings make use of any facts that may be judicially noticed.
- I accept the landlord’s property manager’s testimony that she had not digitally altered photographs of the toilet taken by her directly on the Palace information system on commencement of the tenancy.
- I do not see any reason for the professional property manager to dishonestly alter digital images taken just to try to substantiate a claim on behalf of their principal for a matter of just a few hundreds of dollars.
- I accept the report dated 3 February 2026 issued by Allan Vaifale, Product Manager of MRI Palace Software company which programs or manages the Palace information system which captured and stored the landlord property manager’s inspection records.
- Writing on behalf of MRI Palace, the Product Manager of MRI Software company explained how inspection photographs are stored and what system information is available to support the integrity of those files after upload. He states: Inspection photographs recorded in Palace are stored as individual image files in secure Microsoft Azure cloud storage. Each inspection is associated to a unique internal reference (inspection code) and the images for that inspection are stored under that reference. While Palace does not apply a visible timestamp onto the face of each photograph, Microsoft Azure automatically records system properties for each stored image file. These properties include, but are not limited to: • Creation Time: the time the file was created in cloud storage (i.e., when it was uploaded/stored as a file object) • Last Modified: the time the file was last changed in cloud storage • ETag: a system-generated integrity identifier that changes when the file content changes These Azure system properties are generated and maintained by the storage platform. If an image file were replaced or altered in cloud storage, the Last Modified timestamp would update and the ETag value would change. For the property at 2 Saint Aidans Way (internal code RBPR100686), Palace holds the following inspections and associated inspection references: • 28/12/2023 – Inspection reference RBRE6561018 (226 images) • 28/12/2023 – Inspection reference RBRE6561160 (1000+ images) • 29/12/2023 – Inspection reference RBRE6561428 (600+ images) At the request of the customer, MRI Palace has reviewed Azure storage properties for a sample of images under these inspection references. The attached screenshots show the Azure system properties (including Creation Time, Last Modified, and ETag) for representative images from each inspection. These properties provide objective storage-level evidence of when the image files were stored and whether they have been modified since upload.
- A computer forensic report on the property manager’s photographs akin to production of metadata of the original photograph of the pre-tenancy inspection has now been produced. The property manager’s evidence could not be edited without leaving behind digital footprints as suggested by the tenant. They provide objective storage-level evidence that the Tribunal could rely upon.
- The commencement tenancy photographs by the landlord taken one month before the tenant’s move in date did not break the chain of causation of damage. Had the urine staining been present at the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant ought to have pointed out to the landlord immediately on move-in date.
- I find on the balance of probabilities that the toilet vinyl was not stained or discoloured at the commencement of the tenancy. The toilet vinyl was left at the end of the tenancy in a badly stained or discoloured condition, suggesting urine residue staining which could not be removed.
- I consider the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s97(4), s97(5)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5331419?
The tribunal order states: Adarsh Lal and Rahul Peethambaran to pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited As Agent
How much money was awarded in case 5331419?
Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Hanging: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331419?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331419?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13041927-Tribunal_Order.pdf.