What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380786 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5380786?

Boarded Up Windows: $261.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,593.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,142.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $176.11 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $130.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380786?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380786?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13204065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380786 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5380786?

Boarded Up Windows: $261.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,593.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,142.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $176.11 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $130.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380786?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380786?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13204065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380786 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380786 — net $20,332.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 September 2025	$1,142.58	Rent arrears to 5 September 2025
Water rates to 5 September 2025	$130.99	Water rates to 5 September 2025
Cleaning	$1,593.45	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$176.11	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Damages (walls, floors, kitchen	$17,000.00	Repairs: Damages (walls, floors, kitchen
Boarded up windows	$261.20	Boarded up windows
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20,332.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20,332.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $20,332.33 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The original tenancy commenced in 2018 was between the landlord and the tenant’s mother, who for ease I will refer to as Ms A in this order.
On 12 March 2025 the Family Court issued a Temporary Tenancy Order in favour of the tenant, against Ms A. 1
On the same day the landlord received notice as an interested person and was advised in that notice that the temporary order would be made final on 13 June 2025 should Ms A or the landlord take no further steps.
On 13 June 2025 the Family Court ordered that the tenancy at the tenancy address be vested to the tenant, on and subject to the terms and conditions of the tenancy in force on 12 March 2025 and that Ms A ceased to be a tenant.
There is no need to detail the reasons for these orders, other than to say that during this process, the tenant was young and was also awarded custody of her siblings and took over the running of the household.
Subsequently, the tenant then gave notice to vacate the property and the tenancy ended on 5 September 2025.
The landlord now seeks an order for rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, rubbish removal and significant repair costs for damage to the property.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $1,142.58 for rent arrears and $130.99 for water rates at the end of the tenancy. These amounts were not directly disputed by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims for cleaning costs of $1,593.45 and rubbish removal of $176.11. Evidence has been provided in support of these claims. 1 In accordance with Family Violence Act 2018, s122.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 for extensive damage throughout the property and has provided an itemised scope for the repairs. This includes (in summary): a. Bedroom 1 - Repairs to doors, windows, wardrobe, ceiling. b. Bedroom 2 - Repairs to doors, wardrobe doors, curtains, walls, carpet. c. Bedroom 3 – Repairs to walls, doors, wardrobe doors, ceiling. d. Bathroom 1 – Vinyl repairs, wall repairs, window repairs, cabinet repairs, doors and hardware repairs. e. Dining Room – Repairs to walls, vinyl and ceiling light. f. Entry/Hallway – Carpet cleaning, walls, ceiling and wardrobe repairs, door repairs. g. Kitchen – Repairs to damage in kitchen cupboards, stove, rangehood, walls, ceiling. h. Laundry – Repairs to vinyl, ceiling, walls, doors. i. Living Room – Repairs to walls, ceiling, doors, carpet. j. Toilet 1 – Repairs to vinyl, ceiling, walls, doors, fixtures. k. Exterior – Repairs to building envelope, spouting and valleys, gardening and lawns, gates, light shades
It is evident from the photographs that there was significant damage throughout the property.
The above works are included in a 17-page tax invoice totalling $60,276.16.
However, the landlord claims $33,711.32 for only the damage related portion of this invoice, and an additional amount of $261.20 for boarding up windows.
The tenant says that most of the damage was caused by Ms A, or by her siblings in the stress of the situation with Ms A, and she should not be liable for any repairs as a result.
The landlord says they were not told of the change of tenancy until later, and that the tenant is responsible for all damage, including that caused by Ms A. They also say that given the extent of the damage, and the holes throughout the property, that most of the damage must be considered intentional. Discussion
The effect of the Family Court order issued under the Family Violence Act 2018 was to remove Ms A as the tenant, and to replace her with the tenant as the legal tenant, notwithstanding that the landlord did not consent to the change of tenant. The change occurs by operation of the law.
The provisions of the Family Violence Act 2018 which deal with ‘Tenancy orders’, are found between section 121 and 124 of that legislation.
Section 121 confirms that the effect of a tenancy order, is to “vest in the applicant the tenancy of any dwellinghouse”, of which either party is a tenant.
Section 123 confirms the effect of a tenancy order, that: (1) If a tenancy order takes effect, then, unless the tenancy is sooner lawfully determined – a. The applicant becomes the tenant of the dwellinghouse upon and subject to the terms and conditions in force at the time the order is made; and b. The other person ceases to be a tenant.
To put that into the context of this case, once the tenancy order took effect on 12 March 2025, the tenant legally became the tenant and Ms A who was the ‘other party’ ceased to be the tenant.
The situation is unusual, and these types of cases only arise rarely in the Tribunal. From a practical point of view, the situation is analogous to when a tenant assigns (transfers) a tenancy to another person. In that case, the original tenant is only liable for damage or costs arising up to the time the tenancy is assigned, after that date it is the tenant who took the assignment who becomes liable.
Here, for the landlord to successfully claim for damages against the tenant, they need to prove that the damage and compensation being sought occurred only once the tenant took over the tenancy, and not when Ms A was the tenant.
The landlord has provided a routine inspection from 1 April 2025. In that inspection, it states (in summary): a. There is old damage evident to doors. b. The curtain condition is poor. c. The front door glass is broken (to be repaired by the tenant) and there is a crack in the lounge window. d. There are no repairs required at the tenant’s cost.
It is clear from the photographs in the routine inspection that there is some damage to the walls in several rooms, including board/cardboard covering what is likely to be holes in the wall, 2 and marks on the walls and ceilings.
It is, however, difficult from the report and photographs alone to precisely determine the damage after 1 April 2025. Due to furniture placement and wall hangings, it is not clear whether other damage was evident from Ms A’s tenancy and simply hidden.
Similarly, the enlarged photographs from the final inspection do not show which rooms are what, and not everything has been photographed exactly the same and so it is near impossible to make a clear comparison between the routine inspection and the final inspection.
I can however see that compared to the routine inspection in April 2025: 2 See Routine Inspection dated 1 April 2025, photographs 15, 11, 12, a. Doors were taken off; there are some missing handles and there were likely more holes in the walls. b. The kitchen shows significant damage, particularly to the cupboards. c. There is damage to the carpet and vinyl throughout.
Although I have sympathy for the tenant’s position, I consider it is more likely than not, that at least some of the damage claimed was caused by the tenant (or others at the property with her permission) during her tenancy, and that some of it was likely intentional.
To ascertain the appropriate amount to award, I have very roughly calculated the relevant amounts for the listed items in paragraph 39. above from the provided scope of works invoice and the summary of relevant items provided by the landlord.
I have taken the repair amounts for the kitchen, the hallway doors, some of the wall and door damage, some of the damage to the carpet and vinyl and some exterior works and based on those items, I award $17,000.00 towards the damage claimed, and $261.20 for the boarded-up windows.
The inspection report provided by the landlord notes broken windows and that the tenant was to arrange repair.
It is not the Tribunal’s role to extract evidence, and I consider that for the remainder of the claimed amount, the landlord has not proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant caused the damage during her tenancy and that it wasn’t caused during Ms A’s tenancy. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Kitchen (including kitchen cupboards, walls and doors (including some missing handles), carpet and vinyl. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have also considered 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression. This order has had to canvas matters related to Family Court proceedings and to ensure that I do not breach any suppression orders within those proceedings, I have awarded name suppression to both parties. I consider that the risk of publication here outweighs the public interest in publication. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 27 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380786 — net $20,332.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 September 2025	$1,142.58	Rent arrears to 5 September 2025
Water rates to 5 September 2025	$130.99	Water rates to 5 September 2025
Cleaning	$1,593.45	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$176.11	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Damages (walls, floors, kitchen	$17,000.00	Repairs: Damages (walls, floors, kitchen
Boarded up windows	$261.20	Boarded up windows
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20,332.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20,332.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $20,332.33 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The original tenancy commenced in 2018 was between the landlord and the tenant’s mother, who for ease I will refer to as Ms A in this order.
On 12 March 2025 the Family Court issued a Temporary Tenancy Order in favour of the tenant, against Ms A. 1
On the same day the landlord received notice as an interested person and was advised in that notice that the temporary order would be made final on 13 June 2025 should Ms A or the landlord take no further steps.
On 13 June 2025 the Family Court ordered that the tenancy at the tenancy address be vested to the tenant, on and subject to the terms and conditions of the tenancy in force on 12 March 2025 and that Ms A ceased to be a tenant.
There is no need to detail the reasons for these orders, other than to say that during this process, the tenant was young and was also awarded custody of her siblings and took over the running of the household.
Subsequently, the tenant then gave notice to vacate the property and the tenancy ended on 5 September 2025.
The landlord now seeks an order for rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, rubbish removal and significant repair costs for damage to the property.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $1,142.58 for rent arrears and $130.99 for water rates at the end of the tenancy. These amounts were not directly disputed by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims for cleaning costs of $1,593.45 and rubbish removal of $176.11. Evidence has been provided in support of these claims. 1 In accordance with Family Violence Act 2018, s122.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 for extensive damage throughout the property and has provided an itemised scope for the repairs. This includes (in summary): a. Bedroom 1 - Repairs to doors, windows, wardrobe, ceiling. b. Bedroom 2 - Repairs to doors, wardrobe doors, curtains, walls, carpet. c. Bedroom 3 – Repairs to walls, doors, wardrobe doors, ceiling. d. Bathroom 1 – Vinyl repairs, wall repairs, window repairs, cabinet repairs, doors and hardware repairs. e. Dining Room – Repairs to walls, vinyl and ceiling light. f. Entry/Hallway – Carpet cleaning, walls, ceiling and wardrobe repairs, door repairs. g. Kitchen – Repairs to damage in kitchen cupboards, stove, rangehood, walls, ceiling. h. Laundry – Repairs to vinyl, ceiling, walls, doors. i. Living Room – Repairs to walls, ceiling, doors, carpet. j. Toilet 1 – Repairs to vinyl, ceiling, walls, doors, fixtures. k. Exterior – Repairs to building envelope, spouting and valleys, gardening and lawns, gates, light shades
It is evident from the photographs that there was significant damage throughout the property.
The above works are included in a 17-page tax invoice totalling $60,276.16.
However, the landlord claims $33,711.32 for only the damage related portion of this invoice, and an additional amount of $261.20 for boarding up windows.
The tenant says that most of the damage was caused by Ms A, or by her siblings in the stress of the situation with Ms A, and she should not be liable for any repairs as a result.
The landlord says they were not told of the change of tenancy until later, and that the tenant is responsible for all damage, including that caused by Ms A. They also say that given the extent of the damage, and the holes throughout the property, that most of the damage must be considered intentional. Discussion
The effect of the Family Court order issued under the Family Violence Act 2018 was to remove Ms A as the tenant, and to replace her with the tenant as the legal tenant, notwithstanding that the landlord did not consent to the change of tenant. The change occurs by operation of the law.
The provisions of the Family Violence Act 2018 which deal with ‘Tenancy orders’, are found between section 121 and 124 of that legislation.
Section 121 confirms that the effect of a tenancy order, is to “vest in the applicant the tenancy of any dwellinghouse”, of which either party is a tenant.
Section 123 confirms the effect of a tenancy order, that: (1) If a tenancy order takes effect, then, unless the tenancy is sooner lawfully determined – a. The applicant becomes the tenant of the dwellinghouse upon and subject to the terms and conditions in force at the time the order is made; and b. The other person ceases to be a tenant.
To put that into the context of this case, once the tenancy order took effect on 12 March 2025, the tenant legally became the tenant and Ms A who was the ‘other party’ ceased to be the tenant.
The situation is unusual, and these types of cases only arise rarely in the Tribunal. From a practical point of view, the situation is analogous to when a tenant assigns (transfers) a tenancy to another person. In that case, the original tenant is only liable for damage or costs arising up to the time the tenancy is assigned, after that date it is the tenant who took the assignment who becomes liable.
Here, for the landlord to successfully claim for damages against the tenant, they need to prove that the damage and compensation being sought occurred only once the tenant took over the tenancy, and not when Ms A was the tenant.
The landlord has provided a routine inspection from 1 April 2025. In that inspection, it states (in summary): a. There is old damage evident to doors. b. The curtain condition is poor. c. The front door glass is broken (to be repaired by the tenant) and there is a crack in the lounge window. d. There are no repairs required at the tenant’s cost.
It is clear from the photographs in the routine inspection that there is some damage to the walls in several rooms, including board/cardboard covering what is likely to be holes in the wall, 2 and marks on the walls and ceilings.
It is, however, difficult from the report and photographs alone to precisely determine the damage after 1 April 2025. Due to furniture placement and wall hangings, it is not clear whether other damage was evident from Ms A’s tenancy and simply hidden.
Similarly, the enlarged photographs from the final inspection do not show which rooms are what, and not everything has been photographed exactly the same and so it is near impossible to make a clear comparison between the routine inspection and the final inspection.
I can however see that compared to the routine inspection in April 2025: 2 See Routine Inspection dated 1 April 2025, photographs 15, 11, 12, a. Doors were taken off; there are some missing handles and there were likely more holes in the walls. b. The kitchen shows significant damage, particularly to the cupboards. c. There is damage to the carpet and vinyl throughout.
Although I have sympathy for the tenant’s position, I consider it is more likely than not, that at least some of the damage claimed was caused by the tenant (or others at the property with her permission) during her tenancy, and that some of it was likely intentional.
To ascertain the appropriate amount to award, I have very roughly calculated the relevant amounts for the listed items in paragraph 39. above from the provided scope of works invoice and the summary of relevant items provided by the landlord.
I have taken the repair amounts for the kitchen, the hallway doors, some of the wall and door damage, some of the damage to the carpet and vinyl and some exterior works and based on those items, I award $17,000.00 towards the damage claimed, and $261.20 for the boarded-up windows.
The inspection report provided by the landlord notes broken windows and that the tenant was to arrange repair.
It is not the Tribunal’s role to extract evidence, and I consider that for the remainder of the claimed amount, the landlord has not proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant caused the damage during her tenancy and that it wasn’t caused during Ms A’s tenancy. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Kitchen (including kitchen cupboards, walls and doors (including some missing handles), carpet and vinyl. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have also considered 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression. This order has had to canvas matters related to Family Court proceedings and to ensure that I do not breach any suppression orders within those proceedings, I have awarded name suppression to both parties. I consider that the risk of publication here outweighs the public interest in publication. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 27 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380786 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380786 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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