What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5397208?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $874.29 to A Cube Rentals Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5397208?

Rubbish Removal: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,587.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Ceiling: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5397208?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5397208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13176259-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5397208?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $874.29 to A Cube Rentals Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5397208?

Rubbish Removal: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,587.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Ceiling: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5397208?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5397208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13176259-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Porchester Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5397208 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5397208 — net $8,733.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$1,092.50	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Repairs: lounge ceiling	$3,450.00	Repairs: lounge ceiling
Repairs rooms	$3,450.00	Repairs rooms
Replacement carpet hallway	$1,587.00	Replacement carpet hallway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,733.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,733.21

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $874.29 to A Cube Rentals Limited as Agent for Tajit Khanna immediately.
Voong Thi Viet Anh, Thi Huong Nguyen, and Nguyen van Kiet must pay A Cube Rentals Limited as Agent for Tajit Khanna $8,733.21 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Brijesh appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
This decision may be read alongside the previous one dated 05 December 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 03 November 2025 for a fixed term ending 03 November 2026. On 25 November 2025, the landlord discovered that the tenant had been using the property for an unlawful purpose, namely cultivating cannabis, and had been arrested by police. On 26 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim for termination on the basis that the tenant had failed to remedy a 14-day notice for rent arrears and abandonment. On 05 December 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted the landlord immediate possession of the property. The Tribunal awarded the landlord rent arrears to termination and partial refund of the bond with the balance remaining with the Bond Centre.
Prior to the hearing, the landlord had filed additional evidence in support of a claim for compensation for damage. There was insufficient time to hear the additional claim, and the application had also not been amended. The application was subsequently amended and adjourned. Directions were made requiring the landlord to file all evidence on which they intended to rely.
Initially, the evidence before the Tribunal was the same as that produced on the last occasion. There was no new evidence. The evidence comprised of a pre tenancy inspection report dated 29 June 2025, a report dated 25 November 2025, and a quote from a contractor dated 03 December 2025 for $32,602.50 to repair the damage.
During the hearing, the landlord produced two short videos showing the inside of the property taken on 03 November 2025, together with additional photographs of the roof and ceiling in the lounge.
Mr Brijesh also gave evidence. He stated that, although an insurance assessor had visited the property, the claim had not been finalised. This was the same explanation given by the property manager at the previous hearing. Mr Brijesh stated that the insurance assessor is awaiting the outcome of this claim. No remedial work has been completed, and it appears the property remains vacant.
The quote produced is itemised into six sections: i. Remove and replace carpet in the hallway, lounge, and bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 ($6,900.00 + GST). ii. Gib, plaster, and paint hallway, lounge, and bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 ($6,500.00). iii. Electrical work in the hallway, lounge, and bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 (replace damaged light fittings, remove additional wiring, check) ($3,000.00 + GST). iv. Repair lounge ceiling, replace damaged roof tiles, and repair guttering ($9,000.00). v. Replace insulation ($2,000.00). vi. Cleaning and rubbish removal ($950.00). Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the act or omission constituting the breach of the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Cleaning and rubbish removal Analysis and decision
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
In reaching my decision, I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
The property was built in the 1970s and comprises of three bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, lounge, laundry, and internal garage. The photographs show that the property has been renovated and modernised.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and remove all rubbish requires an independent assessment of the evidence.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish from the interior of the property and failed to leave the property reasonably clean.
The amount claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal is awarded. Damage to carpet, walls, electrical work., lounge ceiling, roof, insulation. Analysis and decision Carpet
The only area of carpet shown in the end-of-tenancy report is the hallway, which has a large stain. In all other rooms, the floor is covered with white plastic sheeting. I am satisfied that the carpet in the hallway was damaged during the tenancy, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it is more likely than not connected to the imprisonable offence of cultivating cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. However, I cannot be satisfied that the evidence supports the claim in respect of the other areas. The quote is not broken-down room by room. I have divided the quote amount across the five rooms referenced being the hallway, lounge, and three bedrooms and award the landlord $1,380.00 + GST. The carpet appears relatively new at the commencement of the tenancy and in reasonable condition, accordingly, no deduction for betterment is made. Walls, doors, ceilings, vinyl flooring
Having considered the pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports, I am satisfied the following damage has occurred during the tenancy: three internal doors removed off their hinges (a wardrobe sliding door was off its runners ate the commencement of the tenancy), circular holes cut into the ceiling in the wardrobes of bedroom one, two, and three, and vinyl flooring in the laundry. In the three rooms used to cultivate cannabis guide wires have been installed along the ceilings to either support the plants or ducting. I am satisfied that this damage was damaged during the tenancy, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it is more likely than not connected to the imprisonable offence of cultivating cannabis.
However, there is no obvious damage to walls shown in the photographs produced. The stickers on the bathroom door were present at the commencement of the tenancy and are recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report.
The photographic evidence does not demonstrate the damage to be significant. The evidence produced to support the claim is insufficient. As the quote is not itemised room by room, the Tribunal must therefore assess reasonable compensation. I am satisfied that to patch the circular holes, reinstate the doors, repair the floor in the laundry, and complete the other minor repairs would reasonably fall within $3,000.00 + GST. Electrical work
There is no evidence of any additional wiring. The claim is dismissed. Ceiling and roof, insulation
The ceiling in the lounge has been damaged. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it is more likely than not connected to the imprisonable offence of cultivating cannabis. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for damage to the roof tiles or guttering. There is no obvious damage shown in the photographs. Similarly, it is unclear what damage has occurred to the insulation or how the tenant is responsible for it. The landlord is claiming $9,000.00 + GST to repair the ceiling and roof. The Tribunal must assess reasonable compensation. I assess the ceiling repair component as approximately one third of the quoted amount and award the landlord $3,000.00 + GST. Costs
The landlord has been substantially successful, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression, and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5397208 — net $8,733.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$1,092.50	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Repairs: lounge ceiling	$3,450.00	Repairs: lounge ceiling
Repairs rooms	$3,450.00	Repairs rooms
Replacement carpet hallway	$1,587.00	Replacement carpet hallway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,733.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,733.21

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $874.29 to A Cube Rentals Limited as Agent for Tajit Khanna immediately.
Voong Thi Viet Anh, Thi Huong Nguyen, and Nguyen van Kiet must pay A Cube Rentals Limited as Agent for Tajit Khanna $8,733.21 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Brijesh appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
This decision may be read alongside the previous one dated 05 December 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 03 November 2025 for a fixed term ending 03 November 2026. On 25 November 2025, the landlord discovered that the tenant had been using the property for an unlawful purpose, namely cultivating cannabis, and had been arrested by police. On 26 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim for termination on the basis that the tenant had failed to remedy a 14-day notice for rent arrears and abandonment. On 05 December 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted the landlord immediate possession of the property. The Tribunal awarded the landlord rent arrears to termination and partial refund of the bond with the balance remaining with the Bond Centre.
Prior to the hearing, the landlord had filed additional evidence in support of a claim for compensation for damage. There was insufficient time to hear the additional claim, and the application had also not been amended. The application was subsequently amended and adjourned. Directions were made requiring the landlord to file all evidence on which they intended to rely.
Initially, the evidence before the Tribunal was the same as that produced on the last occasion. There was no new evidence. The evidence comprised of a pre tenancy inspection report dated 29 June 2025, a report dated 25 November 2025, and a quote from a contractor dated 03 December 2025 for $32,602.50 to repair the damage.
During the hearing, the landlord produced two short videos showing the inside of the property taken on 03 November 2025, together with additional photographs of the roof and ceiling in the lounge.
Mr Brijesh also gave evidence. He stated that, although an insurance assessor had visited the property, the claim had not been finalised. This was the same explanation given by the property manager at the previous hearing. Mr Brijesh stated that the insurance assessor is awaiting the outcome of this claim. No remedial work has been completed, and it appears the property remains vacant.
The quote produced is itemised into six sections: i. Remove and replace carpet in the hallway, lounge, and bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 ($6,900.00 + GST). ii. Gib, plaster, and paint hallway, lounge, and bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 ($6,500.00). iii. Electrical work in the hallway, lounge, and bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 (replace damaged light fittings, remove additional wiring, check) ($3,000.00 + GST). iv. Repair lounge ceiling, replace damaged roof tiles, and repair guttering ($9,000.00). v. Replace insulation ($2,000.00). vi. Cleaning and rubbish removal ($950.00). Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the act or omission constituting the breach of the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Cleaning and rubbish removal Analysis and decision
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
In reaching my decision, I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
The property was built in the 1970s and comprises of three bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, lounge, laundry, and internal garage. The photographs show that the property has been renovated and modernised.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and remove all rubbish requires an independent assessment of the evidence.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish from the interior of the property and failed to leave the property reasonably clean.
The amount claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal is awarded. Damage to carpet, walls, electrical work., lounge ceiling, roof, insulation. Analysis and decision Carpet
The only area of carpet shown in the end-of-tenancy report is the hallway, which has a large stain. In all other rooms, the floor is covered with white plastic sheeting. I am satisfied that the carpet in the hallway was damaged during the tenancy, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it is more likely than not connected to the imprisonable offence of cultivating cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. However, I cannot be satisfied that the evidence supports the claim in respect of the other areas. The quote is not broken-down room by room. I have divided the quote amount across the five rooms referenced being the hallway, lounge, and three bedrooms and award the landlord $1,380.00 + GST. The carpet appears relatively new at the commencement of the tenancy and in reasonable condition, accordingly, no deduction for betterment is made. Walls, doors, ceilings, vinyl flooring
Having considered the pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports, I am satisfied the following damage has occurred during the tenancy: three internal doors removed off their hinges (a wardrobe sliding door was off its runners ate the commencement of the tenancy), circular holes cut into the ceiling in the wardrobes of bedroom one, two, and three, and vinyl flooring in the laundry. In the three rooms used to cultivate cannabis guide wires have been installed along the ceilings to either support the plants or ducting. I am satisfied that this damage was damaged during the tenancy, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it is more likely than not connected to the imprisonable offence of cultivating cannabis.
However, there is no obvious damage to walls shown in the photographs produced. The stickers on the bathroom door were present at the commencement of the tenancy and are recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report.
The photographic evidence does not demonstrate the damage to be significant. The evidence produced to support the claim is insufficient. As the quote is not itemised room by room, the Tribunal must therefore assess reasonable compensation. I am satisfied that to patch the circular holes, reinstate the doors, repair the floor in the laundry, and complete the other minor repairs would reasonably fall within $3,000.00 + GST. Electrical work
There is no evidence of any additional wiring. The claim is dismissed. Ceiling and roof, insulation
The ceiling in the lounge has been damaged. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it is more likely than not connected to the imprisonable offence of cultivating cannabis. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for damage to the roof tiles or guttering. There is no obvious damage shown in the photographs. Similarly, it is unclear what damage has occurred to the insulation or how the tenant is responsible for it. The landlord is claiming $9,000.00 + GST to repair the ceiling and roof. The Tribunal must assess reasonable compensation. I assess the ceiling repair component as approximately one third of the quoted amount and award the landlord $3,000.00 + GST. Costs
The landlord has been substantially successful, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5397208 — Property damage at 47 Porchester Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5397208 — Property damage at 47 Porchester Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions