How much money was awarded in case 5356248?

Cleaning: $180.55 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,837.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12904795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5356248?

Cleaning: $180.55 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,837.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12904795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356248 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356248 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356248 — net $2,046.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fire alarm call out and cleaning fee	$180.55	Fire alarm call out and cleaning fee
Replacement of fire door	$1,837.53	Replacement of fire door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,046.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,046.08

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Dahvine Sinsemellia Heavenlee Matenga must pay [The landlord/s] $2,046.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for: a. termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. b. compensation, c. reimbursement of the filing fee, and d. name suppression Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.

The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Termination and rent arrears

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 2 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent when it is due and payable.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant for rent arrears on 25 August 2025. The expiry date was 9 September 2025. On my review of the rent summary, on 9 September 2025 the tenant had paid the arrears and current rent and was in credit. I consider the tenant remedied the breach. In addition, by the hearing date the tenant had a small rent credit. The tenant had consistently paid rent; however, it is paid late, as it is paid on a Monday after the Thursday it is due. This arrangement has been in place for over 12 months, without the landlord bringing a claim to the Tribunal.

I note that the landlord said they have served numerous 14-day notices on the tenant, and these were emailed during the hearing. I have been unable to open these files for consideration. The registry contacted the property manager to obtain PDF copies of the 14-day notices and these have not been received at the time of issuing this decision.

Because the tenant remedied the breach, the application for termination is dismissed.

As at the hearing date the tenant did not owe rent arrears, therefore the claim for rent arrears is dismissed. Damage

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 4

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 5 3 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 4 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

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). 6

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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8

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. 9

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. 10

In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The fire door was damaged and replaced with a door that was not a fire door. The landlord had to replace the door to ensure compliance with the Building WOF. The original damage to the door appeared intentional. b. The tenant sanded inside the premises, activating the smoke alarm. A call out and cleaning fee was incurred. I consider this to be damage to the smoke alarm for which the landlord should be reimbursed.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved with oral evidence, invoices and photographs of the damaged door. 6 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(1) RTA. 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Filing Fee

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 11 Suppression

The landlord applied for name suppression and as the landlord is substantially successful with the claim I have ordered suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. 12

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356248 — net $2,046.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fire alarm call out and cleaning fee	$180.55	Fire alarm call out and cleaning fee
Replacement of fire door	$1,837.53	Replacement of fire door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,046.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,046.08