What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5397269?

The tribunal order states: Vo Nhu Quynh, Tran Tuan, Nguyen Chi Linh, and Duong Manh Hung must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5397269?

Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Electrical Work: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,025.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and cu…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,983.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5397269?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5397269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13167157-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5397269?

The tribunal order states: Vo Nhu Quynh, Tran Tuan, Nguyen Chi Linh, and Duong Manh Hung must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5397269?

Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Electrical Work: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,025.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and cu…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,983.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5397269?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5397269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13167157-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Gibraltar Street, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5397269 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5397269 — net $6,410.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$862.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,983.75	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: curtains and curtains rails	$345.00	Replace furnishings: curtains and curtains rails
Electrical work	$575.00	Electrical work
Repairs	$4,025.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,410.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,410.68

Order

Vo Nhu Quynh, Tran Tuan, Nguyen Chi Linh, and Duong Manh Hung must pay A Cube Rentals Limited $ 6,410.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,408.57 to A Cube Rentals Limited immediately.

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 29 June 2025 and was periodic. 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 cleaning, rubbish removal, and 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. A direction was made that the landlord file all evidence on which they wished to rely on.
The evidence before the Tribunal is the same as that produced on the last occasion. There is no new evidence. The evidence comprises of a pre tenancy inspection report dated 29 June 2025, a report dated 25 November 2025, and a quote from contractor for $18,917.50 to repair the damage dated 03 December 2025.
Mr Brijesh also gave evidence. He stated that, although an insurance assessor had visited the property prior to the last hearing, the claim had not been finalised. This was the same explanation given by the property manager appearing on the last occasion. Mr Brijesh further 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 seven sections: i. Carpet and rubbish removal ($4,500.00 + GST). ii. Curtains and curtain rails for bedrooms one and two ($1,800.00 + GST). iii. Gib and plastering of walls and ceilings in bedrooms one, two, and the garage ($4,700.00 + GST). iv. Replacement of wallpaper in bedrooms one and two ($3,500.00 + GST). v. Electrical work ($1,200.00 + GST). vi. Cleaning ($750.00 + GST). 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 four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, lounge, laundry, and internal garage. The photographs show that the property retains most of its original fixtures and fittings including the carpet and decor.
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, and unsurprisingly in the circumstances given that the tenants were arrested, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish from the interior of the property.
The rubbish removal claim is combined with the carpet claim and is not itemised. I must therefore assess an appropriate amount to award. I award the landlord $1,725.00 to remove rubbish, which includes items associated with the cannabis cultivation.
I am also satisfied that the tenants have failed to leave the property reasonably clean. The amount claimed for cleaning is reasonable in the circumstances and awarded. Damage to carpet, curtains, and electrical work. Analysis and decision. Carpet
There is insufficient evidence to establish, to the required standard, that the carpet was damaged to the extent that it required replacement. While the photographs show that it required vacuuming, there is no evidence of obvious staining or soiling. Two bedrooms appeared to have been used as grow rooms, and the floors were covered with white plastic sheeting, and it is not possible to see the condition of the flooring beneath. Another bedroom has polished wooden floors with no apparent damage. In the remaining bedroom, the carpet can be seen and has not obvious damage. The claim relating to carpet damage and replacement is dismissed. Curtains
The curtains in three of the four bedrooms are ripped, and some curtain rails also appear to be damaged. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear and occurred in connection with an imprisonable offence. Curtains in residential rental properties have an expected lifespan of approximately eight years. Based on the pre tenancy photographs, while in reasonable condition, the curtains were nearing the end of their expected lifespan.
Although the landlord is entitled to be compensated for loss arising from a breach by the tenant, any compensation must be proportionate and supported by the evidence. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the claim for $1, 800.00 + GST to replace curtains and rails in the three affected rooms is justified. I adopt a starting point of $600.00 + GST, reduce that by 50% for betterment and depreciation, and award the landlord $300.00 + GST to replace curtains and curtain rails. Electrical
The tenant cut three circular holes in the ceiling through which ducting was installed. Although there are no photographs of inside the ceiling void, the tenant likely installed a ventilation system. Through one of the holes, electrical wiring is visible. I am satisfied that the tenant should be liable for removing any additional wiring. The claim is to remove any apparatus and wiring and check the electrical system. As with the curtains, based on the evidence awarding the full amount claimed is not justified. I award the landlord $500.00 + GST. Damage to walls, wallpaper, and ceilings Analysis and decision
There is a photograph of a large hole to a wall in the garage. The photographs also show four large circular holes, three in the ceiling and one in a wall, through which ducting has been installed. It also appears that the tenant has removed the ceiling in wardrobe to access the ceiling void. I am satisfied that this damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is intentional and more likely than not connected with an imprisonable offence.
Apart from the damage stated above there appears to be none other to walls. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the claim for $ 4,700.00 + GST to repair the damage is justified. The invoice is not itemised room by room. I am satisfied that to patch the holes and reinstate the ceiling in the wardrobe would reasonably fall within $3,500.00 + GST. I make no deduction for betterment as the claim is for gibbing and plastering the damaged areas only.
In relation to the claim for damage to the wallpaper in the two grow rooms, the photographs show it appears to be in the same condition it was at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim as it relates to wallpaper is declined. Costs
Because A Cube Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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 5397269 — net $6,410.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$862.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,983.75	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: curtains and curtains rails	$345.00	Replace furnishings: curtains and curtains rails
Electrical work	$575.00	Electrical work
Repairs	$4,025.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,410.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,410.68

Order

Vo Nhu Quynh, Tran Tuan, Nguyen Chi Linh, and Duong Manh Hung must pay A Cube Rentals Limited $ 6,410.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,408.57 to A Cube Rentals Limited immediately.

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 29 June 2025 and was periodic. 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 cleaning, rubbish removal, and 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. A direction was made that the landlord file all evidence on which they wished to rely on.
The evidence before the Tribunal is the same as that produced on the last occasion. There is no new evidence. The evidence comprises of a pre tenancy inspection report dated 29 June 2025, a report dated 25 November 2025, and a quote from contractor for $18,917.50 to repair the damage dated 03 December 2025.
Mr Brijesh also gave evidence. He stated that, although an insurance assessor had visited the property prior to the last hearing, the claim had not been finalised. This was the same explanation given by the property manager appearing on the last occasion. Mr Brijesh further 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 seven sections: i. Carpet and rubbish removal ($4,500.00 + GST). ii. Curtains and curtain rails for bedrooms one and two ($1,800.00 + GST). iii. Gib and plastering of walls and ceilings in bedrooms one, two, and the garage ($4,700.00 + GST). iv. Replacement of wallpaper in bedrooms one and two ($3,500.00 + GST). v. Electrical work ($1,200.00 + GST). vi. Cleaning ($750.00 + GST). 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 four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, lounge, laundry, and internal garage. The photographs show that the property retains most of its original fixtures and fittings including the carpet and decor.
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, and unsurprisingly in the circumstances given that the tenants were arrested, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish from the interior of the property.
The rubbish removal claim is combined with the carpet claim and is not itemised. I must therefore assess an appropriate amount to award. I award the landlord $1,725.00 to remove rubbish, which includes items associated with the cannabis cultivation.
I am also satisfied that the tenants have failed to leave the property reasonably clean. The amount claimed for cleaning is reasonable in the circumstances and awarded. Damage to carpet, curtains, and electrical work. Analysis and decision. Carpet
There is insufficient evidence to establish, to the required standard, that the carpet was damaged to the extent that it required replacement. While the photographs show that it required vacuuming, there is no evidence of obvious staining or soiling. Two bedrooms appeared to have been used as grow rooms, and the floors were covered with white plastic sheeting, and it is not possible to see the condition of the flooring beneath. Another bedroom has polished wooden floors with no apparent damage. In the remaining bedroom, the carpet can be seen and has not obvious damage. The claim relating to carpet damage and replacement is dismissed. Curtains
The curtains in three of the four bedrooms are ripped, and some curtain rails also appear to be damaged. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear and occurred in connection with an imprisonable offence. Curtains in residential rental properties have an expected lifespan of approximately eight years. Based on the pre tenancy photographs, while in reasonable condition, the curtains were nearing the end of their expected lifespan.
Although the landlord is entitled to be compensated for loss arising from a breach by the tenant, any compensation must be proportionate and supported by the evidence. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the claim for $1, 800.00 + GST to replace curtains and rails in the three affected rooms is justified. I adopt a starting point of $600.00 + GST, reduce that by 50% for betterment and depreciation, and award the landlord $300.00 + GST to replace curtains and curtain rails. Electrical
The tenant cut three circular holes in the ceiling through which ducting was installed. Although there are no photographs of inside the ceiling void, the tenant likely installed a ventilation system. Through one of the holes, electrical wiring is visible. I am satisfied that the tenant should be liable for removing any additional wiring. The claim is to remove any apparatus and wiring and check the electrical system. As with the curtains, based on the evidence awarding the full amount claimed is not justified. I award the landlord $500.00 + GST. Damage to walls, wallpaper, and ceilings Analysis and decision
There is a photograph of a large hole to a wall in the garage. The photographs also show four large circular holes, three in the ceiling and one in a wall, through which ducting has been installed. It also appears that the tenant has removed the ceiling in wardrobe to access the ceiling void. I am satisfied that this damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is intentional and more likely than not connected with an imprisonable offence.
Apart from the damage stated above there appears to be none other to walls. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the claim for $ 4,700.00 + GST to repair the damage is justified. The invoice is not itemised room by room. I am satisfied that to patch the holes and reinstate the ceiling in the wardrobe would reasonably fall within $3,500.00 + GST. I make no deduction for betterment as the claim is for gibbing and plastering the damaged areas only.
In relation to the claim for damage to the wallpaper in the two grow rooms, the photographs show it appears to be in the same condition it was at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim as it relates to wallpaper is declined. Costs
Because A Cube Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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 5397269 — Property damage at 22 Gibraltar Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5397269 — Property damage at 22 Gibraltar Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

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