Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5389262 — Property damage at 43 Cornwall Street, Watlington, Timaru 7910
Decided 8 March 2026 · Published 8 March 2026 · Application 5389262
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Timaru
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,149.14
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,149.14
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 2 October 2025 | $62.14 | Rent arrears (to 2 October 2025 | |
| Rubbish removal | $2,112.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Cleaning: exterior shed | $57.00 | Cleaning: exterior shed | |
| Cleaning: kitchen rangehood | $52.00 | Cleaning: kitchen rangehood | |
| Repairs: carpet replacement | $263.00 | Repairs: carpet replacement | |
| Repairs: exterior fence | $524.00 | Repairs: exterior fence | |
| Repairs: patch and paint walls | $920.00 | Repairs: patch and paint walls | |
| Repairs: wooden window frame | $159.00 | Repairs: wooden window frame | |
| Net award | $4,149.14 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,149.14 |
Claims and awards for application 5389262 — net $4,149.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears (to 2 October 2025
- Amount
- $62.14
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears (to 2 October 2025
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $2,112.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Cleaning: exterior shed
- Amount
- $57.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: exterior shed
Cleaning: kitchen rangehood
- Amount
- $52.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: kitchen rangehood
Repairs: carpet replacement
- Amount
- $263.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: carpet replacement
Repairs: exterior fence
- Amount
- $524.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: exterior fence
Repairs: patch and paint walls
- Amount
- $920.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: patch and paint walls
Repairs: wooden window frame
- Amount
- $159.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: wooden window frame
Net award
Landlord $4,149.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,149.14
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Norina Jean Poi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,149.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- On 14 November 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Alex Temu, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- 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.
- 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. History of the tenancy
- The tenancy commenced on 8 May 2023 and was periodic.
- On 28 September 2025, the tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy.
- The tenancy ended on 2 October 2025.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $62.14. The amount claimed is 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) of the Act.
- The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal costs in the following amounts: a. Rubbish removal costs - $2,112.00 b. Garden shed clean - $57.00 c. Kitchen rangehood filters - $52.00 An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
- The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The report documents the property was: “tidy property and no issues. Presentation is beautiful. Lots of heating. Still waiting on heater for bedroom one. Section tidy and maintained”. The photographs show the property was provided in a good clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and damage. Rubbish
- The landlord stated that they were required to collect, remove and dump 12 cubic meters of rubbish from the property following the end of the tenancy. This included the removal of a caravan (not towable), steel fencing, furniture, push bikes, pallets, and general waste. The landlord said the outside shed needed to be pressure washed as a dog had been living inside it.
- The landlord provided exit inspection photographs which showed the following: a. General waste left piled on top of the bins. b. A bed, chairs and general waste piled up outside. c. A push bike and steel frame. d. A very old caravan carcass without windows or wheels, wood and pallets left on the lawn and hidden in the garden. e. A stell drum incinerator containing rubbish. f. Dog fencing.
- The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having reviewed the evidence and heard from the landlord the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is proved. Garden shed
- The pre-tenancy inspection photographs show the garden shed was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
- The end of tenancy photographs show the shed had not been emptied and contained a dog bed, dog bowl, bone, plastic milk bottles and rubbish and the area appeared to be dirty.
- Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the evidence the Tribunal finds that the garden shed was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and required pressure washing. The amount claimed is ordered. Kitchen rangehood filters
- The pre-tenancy inspection photographs provided showed the rangehood filters were provided in a good clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The end of tenancy photographs showed the filters were marked and streaked.
- The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the filters at the beginning and end of the tenancy and finds that they were not returned in a reasonably clean condition and required additional cleaning. The amount claimed is ordered.
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 of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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 seeks compensation for damage they say occurred during the tenant in the following amounts: a. Carpet replacement - $263.00 b. Fence repairs - $524.00 c. Patching and painting walls - $920.00 d. Repairing wooden window frames - $159.00
- The Tribunal has already outlined at paragraph [14] that the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and damage.
- The end of tenancy inspection photographs show: a. The carpets in bedroom two were extensively and heavily stained with large black and brown marks. The Tribunal heard the staining was so ingrained it could not be removed with professional carpet cleaning and was caused by a dog being kept in the room and excreting inside the property. b. The carpets in bedroom three were stained. Again the Tribunal heard the staining was so ingrained it could not be removed with professional carpet cleaning. c. The fencing at the front of the property had been removed by the tenant and a gate installed. The fence was not supported, and the Tribunal was told it was structurally unsound and had to be rebuilt. d. There was a hole in the laundry wall near the light switch. The Tribunal was told the hole required patching and the wall required repainting to hide the repair. e. The living room wall had a large sticker attached. The Tribunal was told that the wall required repainting after the sticker was removed to cover the damage caused in the removal process. f. There was a very large plaster patch in the hallway which required repainting. g. Something had been imbedded into the wall of bedroom two which required removal, plaster patching and painting. h. The walls in bedroom three had been repaired but there were large areas that required prepping and painting to cover the damage. i. The wooden window frame in the dining room had chew marks in two places and required repairing and painting.
- The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal finds that the damage identified in paragraphs [31 (a) – (i)] was caused during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
- The Tribunal heard that the carpet in the property was two and a half years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord had responsibly deducted depreciation from the amount of compensation claimed and this was reflected in the scope of work costs and tenant’s statement of final account which was provided.
- I have taken 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 Tribunal makes no deductions from the amount claimed for betterment and depreciation. The landlord had adjusted the amounts claimed to reflect depreciation for the cost of carpet. The repair costs sought were only those incurred to return the property to a reasonable condition. The amounts claimed are ordered. Other matters
- Despite being wholly successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
- The landlord did not seek name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s21, s3, s36, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389262?
The tribunal order states: Norina Jean Poi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,149.14
How much money was awarded in case 5389262?
Cleaning: $57.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $52.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $62.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Fence: $524.00 awarded to landlord; Patch And Paint Walls: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Window Frame: $159.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,112.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389262?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389262?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13239682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.