What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366503 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5366503?

Compensation: Bond: $460.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5288399,…: $5,573.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366503?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218484-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366503 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5366503?

Compensation: Bond: $460.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5288399,…: $5,573.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366503?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218484-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Bamford Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366503 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366503 — net $3,733.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5288399, 5366503 dated 29/10/2025	$5,573.02		Previous order application 5288399, 5366503 dated 29/10/2025
Compensation: Bond		$460.00	Bond
Total award	$5,573.02	$460.00
Net award	$3,733.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,733.02

[The tenant/s] must pay Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For Penelope Baber $3,733.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,380.00 (3445047-003) to Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For Penelope Baber immediately.

The landlord’s claim for damages is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for failing to maintain is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Baber the owner, and Mr Cartwright a former property manager.

The first part of this hearing was heard by me on 29 October 2025. Orders for rent arrears and unpaid water rates invoices were made.

Today the landlord made claims for damages. The tenant made claims for the bond to be refunded and for compensation for the landlord failing to maintain the premises. The landlord’s claims

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.

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.

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 landlord produced photographs showing marks on the walls in the lounge, a television stand that was mounted on the wall, door handles that had been replaced on a set of French doors, a missing door handle on another exterior door, areas of walls that had been painted with poorly matched paint and a curtain that was torn.

The photographs show a house that I estimate to be approximately seventy years old and in generally poor condition. The kitchen is the original kitchen. The wallpaper is approximately 50-60 years old. There is little evidence of any maintenance having been done on the house in recent years. The interior looks dilapidated. The landlord says she bought the house ten years ago. This tenancy began on 28 October 2016 and ended on 5 August 2025, so lasted just short of nine years.

The landlord is seeking compensation of the insurance excess of $1,000.00 each for three claims.

The amount being claimed for re-painting is $402.50.

The landlord said that during the tenancy, tenant asked if she could repaint part of the interior. The landlord gave her consent. The tenant purchased the paint and did the painting herself. She was not reimbursed for her costs. The tenant says that the door handle of the French doors broke so her partner replaced it. She said the other exterior door handle also broke. It appears to be the original door and door handle from when the house was new. The tenant said the handle had a crack in it before it broke. The tenant said that at the beginning of the tenancy the curtains were mouldy and the property manager promised to replace them. The curtains were not replaced. After about five years they became torn and she took them down.

The information that the tenant gave was straight forward. I have no reason to doubt her truthfulness. The evidence before me shows the house to be old, in poor condition and to have been poorly maintained. On balance, when the tenant says that curtains and door handles broke because they were old, I believe her. Her explanations are consistent with what I see in the photographs.

I am not persuaded by the landlord’s claims that the tenant has damaged the walls beyond fair wear and tear. There are no entry photographs to show the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. It is likely there were areas of damage on the walls at the start of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant agreed that the tenant could paint them at her cost. This relieved the landlord of her responsibility to maintain the premises herself. After a nine year tenancy I do not consider it reasonable that the landlord should gain a windfall because of the quality of the tenant’s workmanship. Nor do I consider it warranted once I take into account betterment: After a nine year tenancy, I consider it likely a premises of this sort will need renovating.

The landlord’s claims for damages are not proved. The tenant’s claims Refund of the bond

The tenant claims she paid a bond of $1,840.00 at the start of the tenancy. The landlord agrees this was the amount that was agreed. The tenant says that WINZ paid the $1,840.00 and she subsequently repaid the full amount to Work and Income New Zealand (“WINZ”.)

The tenant produced a bond lodgement form from the Department of Building and Housing signed by Ms Goffin on 28/12/2016 and Ms Baber on 4/1/2017 which records the “Total expected bond for this tenancy” as $1,840.00.

The tenant also produced a written Residential Tenancy Agreement prepared by Barfoot and Thompson which records the bond payment as $1,840.00.

Ms Baber said she believed WINZ only paid three weeks’ bond. Ms Goffin disagreed with this.

The issue is that the Bond Centre is currently holding a bond for this property of only $1,380.00.

Somewhere an error has been made.

The evidence before me supports Ms Goffin’s assertion that she paid $1,840.00 bond. That was everybody’s intention and there is no record of a correction to this.

Ms Baber says that she didn’t deal with the money, Barfoot and Thompson did. Whoever it was that dealt with the money, the bond is the tenant’s money until a claim is made against it. The only person in the room today who dealt with the money (by way of repaying WINZ) is Ms Goffin. She says she paid $1,840.00. All of the written material supports this amount.

On the basis of the information before me, I determine that Ms Goffin paid a bond of $1,840.00 and this must be refunded, or offset against the landlord’s claims, by the landlord.

This claim is proved. Failure to maintain

The tenant referred to the house being damp and having mould. She also referred to a leak that happened in the house. The tenant’s information was vague. There was no general date or details other than they occurred in the kitchen, bathroom and a bedroom. No photographs were produced. The tenant said her daughter had the details and the footage, but her daughter wasn’t here today.

In response Mr Cartwright said that in June 2025 he had a meeting with Ms Goffin about a leak that had occurred. Two days later Chemwash was engaged to clean the gutters.

I do not have enough information to determine that the landlord breached the RTA regarding this incident.

The tenant also raised an issue with the shower being broken for two years around “COVID” (approximately six years ago) and about problems with the stove over the course of the ten-year tenancy. For neither claim was there sufficient detail for me to determine the landlord had breached the RTA.

These claims are not proved.

Because both parties have partially succeeded with their claims, I let the cost of the filing fees lie where they fall.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366503 — net $3,733.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5288399, 5366503 dated 29/10/2025	$5,573.02		Previous order application 5288399, 5366503 dated 29/10/2025
Compensation: Bond		$460.00	Bond
Total award	$5,573.02	$460.00
Net award	$3,733.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,733.02

[The tenant/s] must pay Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For Penelope Baber $3,733.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,380.00 (3445047-003) to Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For Penelope Baber immediately.

The landlord’s claim for damages is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for failing to maintain is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Baber the owner, and Mr Cartwright a former property manager.

The first part of this hearing was heard by me on 29 October 2025. Orders for rent arrears and unpaid water rates invoices were made.

Today the landlord made claims for damages. The tenant made claims for the bond to be refunded and for compensation for the landlord failing to maintain the premises. The landlord’s claims

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

The landlord is seeking compensation of the insurance excess of $1,000.00 each for three claims.

The amount being claimed for re-painting is $402.50.

The landlord’s claims for damages are not proved. The tenant’s claims Refund of the bond

The tenant also produced a written Residential Tenancy Agreement prepared by Barfoot and Thompson which records the bond payment as $1,840.00.

Ms Baber said she believed WINZ only paid three weeks’ bond. Ms Goffin disagreed with this.

The issue is that the Bond Centre is currently holding a bond for this property of only $1,380.00.

Somewhere an error has been made.

The evidence before me supports Ms Goffin’s assertion that she paid $1,840.00 bond. That was everybody’s intention and there is no record of a correction to this.

On the basis of the information before me, I determine that Ms Goffin paid a bond of $1,840.00 and this must be refunded, or offset against the landlord’s claims, by the landlord.

This claim is proved. Failure to maintain

In response Mr Cartwright said that in June 2025 he had a meeting with Ms Goffin about a leak that had occurred. Two days later Chemwash was engaged to clean the gutters.

I do not have enough information to determine that the landlord breached the RTA regarding this incident.

These claims are not proved.

Because both parties have partially succeeded with their claims, I let the cost of the filing fees lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366503 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Bamford Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366503 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Bamford Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions