What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338901 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 5338901?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $955.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $429.40 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Cooktop: $585.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mattress: $11.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Microwave: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: TV: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $182.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338901?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194243-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338901 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 5338901?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $955.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $429.40 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Cooktop: $585.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mattress: $11.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Microwave: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: TV: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $182.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338901?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194243-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338901 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338901 — net $2,807.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/03/2025	$100.00	Rent arrears to 07/03/2025
Cleaning: Mattress	$276.00	Cleaning: Mattress
Replace furnishings: Cooktop	$585.35	Replace furnishings: Cooktop
Repairs	$955.65	Repairs
Replace furnishings: TV	$60.00	Replace furnishings: TV
Replace furnishings	$10.00	Replace furnishings
Replace furnishings: Microwave	$69.00	Replace furnishings: Microwave
Replace furnishings: Mattress	$11.00	Replace furnishings
Rubbish removal	$182.85	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Swipe Cards	$100.00	Lock/key replacement: Swipe Cards
Lock/key replacement	$429.40	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,807.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,807.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Brody Field and Bianca Thomas must pay [The landlord/s] $2,807.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

This tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 6 March 2026. At that time, the tenancy was approximately six months in arrears. The applicant tell me that the named tenants vacated earlier than this date and there was another person living at the property with the permission of the named tenants.
The applicant has made this application seeking compensation as follows: a) $100.00 for rent arrears to 7 March 2026; b) $276.00 for mattress cleaning; c) $585.35 for replacement of the cooktop; d) $955.65 for repairs to damage around the property; e) $60.00 for replacement of a television; f) $10.00 for replacement of a chair; g) $69.00 for replacement of a microwave; h) $11.00 for replacement of a mattress; i) $182.85 for rubbish removal; j) $100.00 for replacement of swipe cards; and k) $429.40 for replacement of the locking unit. l) $28.00 for the application filing fee.
In addition to the compensation claimed, the applicant seeks: a) $150.00 for breach of section 40(3A)(a), alleging that the tenants failed to vacate the premises as required; and b) $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for breach of section 44(2A), alleging that the respondent sublet the property without authority.

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

The applicant seeks one additional day’s rent. They have provided a rent summary showing at least one days rent was owing. I am satisfied the record is accurate.
One day’s rent is awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the mattress cleaning and rubbish removal costs?

At the conclusion of the tenancy, the tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as provided by section 40(1)(e)(iii), and to remove all rubbish.
The applicant has provided an exit inspection report showing that the mattresses were stained. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that cleaning was required and that the cost claimed was incurred as a result. The applicant has also established that rubbish was left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Those amounts are therefore awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the lock replacement and damage repair invoice?

The applicant has provided photographs showing miscellaneous damage throughout the property, including impact damage, the removal of cabinet doors, and the removal of fixtures such as a towel rail and toilet seats, as well as damage to the front door lock.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred in breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(a), which prohibits a tenant from intentionally or carelessly damaging, or permitting any other person to damage, the premises.
Accordingly, those amounts are awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the swipe card replacements?

Section 40(1)(a)(iv) requires a tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to return to the landlord all keys and other access devices.
The landlord states that the swipe cards were not returned and seeks $100.00 for their replacement. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the swipe cards were not returned at the end of the tenancy.
That amount is therefore awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the chattels?

Section 40(1)(e)(v) requires a tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to leave in the premises all chattels provided by the landlord for the tenant’s use during the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing a double mattress, a microwave, dining chairs, and a television. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that these items were removed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The photographs support this conclusion.
The amounts claimed for those items are therefore awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the cooktop?

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The applicant has provided photographs of the cooktop at the commencement of the tenancy, which show it to be in reasonable working order. A photograph taken at the conclusion of the tenancy shows a large crack across the surface likely caused by impact.
This damage is consistent with careless or intentional damage and is consistent with the overall condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant. Exemplary damages:
The landlord seeks $150.00 in exemplary damages for breach of section 40(3A)(a), alleging a failure to vacate the premises following termination of the tenancy.
The evidence establishes that the rent was approximately five months in arrears when the applicant applied to the Tribunal for termination, and that termination was granted. The respondent advised that they had left the premises prior to termination and that a guest was residing there. However, no evidence was provided that the tenants took any steps to require that guest to vacate prior to the Tribunal hearing.
Following termination of the tenancy, the guest vacated the premises within one day and evidence showed that there was liason with the landlord.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the specific breach relied upon has been established to the standard required for an award of exemplary damages. That claim is therefore dismissed.
The applicant also seeks $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for breach of section 44(2A), alleging that the tenants sublet the property.
In support of that claim, the applicant states that a person residing at the premises was not a named tenant and invites the Tribunal to infer that the premises had been sublet. No evidence was provided of any agreement for subletting, payment of rent by a third party, or any arrangement consistent with a subtenancy, as opposed to the presence of a guest.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that subletting has been established. This claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I have granted their request for suppression and awarded the filing fee. H Ben Fayed 26 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338901 — net $2,807.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/03/2025	$100.00	Rent arrears to 07/03/2025
Cleaning: Mattress	$276.00	Cleaning: Mattress
Replace furnishings: Cooktop	$585.35	Replace furnishings: Cooktop
Repairs	$955.65	Repairs
Replace furnishings: TV	$60.00	Replace furnishings: TV
Replace furnishings	$10.00	Replace furnishings
Replace furnishings: Microwave	$69.00	Replace furnishings: Microwave
Replace furnishings: Mattress	$11.00	Replace furnishings
Rubbish removal	$182.85	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Swipe Cards	$100.00	Lock/key replacement: Swipe Cards
Lock/key replacement	$429.40	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,807.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,807.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Brody Field and Bianca Thomas must pay [The landlord/s] $2,807.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

This tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 6 March 2026. At that time, the tenancy was approximately six months in arrears. The applicant tell me that the named tenants vacated earlier than this date and there was another person living at the property with the permission of the named tenants.
The applicant has made this application seeking compensation as follows: a) $100.00 for rent arrears to 7 March 2026; b) $276.00 for mattress cleaning; c) $585.35 for replacement of the cooktop; d) $955.65 for repairs to damage around the property; e) $60.00 for replacement of a television; f) $10.00 for replacement of a chair; g) $69.00 for replacement of a microwave; h) $11.00 for replacement of a mattress; i) $182.85 for rubbish removal; j) $100.00 for replacement of swipe cards; and k) $429.40 for replacement of the locking unit. l) $28.00 for the application filing fee.
In addition to the compensation claimed, the applicant seeks: a) $150.00 for breach of section 40(3A)(a), alleging that the tenants failed to vacate the premises as required; and b) $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for breach of section 44(2A), alleging that the respondent sublet the property without authority.

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

The applicant seeks one additional day’s rent. They have provided a rent summary showing at least one days rent was owing. I am satisfied the record is accurate.
One day’s rent is awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the mattress cleaning and rubbish removal costs?

At the conclusion of the tenancy, the tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as provided by section 40(1)(e)(iii), and to remove all rubbish.
The applicant has provided an exit inspection report showing that the mattresses were stained. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that cleaning was required and that the cost claimed was incurred as a result. The applicant has also established that rubbish was left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Those amounts are therefore awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the lock replacement and damage repair invoice?

The applicant has provided photographs showing miscellaneous damage throughout the property, including impact damage, the removal of cabinet doors, and the removal of fixtures such as a towel rail and toilet seats, as well as damage to the front door lock.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred in breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(a), which prohibits a tenant from intentionally or carelessly damaging, or permitting any other person to damage, the premises.
Accordingly, those amounts are awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the swipe card replacements?

Section 40(1)(a)(iv) requires a tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to return to the landlord all keys and other access devices.
The landlord states that the swipe cards were not returned and seeks $100.00 for their replacement. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the swipe cards were not returned at the end of the tenancy.
That amount is therefore awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the chattels?

Section 40(1)(e)(v) requires a tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to leave in the premises all chattels provided by the landlord for the tenant’s use during the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing a double mattress, a microwave, dining chairs, and a television. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that these items were removed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The photographs support this conclusion.
The amounts claimed for those items are therefore awarded.

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the cooktop?

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The applicant has provided photographs of the cooktop at the commencement of the tenancy, which show it to be in reasonable working order. A photograph taken at the conclusion of the tenancy shows a large crack across the surface likely caused by impact.
This damage is consistent with careless or intentional damage and is consistent with the overall condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant. Exemplary damages:
The landlord seeks $150.00 in exemplary damages for breach of section 40(3A)(a), alleging a failure to vacate the premises following termination of the tenancy.
The evidence establishes that the rent was approximately five months in arrears when the applicant applied to the Tribunal for termination, and that termination was granted. The respondent advised that they had left the premises prior to termination and that a guest was residing there. However, no evidence was provided that the tenants took any steps to require that guest to vacate prior to the Tribunal hearing.
Following termination of the tenancy, the guest vacated the premises within one day and evidence showed that there was liason with the landlord.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the specific breach relied upon has been established to the standard required for an award of exemplary damages. That claim is therefore dismissed.
The applicant also seeks $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for breach of section 44(2A), alleging that the tenants sublet the property.
In support of that claim, the applicant states that a person residing at the premises was not a named tenant and invites the Tribunal to infer that the premises had been sublet. No evidence was provided of any agreement for subletting, payment of rent by a third party, or any arrangement consistent with a subtenancy, as opposed to the presence of a guest.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that subletting has been established. This claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I have granted their request for suppression and awarded the filing fee. H Ben Fayed 26 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338901 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338901 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

Is the respondent liable for the mattress cleaning and rubbish removal costs?

Is the applicant liable for the lock replacement and damage repair invoice?

Is the applicant liable for the swipe card replacements?

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the chattels?

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the cooktop?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

Is the respondent liable for the mattress cleaning and rubbish removal costs?

Is the applicant liable for the lock replacement and damage repair invoice?

Is the applicant liable for the swipe card replacements?

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the chattels?

Is the applicant liable for the replacement of the cooktop?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions