What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351765 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5351765?

Cleaning: $401.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $121.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $212.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $186.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351765?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351765?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12884666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351765 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5351765?

Cleaning: $401.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $121.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $212.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $186.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351765?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351765?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12884666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

111A Phillips Avenue, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351765 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

111A Phillips Avenue, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351765 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5351765 — net $7,188.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$186.30	Water rates
Cleaning	$401.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$212.46	Window repairs
Light bulbs/batteries	$121.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs	$8,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,188.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,188.76

Claims and awards for application 5351765 — net $7,188.76 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $186.30
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $401.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Window repairs

Amount: $212.46
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $121.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Repairs

Amount: $8,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Velocity Property Holdings Limited $7,188.76 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$186.30 Cleaning$401.00 Window repairs$212.46 Light bulbs/batteries$121.00 Repairs$8,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,948.76 Bond$1,760.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,188.76

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video.
The tenant was telephoned twice but did not answer.
The landlord’s application and supporting evidence together with notice of the hearing was sent to the tenant at the email address and cell phone number provided by the tenant to the landlord during the tenancy to replace the electronic address for service provided by the tenant in the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed that it had communicated with the tenant using these contact details during the tenancy without any issue. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 12 July 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic and verbal evidence that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Surfaces required cleaning and wiping, the oven needed cleaning and the drawers required wiping out.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
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.
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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A bedroom window was broken. b. In the hallway there were a number of holes in the plaster. c. In the lounge there was a hole in the ceiling and a number of smaller holes in all of the walls. d. In bedroom 1 there was a large hole near the door and a number of smaller holes on the other walls. There were numerous paint chips on the bottom of the door. e. In bedroom 2 there were holes in the plaster under the window, two large holes and a number of smaller holes on the walls. The cupboard door was off and the door handle was missing. f. In bedroom 3 there was a large hole in the plaster and a number of smaller holes in the walls. The door was badly damaged with holes and had been split. g. In the bathroom there was damage to the bottom of the door, a drawer was missing from the vanity and there were burn and stain marks to the top of the vanity and the sink. h. In the kitchen there was a hole in the door and a blind was missing. i. The decking had been damaged by paint.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
When this damage was discovered during the tenancy, the tenant claimed that it was caused by a burglar who had broken into the property. The tenant did not report this incident or the damage to the police or the landlord at the time, even though two windows were broken and remained unrepaired.
Upon the landlord’s insistence for insurance purpose, the tenant filed a police complaint on 16 May 2025 recording that the alleged burglary took place between 7 pm 15 March and 7 pm 31 March 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the property is one of four in a group which are managed by it. They are each nearby to the others and are in plain sight without being hidden by fences. The landlord explained that none of the neighbours saw or were aware of any burglary despite them each usually being at home. One of the neighbours did advise the landlord of a significant incident of domestic violence that had occurred at the end of January 2025 when the neighbour called the police.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s contention that the damage was caused by an invitee of the tenant for which she is responsible. It would be unusual for this type and extent of damage to have been inflicted by a burglar. The damage is consistent with damage inflicted from family violence: there are numerous holes in walls and doors, consistent with being punched or kicked, including one internal door that has had such force applied that it was split and broken beyond repair. The tenant’s failure to notify either the landlord as required by section 40(1)(d) RTA or the police while living in a house with such damage, including two broken windows, makes her story less likely than the landlord’s contention.
The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused intentionally by the tenant or an invitee of the tenant for which the tenant is liable.
The landlord produced in evidence an invoice for repair and repainting work at the property, It does not detail work done to individual rooms and does not break down the total cost. The invoice total $14,093.08 s broken down into two: a. Interior painting $9,406.60 plus GST of $1,410.99 = $10,817.59. b. Painting exterior window frames $2,848.25 plus GST of $427.23 = $3,275.48.
There is nothing in the landlord’s evidence to suggest that the tenant is responsible for painting the window frames. The landlord’s claim is therefore for the interior painting of $10,817.59.
The Tribunal must consider 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.
Having considered the evidence of the damage and charges made for similar works which the Tribunal sees regularly, I assess the compensation payable as follows: a. Repair and painting of the lounge walls $1,500.00 b. Repair and painting of three bedrooms at $1,000.00 each - $3,000.00. c. Repair and painting of the hallway $1,000.00. d. Replacement of the bathroom cabinet $800.00. e. Cleaning and re-staining of the deck $400.00. f. Replacement of two doors $1,300.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Velocity Property Holdings Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5351765 — net $7,188.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$186.30	Water rates
Cleaning	$401.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$212.46	Window repairs
Light bulbs/batteries	$121.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs	$8,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,188.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,188.76

Claims and awards for application 5351765 — net $7,188.76 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $186.30
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $401.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Window repairs

Amount: $212.46
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $121.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Repairs

Amount: $8,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Velocity Property Holdings Limited $7,188.76 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$186.30 Cleaning$401.00 Window repairs$212.46 Light bulbs/batteries$121.00 Repairs$8,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,948.76 Bond$1,760.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,188.76

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video.
The tenant was telephoned twice but did not answer.
The landlord’s application and supporting evidence together with notice of the hearing was sent to the tenant at the email address and cell phone number provided by the tenant to the landlord during the tenancy to replace the electronic address for service provided by the tenant in the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed that it had communicated with the tenant using these contact details during the tenancy without any issue. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 12 July 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic and verbal evidence that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Surfaces required cleaning and wiping, the oven needed cleaning and the drawers required wiping out.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
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.
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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A bedroom window was broken. b. In the hallway there were a number of holes in the plaster. c. In the lounge there was a hole in the ceiling and a number of smaller holes in all of the walls. d. In bedroom 1 there was a large hole near the door and a number of smaller holes on the other walls. There were numerous paint chips on the bottom of the door. e. In bedroom 2 there were holes in the plaster under the window, two large holes and a number of smaller holes on the walls. The cupboard door was off and the door handle was missing. f. In bedroom 3 there was a large hole in the plaster and a number of smaller holes in the walls. The door was badly damaged with holes and had been split. g. In the bathroom there was damage to the bottom of the door, a drawer was missing from the vanity and there were burn and stain marks to the top of the vanity and the sink. h. In the kitchen there was a hole in the door and a blind was missing. i. The decking had been damaged by paint.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
When this damage was discovered during the tenancy, the tenant claimed that it was caused by a burglar who had broken into the property. The tenant did not report this incident or the damage to the police or the landlord at the time, even though two windows were broken and remained unrepaired.
Upon the landlord’s insistence for insurance purpose, the tenant filed a police complaint on 16 May 2025 recording that the alleged burglary took place between 7 pm 15 March and 7 pm 31 March 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the property is one of four in a group which are managed by it. They are each nearby to the others and are in plain sight without being hidden by fences. The landlord explained that none of the neighbours saw or were aware of any burglary despite them each usually being at home. One of the neighbours did advise the landlord of a significant incident of domestic violence that had occurred at the end of January 2025 when the neighbour called the police.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s contention that the damage was caused by an invitee of the tenant for which she is responsible. It would be unusual for this type and extent of damage to have been inflicted by a burglar. The damage is consistent with damage inflicted from family violence: there are numerous holes in walls and doors, consistent with being punched or kicked, including one internal door that has had such force applied that it was split and broken beyond repair. The tenant’s failure to notify either the landlord as required by section 40(1)(d) RTA or the police while living in a house with such damage, including two broken windows, makes her story less likely than the landlord’s contention.
The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused intentionally by the tenant or an invitee of the tenant for which the tenant is liable.
The landlord produced in evidence an invoice for repair and repainting work at the property, It does not detail work done to individual rooms and does not break down the total cost. The invoice total $14,093.08 s broken down into two: a. Interior painting $9,406.60 plus GST of $1,410.99 = $10,817.59. b. Painting exterior window frames $2,848.25 plus GST of $427.23 = $3,275.48.
There is nothing in the landlord’s evidence to suggest that the tenant is responsible for painting the window frames. The landlord’s claim is therefore for the interior painting of $10,817.59.
The Tribunal must consider 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.
Having considered the evidence of the damage and charges made for similar works which the Tribunal sees regularly, I assess the compensation payable as follows: a. Repair and painting of the lounge walls $1,500.00 b. Repair and painting of three bedrooms at $1,000.00 each - $3,000.00. c. Repair and painting of the hallway $1,000.00. d. Replacement of the bathroom cabinet $800.00. e. Cleaning and re-staining of the deck $400.00. f. Replacement of two doors $1,300.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Velocity Property Holdings Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351765 — Property damage at 111A Phillips Avenue, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351765 — Property damage at 111A Phillips Avenue, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.