Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5351981 — Property damage at 72 Ross Street, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022
Published 12 January 2026 · Application 5351981
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $828.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $828.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs | $800.00 | Repairs | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $828.00 | ||
| Bond | $2,740.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $828.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5351981 — net $828.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Repairs
- Amount
- $800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $828.00
Bond
Landlord $2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $828.00
Dismissed claims
- Cleaning — I also note that cleaning ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premis…
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
- Smoke Alarms — Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Manman Zhang to pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $828.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (3057900-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited: $828.00 Manman Zhang: $1912.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This five year tenancy ended in June 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation for breaches. Both parties want the bond. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain and provide smoke alarms? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?
Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
- This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. The landlord provided me with one poor quality photo of the ceiling. This is not sufficient evidence to prove the claim for cleaning and the claim is dismissed. I also note that cleaning ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- There is a claim for painting the lounge and dining room ceilings and for repairing damage to the walls in one of the bedrooms. The landlord must prove that the 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 she 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.
- 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 me with good photos of the bedroom taken at the final inspection. I find the marks on the walls are more than fair wear and tear. The tenant said the daughters attached lights to the walls and the beds and couch in the room also caused damage. I find there was careless and intentional damage to the walls.
- The landlord provided inspection reports from during the tenancy which show discoloration on the ceilings. The report records the tenant was asked to clean the ceilings. While the photos provided do not support the claim for cleaning, there is sufficient evidence in the inspection report and the painter’s invoice to prove there was damage to the ceilings. I find the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
- The tenant said she used incense in the lounge and this cased the discolouration. She said she tried to clean the ceilings but they were made of asbestos and could not be cleaned. She said the landlord should have given her the chance to arrange her own painters before taking money from the bond.
- I find there was intentional damage to the ceilings. This is because the tenant continued to use incense knowing that discoloration was a certainty. The landlord was under no obligation to allow the tenant to find her own painters. The landlord should get compensation.
- I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan is relevant. The ceilings were painted five years ago and would probably require repainting in eight – ten years anyway because of normal wear and tear. I find $800 is a reasonable amount for the painting and the repairs.
Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain and provide smoke alarms?
- The tenant claims that the landlord breached section 45 of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. The tenant has to prove these claims.
- The tenant said there was a leak and a draught in the bedroom. I have not been provided with any supporting evidence, such as a photos or emails, proving there was a leak or a draught. This claim is dismissed.
- The tenant said there was an ongoing problem with mice which was never addressed. She said the mice came in through a hole in the kitchen. There was an email to the landlord about this, dated October 2024. The email does not mention the hole. The landlord said they carried out pest control earlier in the tenancy and cancelled a work order for pest control in 2025 because the tenants had laid their own traps. The tenant has not proved the landlord knew about the hole, or that the landlord ignored her request. This claim is dismissed.
- The tenant said there were no smoke alarms for most of her tenancy. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, which require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed. Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. The landlord provided me with two reports showing the house did have a compliant smoke alarm. It appears one alarm was sufficient because it was within three meters of all the bedrooms and the house was on one level. The tenant has not provided me with any supporting evidence. I find the landlord has the better evidence and the claim about the smoke alarms is dismissed. Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
- The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenant said the landlord failed to comply with the draught stopping standard because of the draught in the bedroom. The compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025, which was after the tenancy ended. I find there was no breach of the HHS and this claim is dismissed. Other orders
- A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when there is damage during a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s17, s2016, s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- WOLFBROOK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5351981?
The tribunal order states: Manman Zhang to pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $828.00 from
How much money was awarded in case 5351981?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351981?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351981?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12955224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.