What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359506 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s and its directors’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5359506?

Cleaning: $5,175.00 awarded to landlord; Contractor Management Costs: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5311001 D…: $368.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,714.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,259.02 awarded to landlord; Rent In Lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26: $9,994.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Benchtops: $9,943.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Dishwasher: $2,045.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Roller Blind: $528.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,370.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $369.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359506?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359506?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964218-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359506 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s and its directors’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5359506?

Cleaning: $5,175.00 awarded to landlord; Contractor Management Costs: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5311001 D…: $368.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,714.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,259.02 awarded to landlord; Rent In Lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26: $9,994.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Benchtops: $9,943.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Dishwasher: $2,045.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Roller Blind: $528.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,370.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $369.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359506?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359506?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964218-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359506 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359506. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent in lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26	$9,994.29	Rent in lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26
Previous order application 5311001 dated 13/08/2025	$368.70	Previous order application 5311001 dated 13/08/2025
Water rates	$369.98	Water rates
Cleaning	$5,175.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$4,370.00	Rubbish removal
Repairing laminate flooring	$10,714.09	Repairing laminate flooring
Replace benchtops	$9,943.98	Replace benchtops
Wall repairs and repainting	$4,259.02	Wall repairs and repainting
Replace roller blind	$528.28	Replace roller blind
Contractor management costs	$3,450.00	Contractor management costs
Replace dishwasher	$2,045.00	Replace dishwasher
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The landlord’s and its directors’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.
Ane Marie Finau Leka must pay [the landlord] $51,246.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent in lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26$9,994.29 Previous order application 5311001 dated 13/08/2025$368.70 Water rates$369.98 Cleaning$5,175.00 Rubbish removal$4,370.00 Repairing laminate flooring$10,714.09 Replace benchtops$9,943.98 Wall repairs and repainting$4,259.02 Replace roller blind$528.28 Contractor management costs$3,450.00 Replace dishwasher$2,045.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$51,246.34

Reasons

The landlord’s directors attended the hearing in person.
The tenant did not attend. There hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent in lieu, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent in lieu and water? The Tribunal’s previous order
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 13 August 2025. 1 However, because of the repairs discussed below, the premises was unavailable for reletting until 9 November 2025. Rent in lieu is ordered for that period.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I include the Tribunal’s previous order for ease of enforcement.

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

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2
The landlord provided photographs, and the directors gave evidence that satisfies me that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided invoices that proved the amounts the landlord paid for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage to the premises’ wooden floors, benches, walls, a roller blind, and the dishwasher. 1 File number 5311001. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v).
To succeed in it is claim, the landlord must prove that any 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 may displace liability by proving they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. 3
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. 4
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6
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. 7
The tenant damaged the wooden floors by repeatedly using a liquid cleaning solution despite the directors telling the tenant not to do so. The flooring got cracked and chipped in various places and showed signs of delamination. It is probable that the tenant continued to clean the floors by this inappropriate method despite knowing that damage was certain to occur. The insurer rejected the landlord’s claim for the damage because the damage was due to wet mopping by the tenant.
Similarly, the tenant damaged the kitchen engineered stone benches by placing hot pots or pans on them. The benches were also scratched and chipped in places indicating ongoing deliberate conduct that was known to cause damage. The insurer refused cover because the damage was not due to a sudden one-off event. The stone had to be replaced because the damage made it hazardous to the health of any occupants. 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA s 49B(3)(b). 6 RTA s See section 49B(3A)(a). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Although, the tenant was only in the premises for a few months, the walls suffered extensive scratches, dents, scuffs, markings, and holes. The damage would have involved many separate events and would not be covered by insurance. Much of the damage was probably due to the tenant’s energetic children. The landlord had to have the damage repaired and the walls repainted.
A roller blind was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs indicate the damage was due to the tenant or another occupant carelessly using too much force.
The dishwasher did not work at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s contractor found that the pump filter may have been forcefully removed, damaging the pump in the process. The dishwasher was new at the beginning of the tenancy. The damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proved they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
In summary, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has not been able to recover the cost of the damage from its insurer.
The amounts claimed are proved.
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.
I have used the period 12 May to 9 November 2025 for the tenancy duration (which includes the rent-in-lieu period) to pro-rata the landlord’s claim to correctly account for the depreciation and betterment.
I also order the landlord’s contractor’s supervision and management charges because the charges were incurred due to the tenant’s breaches. Exemplary damages
The landlord sought exemplary damages for the tenant intentionally damaging the premises.
However, exemplary damages are not available under ss 40(2)(a) or 49A.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 8 Non-publication
The landlord seeks a non-publication order for itself and its directors.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest of is justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. An order for non-publication is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359506. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent in lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26	$9,994.29	Rent in lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26
Previous order application 5311001 dated 13/08/2025	$368.70	Previous order application 5311001 dated 13/08/2025
Water rates	$369.98	Water rates
Cleaning	$5,175.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$4,370.00	Rubbish removal
Repairing laminate flooring	$10,714.09	Repairing laminate flooring
Replace benchtops	$9,943.98	Replace benchtops
Wall repairs and repainting	$4,259.02	Wall repairs and repainting
Replace roller blind	$528.28	Replace roller blind
Contractor management costs	$3,450.00	Contractor management costs
Replace dishwasher	$2,045.00	Replace dishwasher
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The landlord’s and its directors’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.
Ane Marie Finau Leka must pay [the landlord] $51,246.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent in lieu – 14/08 - 9/11/26$9,994.29 Previous order application 5311001 dated 13/08/2025$368.70 Water rates$369.98 Cleaning$5,175.00 Rubbish removal$4,370.00 Repairing laminate flooring$10,714.09 Replace benchtops$9,943.98 Wall repairs and repainting$4,259.02 Replace roller blind$528.28 Contractor management costs$3,450.00 Replace dishwasher$2,045.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$51,246.34

Reasons

The landlord’s directors attended the hearing in person.
The tenant did not attend. There hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent in lieu, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent in lieu and water? The Tribunal’s previous order
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 13 August 2025. 1 However, because of the repairs discussed below, the premises was unavailable for reletting until 9 November 2025. Rent in lieu is ordered for that period.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I include the Tribunal’s previous order for ease of enforcement.

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

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2
The landlord provided photographs, and the directors gave evidence that satisfies me that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided invoices that proved the amounts the landlord paid for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage to the premises’ wooden floors, benches, walls, a roller blind, and the dishwasher. 1 File number 5311001. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v).
To succeed in it is claim, the landlord must prove that any 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 may displace liability by proving they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. 3
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. 4
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6
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. 7
The tenant damaged the wooden floors by repeatedly using a liquid cleaning solution despite the directors telling the tenant not to do so. The flooring got cracked and chipped in various places and showed signs of delamination. It is probable that the tenant continued to clean the floors by this inappropriate method despite knowing that damage was certain to occur. The insurer rejected the landlord’s claim for the damage because the damage was due to wet mopping by the tenant.
Similarly, the tenant damaged the kitchen engineered stone benches by placing hot pots or pans on them. The benches were also scratched and chipped in places indicating ongoing deliberate conduct that was known to cause damage. The insurer refused cover because the damage was not due to a sudden one-off event. The stone had to be replaced because the damage made it hazardous to the health of any occupants. 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA s 49B(3)(b). 6 RTA s See section 49B(3A)(a). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Although, the tenant was only in the premises for a few months, the walls suffered extensive scratches, dents, scuffs, markings, and holes. The damage would have involved many separate events and would not be covered by insurance. Much of the damage was probably due to the tenant’s energetic children. The landlord had to have the damage repaired and the walls repainted.
A roller blind was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs indicate the damage was due to the tenant or another occupant carelessly using too much force.
The dishwasher did not work at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s contractor found that the pump filter may have been forcefully removed, damaging the pump in the process. The dishwasher was new at the beginning of the tenancy. The damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proved they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
In summary, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has not been able to recover the cost of the damage from its insurer.
The amounts claimed are proved.
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.
I have used the period 12 May to 9 November 2025 for the tenancy duration (which includes the rent-in-lieu period) to pro-rata the landlord’s claim to correctly account for the depreciation and betterment.
I also order the landlord’s contractor’s supervision and management charges because the charges were incurred due to the tenant’s breaches. Exemplary damages
The landlord sought exemplary damages for the tenant intentionally damaging the premises.
However, exemplary damages are not available under ss 40(2)(a) or 49A.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 8 Non-publication
The landlord seeks a non-publication order for itself and its directors.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest of is justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. An order for non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359506 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359506 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions