What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384561 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 5384561?

Chair Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $280.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $960.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,393.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13229908-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384561 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 5384561?

Chair Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $280.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $960.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,393.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13229908-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384561 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384561 — net $552.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,393.00	Rent arrears
Oven/stove cleaning	$150.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$280.00	Lawns and Garden work
Chair removal	$60.00	Chair removal
Front door replacement	$960.70	Front door replacement
Painting walls	$280.91	Painting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$552.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$552.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant and guarantors.

BACKGROUND

DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,393.00 Oven/stove cleaning$150.00 Lawns and Garden work$280.00 Chair removal$60.00 Front door replacement$960.70 Painting walls$280.91 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,152.61 Minus bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$552.61

The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2025 and as a fixed term tenancy until 31 May 2025.
The tenant is Azaria Pareona Turua. There are three guarantors: Ripeka Raiha Ratana, Matthew Raymond Daren Ngametua Turua, and Aprea Keziah Raika.
The tenancy ended on 12 November 2025

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears $1,393.00 b. Wall painting (2x) $280.91 c. Lawn mowing $280.00 d. Chair removal $60.00 e. Oven cleaning $150.00 f. Front door replacement $960.70

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 unlikely, 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.

ANALYSIS

The landlord has made a number of claims, I will consider them in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord has claimed rent arrears of $1,393.00, being rent arrears to 12 November 2025.
The tenant agrees she owes this rent, so it is ordered in full by consent. Claim 2 - Repairs
The landlord has claimed compensation for: a. Wall painting (2x) $280.91 b. Front door replacement $960.70
The landlord seeks compensation for repainting work on two walls. The tenant agrees to this claim; it is ordered by consent.
In relation to the front door damage, the landlord states that the door was damaged during the tenancy when it was forced. The landlord states the door has been split, and could not be replaced. The landlord claims compensation for the cost of replacing the door, installing it and painting it.
The tenant opposes this claim. The tenant agrees that the door was damaged during the tenancy, and states it was damaged by her partner forcing the door open. The tenant said her partner went out for the night with his friends. When he came home in the morning, the door was locked, and he forced it to try to get back in. The tenant said he was living there at the time. When the door was broken, the tenant was at home asleep, but she does not think her partner knocked to get in – he just forced the door.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
There is no doubt that the door was intentionally damaged, when the tenant’s partner forced it to get inside. The question, however, is whether the tenant is liable for that damage.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. This confirms that the tenant is generally liable for damage caused during the tenancy.
Section 41 of the RTA relates to the situation where the damage is caused by someone other than the tenant. That provision confirms: 41Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1)The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
In this case the tenants partner was on the premises with the tenant’s consent, as he was living there at the time. Further, when the damage occurred, the tenant was in the premises herself (asleep), and she has not suggested that she made any effort to have the partner removed from the tenancy.
The end result must be that while the damage was caused by the tenant’s partner, the tenant is responsible for the intentional damage he caused given she is the tenant. Claim 3 – Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord has claimed compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal as follows: a. Lawn mowing $280.00 b. Chair removal $60.00 c. Oven cleaning $150.00
The tenant agrees that she is liable for these three costs, which are ordered by consent.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, which is ordered as the landlord has been successful in the claim.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384561 — net $552.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,393.00	Rent arrears
Oven/stove cleaning	$150.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$280.00	Lawns and Garden work
Chair removal	$60.00	Chair removal
Front door replacement	$960.70	Front door replacement
Painting walls	$280.91	Painting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$552.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$552.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant and guarantors.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2025 and as a fixed term tenancy until 31 May 2025.
The tenant is Azaria Pareona Turua. There are three guarantors: Ripeka Raiha Ratana, Matthew Raymond Daren Ngametua Turua, and Aprea Keziah Raika.
The tenancy ended on 12 November 2025

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears $1,393.00 b. Wall painting (2x) $280.91 c. Lawn mowing $280.00 d. Chair removal $60.00 e. Oven cleaning $150.00 f. Front door replacement $960.70

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 unlikely, 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.

ANALYSIS

The landlord has made a number of claims, I will consider them in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord has claimed rent arrears of $1,393.00, being rent arrears to 12 November 2025.
The tenant agrees she owes this rent, so it is ordered in full by consent. Claim 2 - Repairs
The landlord has claimed compensation for: a. Wall painting (2x) $280.91 b. Front door replacement $960.70
The landlord seeks compensation for repainting work on two walls. The tenant agrees to this claim; it is ordered by consent.
In relation to the front door damage, the landlord states that the door was damaged during the tenancy when it was forced. The landlord states the door has been split, and could not be replaced. The landlord claims compensation for the cost of replacing the door, installing it and painting it.
The tenant opposes this claim. The tenant agrees that the door was damaged during the tenancy, and states it was damaged by her partner forcing the door open. The tenant said her partner went out for the night with his friends. When he came home in the morning, the door was locked, and he forced it to try to get back in. The tenant said he was living there at the time. When the door was broken, the tenant was at home asleep, but she does not think her partner knocked to get in – he just forced the door.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
There is no doubt that the door was intentionally damaged, when the tenant’s partner forced it to get inside. The question, however, is whether the tenant is liable for that damage.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. This confirms that the tenant is generally liable for damage caused during the tenancy.
Section 41 of the RTA relates to the situation where the damage is caused by someone other than the tenant. That provision confirms: 41Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1)The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
In this case the tenants partner was on the premises with the tenant’s consent, as he was living there at the time. Further, when the damage occurred, the tenant was in the premises herself (asleep), and she has not suggested that she made any effort to have the partner removed from the tenancy.
The end result must be that while the damage was caused by the tenant’s partner, the tenant is responsible for the intentional damage he caused given she is the tenant. Claim 3 – Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord has claimed compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal as follows: a. Lawn mowing $280.00 b. Chair removal $60.00 c. Oven cleaning $150.00
The tenant agrees that she is liable for these three costs, which are ordered by consent.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, which is ordered as the landlord has been successful in the claim.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384561 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384561 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions