Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5376401 — Property damage at 16 Jamish Drive, Warkworth, Warkworth 0910
Published 20 May 2026 · Application 5376401
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Warkworth
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Manhire
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $662.70
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $662.70
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replace furnishings: Blind replacement by consent | $662.70 | Replace furnishings: Blind replacement by consent | |
| Net award | $662.70 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $662.70 |
Claims and awards for application 5376401 — net $662.70 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Replace furnishings: Blind replacement by consent
- Amount
- $662.70
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Blind replacement by consent
Net award
Landlord $662.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $662.70
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Charlotte Wilson must pay Bogue Property Management Limited As Agent For Anthony & Kathryn Prangnell $662.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- The premises consist of a 4-bedroom, 2-bathroom townhouse. The tenant resided there with 3 others. The tenancy started on 19 June 2022 and ended on 27 September 2025.
- The tenant was on a periodic lease at the time she moved out.
- The landlord provided an inspection report dated 11 June 2019, confirming the property was brand new.
- This tenant signed an ‘Agreement to Assign a Residential Tenancy’ dated 10 June 2022. The landlord says that the tenancy officially ended on 6 October 2025.
- Prior to this tenant taking over the tenancy on 12 June 2022 the tenant resided there as a flatmate.
- The landlord provided a further inspection report dated 19 May 2022 undertaken approximately 1 month prior to this tenant moving in. The landlord provided exit inspection photographs taken on 24 September 2025.
- The tenant handed the keys back on 27 September 2025.
- The tenant provided her own video, date stamped 26 September 2025. The video confirms the premises to be in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord went to the property mid-morning on 25 September to meet the owners. They say that the tenant was not there. The tenant says that she went there later that day, cleaned and stayed overnight.
- There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
- I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
- On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Has the tenant breached her obligations under section 40 of the Residential
Tenancies Act 1986?
• Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation? Statutory provisions
- Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
- Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Legal considerations
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (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 (DC) TT233/02, 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. Other legal considerations
- The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the tenant of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses.
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Landlord claims:
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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord says that the tenant arranged a flexi bin which was picked up on 29 September 2025. The landlord says that there was still a lot of rubbish left behind by the tenant. The tenant does not agree with this claim. She says that all rubbish was removed on 29 September 2025 when the flexi bin was collected.
- The landlord only provided exit photos dated 24 September 2025. Blinds
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: • missing bedroom and dining room blinds.
- The landlord says that the blinds were missing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant accepts this claim. The amount claimed is $662.70
- The claim is allowed with the consent of the tenant. Garage remotes
- The landlord says that the previous tenant was issued with two remotes at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The tenant says that she was only left with one remote. The previous tenant did not follow through and return the second remote. Gas bottle refill
- The landlord says that two gas bottles were fill at the start of the previous tenancy. The tenant states she had no knowledge of these gas bottles in the beginning. The tenant says that she refilled the bottles after she took over the lease.
- The landlord provided an invoice from Rockgas for $358.70. Patch up supplies and dish washer cleaner:
- This claim relates to the owners’ time cleaning the property and providing cleaning supplies.
- The landlord claims the breakdown is as follows: • travel (toll road costs), • painting supplies and dishwasher cleaner).
- The landlord says the owner undertook the cleaning work between 25 September and October 2025.
- The tenant responded by saying that they were went back and cleaned the property on 25 and 26 September. They then handed the keys back on 27 September. Door stops and closet rails
- The landlord says that door stops for bedroom 1 and the second lounge were missing. There was also a bedroom wardrobe bar missing from one of the bedrooms.
- The tenant says that she has no knowledge of these items. Rubbish bags and cleaning supplies
- The landlord claims $51.17 for cleaning supplies (rubbish bags, sugar soap, shower cleaner, toilet cleaner, toilet brush, etc) purchased on 26 September 2025.
- The tenant referred the Tribunal to her video showing that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning supplies for $48.96 purchased on 25 September 2025
- The tenant text the landlord on 24 September 2025 saying that she would be back at the property on 25 September 2025 to sort the cleaning issues. The landlord replied on 26 September 2025 saying that the property looked much better and that the owners would appreciate it. The tenant referred to her video evidence. Cleaning time in attendance by owners
- The landlord claims cleaning time in attendance for the period 26 September to 9 October 2025.
- The landlord says that the owners spent 48 hours undertaking cleaning and repair work. The tenant does not accept this claim and says its questionable that the owner would need to spend all this time doing further cleaning on top of what had already been done. Travel costs
- The landlord says that the owners claim $947.70 for travel back and forth from the property for the period 26 September to 9 October 2025.
- The tenant does not accept this claim.
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 landlord claims compensation for damage as follows. Range hood ducting
- The landlord says that the rangehood foil ducting was damaged and had to be replaced. The landlord has not provided any photos of the damaged rangehood ducting. The landlord claims the amount of $87.51. The tenant has no knowledge of this issue. The tenant says that this was never brought to her attention during the tenancy. Power socket
- The landlord says that the power socket was pulled from the wall. The landlord says that the exit inspection on 24 September 2025 shows that the TV and internet socket hanging out of the wall. The amount claimed is $12.59.
- The tenant says it was like this at the start of the tenancy. Analysis of all claims (except blind replacement)
- The landlord seeks compensation for alleged damage to the premises and other breaches of tenant obligations, however, the landlord has not provided adequate pre-tenancy evidence, such as a comprehensive entry inspection report or dated photographs, to establish the condition of the premises at the commencement of this tenancy.
- The principal issue for determination is whether the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities that damage or loss occurred during this tenancy.
- In determining claims for damage or compensation, the Tribunal ordinarily requires reliable evidence establishing the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy (in this case, 12 June 2022) and the condition at the conclusion of the tenancy (in this case, 27 September 2025). There must be clear evidence linking the alleged damage or other breach to the tenant.
- The problem that the landlord has with their application is the lack of evidence. Other than 5 photographs purported to have been taken at the start of the tenancy there is a total absence of a pre tenancy inspection report and photographs.
- The tenant did not commence occupation of the premises as an entirely new occupant, having initially resided there as a flatmate.
- The legal tenancy relationship relevant to this application commenced upon execution of an ‘Agreement to Assign a Residential Tenancy’ on 10 June 2022. The assignment specifically provided that the incoming tenant was not responsible for debts, liabilities, or other breaches attributable to the outgoing tenant. This is significant because it expressly limits the tenant’s liability to matters arising during the tenant’s own tenancy period.
- The fact that the landlord has been largely unsuccessful contacting the previous tenant should not be the burden of this tenant.
- The landlord failed to provide a new entry inspection report when this tenant assumed the tenancy in June 2022. No reports, photographic evidence or other records were produced establishing the state of the premises at the commencement of this tenancy.
- Without reliable evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of this tenancy, the Tribunal is unable to determine whether the alleged damage existed beforehand or whether any deterioration pre-dated the reassignment and whether the issues complained of were attributable to the previous tenant.
- Essentially, the landlord is asking the Tribunal to infer that the issues arose during this tenancy notwithstanding the absence of evidence establishing the initial condition of the property.
- The landlord also undertook the exit inspection approximately two days before this tenant vacated the premises. The Tribunal considers this further undermines the reliability of the landlord’s evidence.
- An exit inspection undertaken before vacant possession is returned does not reliably establish the condition of the premises at the conclusion of the tenancy. The Tribunal therefore places limited weight on the purported exit inspection.
- Taken together, the deficiencies are significant. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s submission that the evidence does not distinguish between pre-existing issues, ordinary wear and tear and damage attributable to the tenant.
- Put simply, the claims advanced by the landlord are not supported by the available evidence.
- Accordingly, the landlord’s application for vacated compensation is dismissed.
- Because the landlord’s claims have been dismissed, it follows that the miscellaneous claims in respect of cleaning supplies, owner’s time in attendance and travel costs have not been established.
- The claim for blind replacement is allowed and ordered by consent.
- The landlord seeks reimbursement of the application fee. The landlord’s application has been largely unsuccessful and therefore I make no order in respect of this.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s13, s14, s16, s20, s26, s30, s38, s40, s40(1), s40(2), s43, s45, s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s85
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5376401?
The tribunal order states: Charlotte Wilson must pay Bogue Property Management Limited As Agent For
How much money was awarded in case 5376401?
Property Damage: $662.70 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376401?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376401?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13585359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.