Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5385573 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 30 Woodford Avenue, Henderson, Auckland
Decided 30 Mar 2026 · Published 30 Mar 2026 · Application 5385573
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,046.55
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $5,046.55
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 29 September 2025 | $428.57 | Rent arrears to 29 September 2025 | |
| Repairs: plaster and paint | $1,200.00 | Repairs: plaster and paint | |
| Compensation for carpet damage | $600.00 | Compensation for carpet damage | |
| Compensation for flooring damage | $500.00 | Compensation for flooring damage | |
| Oven/stove cleaning: missing trays | $178.00 | Oven/stove cleaning: missing trays | |
| Repairs towel rail | $410.00 | Repairs towel rail | |
| Lock/key replacement | $260.00 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Water rates | $1,441.98 | Water rates | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $5,046.55 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $5,046.55 |
Claims and awards for application 5385573 — net $5,046.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 29 September 2025
- Amount
- $428.57
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 29 September 2025
Repairs: plaster and paint
- Amount
- $1,200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: plaster and paint
Compensation for carpet damage
- Amount
- $600.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation for carpet damage
Compensation for flooring damage
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation for flooring damage
Oven/stove cleaning: missing trays
- Amount
- $178.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Oven/stove cleaning: missing trays
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Mission Property Management Limited As Agents For Huicai Zhang $5,046.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
- The tenant requested an adjournment on the morning of the hearing due to a medical issue. No supporting information was provided, and no information was provided to explain why the medical condition might be different following an adjournment.
- The Tenancy ended six months ago and this application was made more than four months ago.
- When I considered the above factors I considered the interests of justice lay with the hearing proceeding today. The request for an adjournment was declined.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 29 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records that prove that at the end of the tenancy the tenant owed $3,428.57 for rent arrears. The landlord has since claimed the $3,000.00 bond.
- The landlord says that since the tenancy began the landlord has provided water rates invoices on a regular basis to the tenant, but the tenant has not yet paid any. The landlord is claiming $1,441.98 for unpaid water rates invoices.
- The claims and 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
- The landlord said the tenant did some cleaning at the end of the tenancy but more was needed to bring the premises up to the desired level. The landlord did not produce any photographs that show the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming $920.00 for cleaning.
- A landlord may choose to do extra deep cleaning between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of an outgoing tenant.
- This claim is not proved.
- The landlord says the tenant did not return the letterbox key or the garage remote at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $250.00 for the garage remote and $10.00 for the letterbox key.
- The landlord is also claiming $178.00 for two oven trays they say were missing at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord provided photographs in support of these claims.
- These claims 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 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.
- 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- The landlord claimed three walls and three doors needed repairing and/or repainting following the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $6,205.40 for the repairs.
- When I look at the photographs provided by the landlord I consider this damage to be light. There are no holes and only one of the areas of damage included a gouge. Repairs including repainting have been undertaken by the tenant, but they have left a patchy finish.
- I determine the damage is careless damage.
- The landlord said that the damage was particularly noticeable because the premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy.
- I consider $6,2025.40 a very high amount to charge for these repairs. I have awarded an amount which I consider reasonable to compensate for the damage as presented in the photographs.
- The landlord is claiming $1,500.00 for damage to carpet in one bedroom and on two stairs. The landlord says the carpet in the bedroom has been flattened. There is also a pink stain. There are also dark stains on two stairs. The landlord’s claim is to replace the carpet in the bedroom and on the stairs.
- I consider replacing large areas of carpet is an extreme remedy for the damage as presented in the photographs. I determine the tenant is only responsible for the damage they have caused, and this can be remediated with more localised repairs. If the landlord wishes to replace larger areas of carpet that is their choice, but it is not a responsibility that sheets home to the tenant. I have awarded a lesser amount than claimed based on what I consider to be a realistic amount to undertake the smaller more local repairs, or alternatively, to compensate the landlord for their loss.
- The landlord claims the tenant has damaged the kitchen floor. The landlord produced three photographs which show two scratches, one which is approximately 80mm long and the other approximately 800mm long. The landlord also showed a photograph where a join in the flooring has failed.
- I am persuaded the two scratches amount to careless use. This claim is proved. I am not persuaded the failing join has been caused by careless use. This “damage” is on a weak point and my assessment is it looks more like a product or installation fault than careless damage. This claim is not proved.
- The landlord is claiming $1,263.85 for the floor repairs.
- I consider the two scratches are not serious enough to justify a large amount of flooring being replaced. The landlord is at liberty to undertake repairs as they see fit, but the tenant is only liable for the loss they have caused. I determine a lesser amount adequately compensates the landlord for this loss.
- The amounts ordered, based on my above determinations, are proved.
- The landlord is claiming $470.00 for a towel rail which they say has been knocked off the wall in the bathroom. The landlord produced a photograph in support which they say shows the bracket to be broken.
- This claim is proved.
- I determine the damage is careless damage.
- Because Mission Property Management Limited As Agents For Huicai Zhang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5385573 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Mission
How much money was awarded in case 5385573?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $178.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $410.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,441.98 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385573?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385573?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13371808-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.