What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375057 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5375057?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Walls: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375057?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12850779-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375057 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5375057?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Walls: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375057?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12850779-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1189 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375057 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375057 — net $718.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: repainting walls	$690.00	Repairs: repainting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$718.00
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$718.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang $718.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (3306905-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang: $718.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,062.00

Reasons

Ms Gao and Ms Poyhonen, representing the landlord, Ms Arora and Mr Rawai, the tenants, all attended the hearing by video conference and teleconference respectively.
The landlord has applied compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 20 October 2025.

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. Walls
The landlord said that, at the end of the tenancy, there were some plastering repairs noted by the property manager in the lounge and bedroom, that had been carried out by the tenants. The tenants asked for an opportunity to rectify this and paint the walls themselves. However, when the property manager returned to view the walls, she said the tenants had painted the walls the incorrect colour and so 4 walls had to be fully sanded and repainted so the colour of the paint matched on each wall.
The tenants said their 2 children had caused some scratches on the walls during the tenancy. One of the tenants had apparently plastered parts of the walls that had the scratches but had not painted the walls with the correct colour. The tenants said that, at the end of the tenancy when the property manager pointed out the patches on these walls, they asked for a quote to have the walls repainted. The property manager said she could not provide a quote until she spoke with a handyman about this but said when she did send through a quote, the tenants said it was too much. The property manager said she agreed to give the tenants another day after the tenancy ended to rectify the painting on the walls, and some other issues, themselves. The property manager said when she returned to the property on 22 October 2025, the walls had been painted in the wrong colour and so patches were showing. The landlord was not willing to give the tenants any further opportunity to rectify this, despite them asking for this, given the tenants had painted it the incorrect colour.
The tenants said they paid a painter $600.00 to paint the walls in question. However, they acknowledged that neither they nor their painter checked with the landlord about the correct paint colour before doing this. The tenant believed the landlord’s invoice for painting the walls in the amount of $862.50 was excessive for “a few patches”.
The landlord said that the tenants’ painter had caused more damage by painting with the wrong paint colour, as then all the 4 walls had to be fully repainted in the same paint colour so the whole of each wall would match. The landlord said this explains the cost.
The landlord provided an Exit Inspection Report dated 23 October 2025 with some photographs showing the walls in question, which showed oddly coloured patches on the walls.
Given the evidence of the photographs of the damage and the tenants indicating it was caused by their children scratching the walls, I find the original damage of the scratches was likely careless damage by the children. However, given the deliberate repairs undertaken after the scratches were caused, including the plastering and painting the walls the incorrect colour without ascertaining the correct paint shade before doing this, I find the subsequent damage by the tenants to be intentional damage. As such, the tenants are liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of sanding and repainting 4 walls in the lounge and bedroom in the amount of $862.50. I find this to be a reasonable cost to paint 4 entire walls, prior to consideration of depreciation.
The landlord stated the property was last painted in 2023, around 2 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimated painted walls in a rental property should last around 10 years. Thus, I deduct the $862.50 cost for repainting the walls by 20% for depreciation to an award of $690.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (3306905-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang: $718.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,062.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375057 — net $718.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: repainting walls	$690.00	Repairs: repainting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$718.00
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$718.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang $718.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (3306905-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang: $718.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,062.00

Reasons

Ms Gao and Ms Poyhonen, representing the landlord, Ms Arora and Mr Rawai, the tenants, all attended the hearing by video conference and teleconference respectively.
The landlord has applied compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 20 October 2025.

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. Walls
The landlord said that, at the end of the tenancy, there were some plastering repairs noted by the property manager in the lounge and bedroom, that had been carried out by the tenants. The tenants asked for an opportunity to rectify this and paint the walls themselves. However, when the property manager returned to view the walls, she said the tenants had painted the walls the incorrect colour and so 4 walls had to be fully sanded and repainted so the colour of the paint matched on each wall.
The tenants said their 2 children had caused some scratches on the walls during the tenancy. One of the tenants had apparently plastered parts of the walls that had the scratches but had not painted the walls with the correct colour. The tenants said that, at the end of the tenancy when the property manager pointed out the patches on these walls, they asked for a quote to have the walls repainted. The property manager said she could not provide a quote until she spoke with a handyman about this but said when she did send through a quote, the tenants said it was too much. The property manager said she agreed to give the tenants another day after the tenancy ended to rectify the painting on the walls, and some other issues, themselves. The property manager said when she returned to the property on 22 October 2025, the walls had been painted in the wrong colour and so patches were showing. The landlord was not willing to give the tenants any further opportunity to rectify this, despite them asking for this, given the tenants had painted it the incorrect colour.
The tenants said they paid a painter $600.00 to paint the walls in question. However, they acknowledged that neither they nor their painter checked with the landlord about the correct paint colour before doing this. The tenant believed the landlord’s invoice for painting the walls in the amount of $862.50 was excessive for “a few patches”.
The landlord said that the tenants’ painter had caused more damage by painting with the wrong paint colour, as then all the 4 walls had to be fully repainted in the same paint colour so the whole of each wall would match. The landlord said this explains the cost.
The landlord provided an Exit Inspection Report dated 23 October 2025 with some photographs showing the walls in question, which showed oddly coloured patches on the walls.
Given the evidence of the photographs of the damage and the tenants indicating it was caused by their children scratching the walls, I find the original damage of the scratches was likely careless damage by the children. However, given the deliberate repairs undertaken after the scratches were caused, including the plastering and painting the walls the incorrect colour without ascertaining the correct paint shade before doing this, I find the subsequent damage by the tenants to be intentional damage. As such, the tenants are liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of sanding and repainting 4 walls in the lounge and bedroom in the amount of $862.50. I find this to be a reasonable cost to paint 4 entire walls, prior to consideration of depreciation.
The landlord stated the property was last painted in 2023, around 2 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimated painted walls in a rental property should last around 10 years. Thus, I deduct the $862.50 cost for repainting the walls by 20% for depreciation to an award of $690.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (3306905-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Yan Hua Huang: $718.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,062.00

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375057 — Property damage at 1189 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375057 — Property damage at 1189 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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