What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5363560?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Karehana to pay Westerman Property Solutions Limited $13,401.45

How much money was awarded in case 5363560?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363560?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12966994-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5363560?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Karehana to pay Westerman Property Solutions Limited $13,401.45

How much money was awarded in case 5363560?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363560?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12966994-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Maunganamu Drive, Wharewaka, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363560 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

40 Maunganamu Drive, Wharewaka, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363560 — Rent arrears | 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 5363560. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions		$3,080.00	2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions

Claims and awards for application 5363560. Verify on MoJ.

2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions

Amount: $3,080.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions

Order

Andrew Karehana to pay Westerman Property Solutions Limited $13,401.45 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount ($) Rent arrears3,014.29 Lawns and garden clean-up435.74 Vacate cleaning1,443.25 Rubbish removal404.80 Repair and repaint walls, doors and skirtings7,889.00 Lock change (keys not returned)201.26 Maintenance repairs (hole in wall, fittings, doorstops)375.34 Plumbing repairs (shower fittings and drain)516.07 Carpet cleaning and stain treatment1,771.00 Kitchen benchtop burn repair230.00 DescriptionAmount ($) Driveway oil stain removal200.70 Total awarded16,481.45 Less bond applied(3,080.00) Balance payable by tenant13,401.45
Bond Services to pay the full bond ($3,080.00) to Westerman Property Solutions Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The Tenant did not attend the hearing. The Landlord provided me with an email from the Tenant indicating they accepted liability – to a degree – and referring to personal hardship experienced during the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent records show that rent arrears of $3,014.29 were 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord relied on the final inspection report and photographs which record extensive dirt and grime throughout the property, including dirty carpets and vinyl, dirty walls, doors, skirtings and ceilings, dirty kitchen cupboards and wardrobes, heavily soiled bathrooms and toilets, a very dirty oven and rangehood, and dirty window and ranch slider tracks.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The inspection report records that the tenant left numerous items at the property, including household rubbish, furniture, tyres, a fridge and other personal items, which required removal by contractors.
The landlord incurred the following costs as a result of the tenant’s failure to comply with their end-of-tenancy obligations: a. Lawns and garden clean-up, mowing and weed removal: $435.74 b. Vacate cleaning, including oven and follow-up cleaning: $1,443.25 c. Removal of rubbish, furniture, tractor and car tyres: $404.80
The tenant did not return all keys, and the landlord reasonably changed the locks at a cost of $201.26.

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 house was a brand-new build at the outset of the tenancy.
The Landlord proved that the following damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear: a. Extensive damage to walls, doors, skirting boards and garage walls requiring plastering and repainting – the Tenant had hung numerous posters and memorabilia on the garage walls leaving behind nail holes – a few nail holes would have been acceptable, but this was excessive – this practice continued into the house also, and there was other damage to wall surfaces caused by not taking proper care: $7,889.00 b. Hole in a bedroom wall, loose toilet roll and towel holders, and missing or damaged doorstops: $375.34 c. Missing or damaged shower head, hose and drain cover and blocked shower waste: $516.07 d. Multiple stains to carpets requiring professional cleaning and stain treatment: $1,771.00 e. Burn damage to the kitchen laminate benchtop: $230.00 f. Oil staining to the driveway requiring degreasing and water-blasting: $200.70
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not disprove liability.
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.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 5363560. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions		$3,080.00	2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions

Claims and awards for application 5363560. Verify on MoJ.

2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions

Amount: $3,080.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 2. Bond Services to pay the full bond to Westerman Property Solutions

Order

Andrew Karehana to pay Westerman Property Solutions Limited $13,401.45 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount ($) Rent arrears3,014.29 Lawns and garden clean-up435.74 Vacate cleaning1,443.25 Rubbish removal404.80 Repair and repaint walls, doors and skirtings7,889.00 Lock change (keys not returned)201.26 Maintenance repairs (hole in wall, fittings, doorstops)375.34 Plumbing repairs (shower fittings and drain)516.07 Carpet cleaning and stain treatment1,771.00 Kitchen benchtop burn repair230.00 DescriptionAmount ($) Driveway oil stain removal200.70 Total awarded16,481.45 Less bond applied(3,080.00) Balance payable by tenant13,401.45
Bond Services to pay the full bond ($3,080.00) to Westerman Property Solutions Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The Tenant did not attend the hearing. The Landlord provided me with an email from the Tenant indicating they accepted liability – to a degree – and referring to personal hardship experienced during the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent records show that rent arrears of $3,014.29 were 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord relied on the final inspection report and photographs which record extensive dirt and grime throughout the property, including dirty carpets and vinyl, dirty walls, doors, skirtings and ceilings, dirty kitchen cupboards and wardrobes, heavily soiled bathrooms and toilets, a very dirty oven and rangehood, and dirty window and ranch slider tracks.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The inspection report records that the tenant left numerous items at the property, including household rubbish, furniture, tyres, a fridge and other personal items, which required removal by contractors.
The landlord incurred the following costs as a result of the tenant’s failure to comply with their end-of-tenancy obligations: a. Lawns and garden clean-up, mowing and weed removal: $435.74 b. Vacate cleaning, including oven and follow-up cleaning: $1,443.25 c. Removal of rubbish, furniture, tractor and car tyres: $404.80
The tenant did not return all keys, and the landlord reasonably changed the locks at a cost of $201.26.

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 house was a brand-new build at the outset of the tenancy.
The Landlord proved that the following damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear: a. Extensive damage to walls, doors, skirting boards and garage walls requiring plastering and repainting – the Tenant had hung numerous posters and memorabilia on the garage walls leaving behind nail holes – a few nail holes would have been acceptable, but this was excessive – this practice continued into the house also, and there was other damage to wall surfaces caused by not taking proper care: $7,889.00 b. Hole in a bedroom wall, loose toilet roll and towel holders, and missing or damaged doorstops: $375.34 c. Missing or damaged shower head, hose and drain cover and blocked shower waste: $516.07 d. Multiple stains to carpets requiring professional cleaning and stain treatment: $1,771.00 e. Burn damage to the kitchen laminate benchtop: $230.00 f. Oil staining to the driveway requiring degreasing and water-blasting: $200.70
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not disprove liability.
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.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363560 — Rent arrears at 40 Maunganamu Drive, Wharewaka, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363560 — Rent arrears at 40 Maunganamu Drive, Wharewaka, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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