Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5350528 — Property damage at 52 Tahuhu Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062
Decided 23 January 2026 · Published 23 January 2026 · Application 5350528
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
A Aiolupotea
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,407.70
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,407.70
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning: By consent | $172.50 | Cleaning: By consent | |
| Water rates: By consent | $95.80 | 2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. | |
| Repairs: Walls | $400.00 | Repairs: Walls | |
| Replace furnishings | $711.40 | Replace furnishings | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,407.70 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,407.70 |
Claims and awards for application 5350528 — net $1,407.70 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning: By consent
- Amount
- $172.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: By consent
Water rates: By consent
- Amount
- $95.80
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Repairs: Walls
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Walls
Replace furnishings
- Amount
- $711.40
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,407.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,407.70
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- June Lee to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Fitzgerald Symes Family Trust $1,407.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre shall pay the Landlord $1407.70.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- At the hearing, the parties agreed for the Tenant to pay the Landlord the amounts claimed for the cleaning and water rates.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall damage and blind damage.
- The Landlord claimed compensation for damage to walls located near the stairs, laundry, loft, bedroom, and dining room window, including gouges and scratches. Photographs of the condition of the walls at the commencement and conclusion of the tenancy were provided. An invoice was also submitted; however, it did not itemise the work performed or provide a breakdown of the charges.
- The Tenant submitted that the claimed amount of $724.50 was excessive. They stated the property had previously been used as a show home, with significant foot traffic prior to the tenancy, and that the house was very dusty at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant accepted that a small amount of paint had been removed where a baby gate was installed. They also queried whether scratches in the laundry may have occurred when the Landlord refitted the hot water cylinder. The Tenant submitted that some occupants in the same townhouse complex had experienced issues with wall damage.
- Having considered the evidence, including the photographs and the lack of itemisation in the invoice, I find that the claimed amount for wall damage is excessive. The marks shown in the photographs are minor and do not constitute large gouges. Had the invoice itemised the number of affected areas, the work undertaken, the hourly rate, and the time spent, it may have been more persuasive. In the circumstances, I consider a reasonable amount for the wall damage to be $400.00.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- The Landlord claimed for replacing two blinds which were brand new at the start of the tenancy. The damage caused to them was from a dead insect squashed when the blind was rolled up however they were unable to remove this. The other blind had a frayed edge due to sticky thick residue the Landlord discovered. This was not general wear and tear after a 12 month period. An invoice was provided for a new blind and photos of the blind damage was provided. The owner did not charge for blind installation.
- The Tenants submitted this was wear and tear and agreed the blinds were brand new at the start. They also considered the blind damage should have been covered by a warranty. The damage was not intentional but caused from usage itself. Given the blinds were still functional, they considered they should not pay for new blinds. They just had a dirty insect squashed on it and were partially frayed.
- In considering the evidence, I find the blinds were damaged by the Tenants and given the blinds were brand new, I find it was more than wear and tear. If it was wear and tear, there would have been fraying along all of the blinds. I also find the photographs clearly showed damage and using a blind that has an insect ingrained is unsightly and required replacement if it could not be cleaned off.
- The amounts proved are ordered.
- 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.
- As the Landlord has been substantially successful, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5350528?
The tribunal order states: June Lee to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Fitzgerald Symes
How much money was awarded in case 5350528?
Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $711.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $95.80 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350528?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350528?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13014939-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.