Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5392599 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 58A Hills Road, Otara, Auckland 2023
Decided 10 March 2026 · Published 10 March 2026 · Application 5392599
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,566.73
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,566.73
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $270.12 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $690.25 | Rubbish removal | |
| Repairs: Carpet - hallway and living room | $443.00 | Repairs: Carpet - hallway and living room | |
| Repairs: Pantry | $42.88 | Repairs: Pantry | |
| Repairs: Wall remediation - patching and painting | $120.48 | Repairs: Wall remediation - patching and painting | |
| Net award | $1,566.73 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,566.73 |
Claims and awards for application 5392599 — net $1,566.73 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $270.12
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $690.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet - hallway and living room
- Amount
- $443.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Carpet - hallway and living room
Repairs: Pantry
- Amount
- $42.88
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Pantry
Repairs: Wall remediation - patching and painting
- Amount
- $120.48
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Wall remediation - patching and painting
Net award
Landlord $1,566.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,566.73
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Shanise Maize Rakena must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,566.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- On 19 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation following the end of the tenancy.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Maturan-Abuid, 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. Background of the tenancy
- The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2023 and was periodic.
- On 28 August 2025, the tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy effective 17 September 2025. Condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy
- The Tribunal was provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre-tenancy inspection report records that the property was provided in overall good condition. The additional notes state: “Average condition, 3x bedroom 2x storey duplex home with car port, minor stains in bedroom carpets, missing tv wire connections, sky tv aerial wire disconnected. Powers on and hot water working, WD interventions inside house, heat pump installed. Heater installed in the bedrooms.”
- The pre-tenancy inspection photographs were of a poor quality but showed show the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish with no visible defects.
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. Did the tenant return the kitchen cupboards and stove in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?
- The landlord seeks compensation of $270.12 after paying a contractor to clean the kitchen cupboards and stove to a reasonably clean and tidy standard at the end of the tenancy. A vacated works invoice showing the amount claimed was provided.
- The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs. This report shows that at the end of the tenancy the property was left in poor to average condition. With reference to the claim for cleaning costs, the landlord identified the following areas of concern in the photographs: a. The kitchen cupboards had not been completely emptied and a small amount of food remained. b. The kitchen cupboards had not been wiped out and were visibly marked with grime. c. The stovetop was soiled with food and grease. d. The oven had not been cleaned and the soiled with food and grease.
- 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. At the beginning of the tenancy the kitchen cupboards and stove were provided in a good clean condition. The end of tenancy photographs show the kitchen cupboards and stove were returned in a soiled and greasy condition. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return these areas in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the amount claimed is ordered.
Did the tenant remove all rubbish?
- The landlord seeks compensation of $690.25 after paying a contractor to remove all rubbish left behind at the property following the end of the tenancy. A vacated works invoice showing the amount claimed was provided.
- The exit inspection report notes the refuse and recycling bins were full and needed to be emptied. The landlord identified the following issues in the exit inspection photographs to prove their claim for rubbish removal costs: a. The tenant failed to remove bedding, clothing, boxes, rubbish and aerosol containers, shoes, a petrol can, a supermarket shopping basket, and pushchair from the laundry. b. The tenant failed to remove a floor to ceiling pile of cardboard boxes from the area outside the laundry door. Included in that pile of cardboard were children’s toys, pots, and large plastic items. c. Outside the tenant failed to remove a child’s bike and toy motorbike, yoga mat, a broken chest of draws, road cone, a car tyre and general household rubbish. The Tribunal heard the landlord paid to remove and dump (including labour costs) three cubic metres of rubbish from the property at the end of the tenancy.
- 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 the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, as specified in paragraph [17 a-c] and 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 in the following amounts for damage they say was caused during the tenancy: a. Heavy staining – possibly oil – on the hallway carpet - $67 b. Heavy staining to the living room carpet - $376.00 c. Hole in the lower pantry door - $42.88 d. Hole in the wall above the skirting board in the dining room - $40.16 e. Hole and tear in the surface of the plasterboard in the laundry wall by the door - $40.16 f. Large concave area of wall damage in bedroom 3 by the wall heater - $40.16
- A vacated works invoice showing the amount claimed was provided.
- The landlord relied on the exit inspection photographs to prove the damage. The landlord said that wall and pantry door damage required patching and painting. The landlord said the carpet had to be replaced after commercial cleaning failed to remove the stains. The total cost of replacing the carpet in the living room was $625.61 and the total replacement cost for the hallway carpet was $111.22. The carpet was 2.5 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord said the amount claimed for carpet replacement was reduced to take account of betterment and depreciation.
- The Tribunal was able to properly compare the entry and exit inspection reports and photographs showing the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the damage identified in paragraph [24 a-f] occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
- 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. Other matters
- Despite being wholly successful the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Despite being wholly successful 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
s2, s29, s3, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- 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 5392599?
The tribunal order states: Shanise Maize Rakena must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities
How much money was awarded in case 5392599?
Cleaning: $270.12 awarded to landlord; Carpet - Hallway And Living Room: $443.00 awarded to landlord; Pantry: $42.88 awarded to landlord; Wall remediation - patching and pain…: $120.48 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $690.25 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392599?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392599?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13257460-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.