Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5394542 — Property damage at 35 Baycroft Avenue, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112
Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5394542
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Tauranga
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $55,991.83
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $55,991.83
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 June 2025 | $3,775.71 | Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 | |
| Water rates to 23 May 2025 | $880.13 | Water rates to 23 May 2025 | |
| Replace furnishings: Flooring | $7,000.00 | Replace furnishings: Flooring | |
| Repairs: Damages | $39,023.80 | Repairs: Damages | |
| Window repairs | $967.39 | Window repairs | |
| Cleaning | $1,466.25 | Cleaning | |
| Lawns and garden work | $920.00 | Lawns and garden work | |
| Lock/key replacement | $388.70 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Pest control | $245.00 | Pest control | |
| Rubbish removal | $1,269.85 | Rubbish removal | |
| Previous tribunal fee | $27.00 | Previous tribunal fee | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $55,991.83 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $55,991.83 |
Claims and awards for application 5394542 — net $55,991.83 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 2 June 2025
- Amount
- $3,775.71
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 2 June 2025
Water rates to 23 May 2025
- Amount
- $880.13
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates to 23 May 2025
Replace furnishings: Flooring
- Amount
- $7,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Flooring
Repairs: Damages
- Amount
- $39,023.80
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Damages
Window repairs
- Amount
- $967.39
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Window repairs
Cleaning
- Amount
- $1,466.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Lawns and garden work
- Amount
- $920.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and garden work
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $388.70
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Pest control
- Amount
- $245.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Pest control
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $1,269.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Previous tribunal fee
- Amount
- $27.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Previous tribunal fee
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $55,991.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $55,991.83
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Fogaseuga Poe must pay Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Shane Thomson $55,991.83 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and the hearing proceeding in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 2 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $3,775.71 for rent and $880.13 for water at the end of the tenancy.
- 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 says that the tenant did not leave the premises (both interior and exterior) reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish and condition of the property also resulted in pest control issues that required eradication. The landlord advises that the cleaners were unable to enter the property until the pest control was carried out, and that cockroaches were the predominant issue. This was exacerbated by piles of used nappies left at the property, resulting in a serious health and safety issue for the contractors. Photographs and evidence of costs have been provided.
- The landlord claims for cleaning costs of $1,466.25, rubbish removal of $1,269.85 (being for four disposal loads), pest control of $245.00 and lawns and gardens work of $920.00.
- The tenant also did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord was required to change the locks at the invoiced cost of $388.70.
- On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- There was also a Tribunal fee of $27.00 incurred for a previous Tribunal application where a mediated order was issued for rent arrears. This has not been enforced and is included in this order for ease of enforcement.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
The law
- 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. Claimed damages
- The landlord claims for extensive damage throughout the property, including for: a. Flooring. The landlord says that due to extensive damage to the carpet, repairs were not possible. The damage included staining throughout and a large hole that appears to have been cut in one of the bedrooms. Additionally, the vinyl was damaged with staining throughout that was unable to be cleaned off. The landlord claims for the total invoiced cost of $18,596.00. The landlord submits that the carpet was very tidy but was not brand new. The vinyl was said to be more than seven years old. There was no insurance available for this damage. b. Other damages. The landlord says that repair works were required throughout the property totalling $61,898.18. The damage included the top leaner on the kitchen island being ripped off (and left in the laundry), sludge on walls and ceilings, large rips and/or holes across walls and all doors were either missing or damaged. To the exterior, the landlord says that downpipes were ripped down, there were smashed gutters and panels that appear to have been kicked in at the front fence. Although the items at the property, including the kitchen, were not brand new, they were in good condition at the start of the tenancy. Again, there was no insurance available for this damage. c. Glass replacement. The landlord claims for three broken windows at the property totalling $967.39 in repair costs.
- The landlord has provided a pre-tenancy inspection report, routine inspections, and post tenancy inspection report as well as evidence on costings for the repair works.
- The landlord carried out a routine inspection in January 2025 and although this identified some tidiness issues, there was nothing major reported. However, at the final inspection in May 2025, the condition of the property had changed dramatically, with extensive damage. As the damage was caused in such a short space of time, the landlord considers that it all must be intentional, as that is the only way the level of damage could have occurred.
- A police report was filed in respect of the property damage and provided as evidence. Glass replacement
- Photographs have been provided of the broken windows at the end of the tenancy, and I consider that the amount ordered is proved. Flooring
- The replacement cost for the carpet and vinyl flooring was $18,596.00. Unfortunately, the invoice does not itemise between the carpet and vinyl. I have assumed the vinyl is likely to be cheaper, and have therefore split the amounts, with the vinyl being forty percent of the total invoice and the carpet being sixty percent of the final invoice (roughly $7,438.00 for vinyl and $11,157.00 for carpet).
- For the carpet, this was for the downstairs dining room, hallways, 3 bedrooms, upstairs lounge and hallway. For the vinyl, this was for the kitchen laundry, toilet, bathroom, entry area and ensuite.
- On review of the evidence, it is noted in the final inspection that the carpet will not be remedied with a wash and although the photographs show some marking, it is difficult to locate all staining with the remaining scattered rubbish.
- The inspection reports note that there was some orange staining to the kitchen vinyl prior to the tenancy.
- Given the general condition of the property, it is more likely that not that the vinyl and carpet were damaged during the tenancy, and I have no evidence to the contrary.
- Considering the age of the vinyl, some pre-existing damage, and some damage that could likely be considered fair wear and tear, I award $1,500.00 towards the vinyl replacement. The vinyl was more than seven years old at the commencement of the tenancy and would have depreciated significantly in terms of value.
- In respect of the carpet, I award $5,500.00. Although the carpet was said to be in tidy condition, it was not brand new at the commencement of the tenancy, and some wear and tear would be expected during the tenancy together with depreciation in value. Other damages
- Further details on this claim have been included in the final inspection and the repair invoice.
- The invoice has been itemised and provides full details on the required repair works. The kitchen bench is itemised at $6,500.70 (including GST), interior decorating at $24,520.52 (including GST and removal of all wallpaper throughout, application of skim coat of plaster to affected wall surfaces, filling/sanding in preparation to all GIB and timber surfaces, exterior damages at $2,936.64 (including GST) and interior repairs at $27,192.82 (including GST). There is also an additional amount of $747.00 (including GST) for rubbish removal after the works.
- The interior repairs are extensive and include repair and replacement to all doors, removal or GIB coving and ceiling tiles for repair (and general ceiling repair throughout), holes in walls repairs throughout the property, supply and replacement of missing balusters from staircase and replacement of a damaged vanity.
- This damage is self-evident from the photographs.
- I award the $3,000.00 for the replacement kitchen bench. Based on the photographs, this damage was clearly intentional. However, the awarded amount is reduced to reflect that it was not new at the commencement of the tenancy and has been replaced with a new kitchen island and benchtops.
- I award $17,000.00 towards the interior decorating works, deducted to reflect some fair wear and tear and works that were carried out for completeness rather than as a direct result of the tenant’s actions. The extensive number of holes at the property and drawings, again, in my view, can only be considered intentional.
- In respect of the exterior damages, I award half of this to reflect intentional or careless damage. It is not completely clear whether some of this work was required due to degradation of exterior elements, or as part of usual maintenance. The amount of $1,276.80 is awarded.
- In respect of the internal repairs, I have deducted the replacement vanity, and some for repairs that arise from fair wear and tear (for example, water damage to the shelf at the end of the bath where it is not clear if it was caused intentionally or through normal use). The amount of $17,000.00 is awarded.
- There was an additional amount of $747.00 for rubbish removal after the works and I consider this was reasonable considering the intentional damage at the property, and consequential works, and this is also awarded.
- The total amount awarded towards this invoice is therefore $39,023.80.
- I have considered betterment and depreciation in consideration of all amounts ordered. 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. Summary
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Extensive damage to flooring, walls, doors, ceiling, kitchen, bathroom, exterior, stairwell and exterior. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- Because Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Shane Thomson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 12 March 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s18, s30, s40(1), s40(2), s49B, 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 the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394542?
The tribunal order states: Fogaseuga Poe must pay Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Shane
How much money was awarded in case 5394542?
Cleaning: $1,466.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Tribunal Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $967.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $388.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,775.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39,023.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Flooring: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,269.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $880.13 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394542?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394542?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13118731-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.