What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399908 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5399908?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399908?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13273009-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399908 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5399908?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399908?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13273009-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18B Calvert Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399908 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399908 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,500.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mohit Singla $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

This is a landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the premises following the end of a tenancy. The landlord seeks recovery of repair costs said to arise from damage caused by the tenants during the tenancy.
A hearing was held by video conference. The landlord attended. The tenants did not attend. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was properly served on the tenants. In the absence of any explanation for the tenants’ non-attendance, and being satisfied that service was effected, I proceeded with the hearing in their absence. Background
The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2022. The tenants vacated the property on 22 October 2025 after occupying the premises for approximately three years and eight months.
The landlord submitted that the property was newly built at the commencement of the tenancy.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord completed an outgoing inspection and prepared an inspection report accompanied by photographs. The landlord submits that the inspection identified extensive damage throughout the property.
The landlord states that the tenants were aware of the damage before vacating and had indicated that they would arrange repairs. However, no repairs were undertaken prior to vacating the premises. Claims by the Landlord
The landlord seeks compensation for repair costs totalling $3,700.00. The repair invoice includes: wall, ceiling and door painting $2,608.70, filling and painting holes $434.78, entry door repainting $173.91, GST $482.61, Total $3,700.00.
The bond held for the tenancy was $3,180.00. The landlord confirmed that the tenants vacated owing rent arrears of $1,143.14. This amount was deducted from the bond.
The remaining bond balance of $2,036.86 was applied toward the repair invoice. The landlord therefore seeks the outstanding balance of $1,663.14. Evidence of Damage
The outgoing inspection report and photographs show a number of areas of damage throughout the property. These include dents and scratches on the front door and door frame, multiple gouges, dents and scratches to internal walls, holes in walls and doors including in the stairwell, bedrooms and ensuite, and numerous blackened marks on walls and ceilings.
The landlord submitted that some of the blackened ceiling marks were caused by candle smoke, as acknowledged by the tenants.
The evidence also shows numerous holes in walls where fixtures had been installed and removed, together with significant scuffing and damage to paintwork across several areas of the property, including the garage, laundry and stairwell. Legal Framework
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
However, tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear resulting from ordinary use of the premises over time. Fair wear and tear reflects the natural deterioration that occurs through normal living in a property.
Where damage exceeds fair wear and tear and results from careless or intentional conduct, the tenant may be liable for the reasonable cost of repairing that damage.
The landlord bears the onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. Evidence such as inspection reports, photographs, and repair invoices are relevant to establishing such claims.
Even where liability is established, the Tribunal must consider depreciation and betterment. A landlord is not entitled to recover the cost of providing an item in a better condition than it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Allowance must therefore be made for the age and expected lifespan of items such as paintwork. Assessment
Having considered the evidence provided, including the inspection report, photographs, and repair invoice, I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenants caused damage to the premises that exceeds fair wear and tear.
While some minor scuffing and marks can reasonably occur during a tenancy of nearly four years, the extent and nature of the damage shown in the evidence goes beyond ordinary use of the premises.
The presence of numerous holes in walls and doors, gouges and dents in multiple areas, and smoke staining to ceilings from candles indicates damage requiring repair and repainting.
I therefore accept that the landlord incurred costs to remedy the damage following the end of the tenancy.
However, the property had been occupied for three years and eight months. Paintwork naturally deteriorates during normal occupation. When repainting is required following damage, it is necessary to account for the fact that the paint would not have remained in as-new condition indefinitely.
The Tribunal must therefore apply an allowance for depreciation to ensure the landlord is not placed in a better position than they would have been had the damage not occurred.
Taking this into account, I consider it appropriate to reduce the claim to reflect the depreciation of the paintwork over the course of the tenancy. Conclusion
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenants caused damage to the premises exceeding fair wear and tear and that repair work was required as a result.
However, after applying a reasonable allowance for depreciation, the full amount claimed is not justified.
Of the $1,663.14 claimed by the landlord after application of the bond, the Tribunal awards the sum of $1,500.00.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399908 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,500.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mohit Singla $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

This is a landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the premises following the end of a tenancy. The landlord seeks recovery of repair costs said to arise from damage caused by the tenants during the tenancy.
A hearing was held by video conference. The landlord attended. The tenants did not attend. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was properly served on the tenants. In the absence of any explanation for the tenants’ non-attendance, and being satisfied that service was effected, I proceeded with the hearing in their absence. Background
The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2022. The tenants vacated the property on 22 October 2025 after occupying the premises for approximately three years and eight months.
The landlord submitted that the property was newly built at the commencement of the tenancy.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord completed an outgoing inspection and prepared an inspection report accompanied by photographs. The landlord submits that the inspection identified extensive damage throughout the property.
The landlord states that the tenants were aware of the damage before vacating and had indicated that they would arrange repairs. However, no repairs were undertaken prior to vacating the premises. Claims by the Landlord
The landlord seeks compensation for repair costs totalling $3,700.00. The repair invoice includes: wall, ceiling and door painting $2,608.70, filling and painting holes $434.78, entry door repainting $173.91, GST $482.61, Total $3,700.00.
The bond held for the tenancy was $3,180.00. The landlord confirmed that the tenants vacated owing rent arrears of $1,143.14. This amount was deducted from the bond.
The remaining bond balance of $2,036.86 was applied toward the repair invoice. The landlord therefore seeks the outstanding balance of $1,663.14. Evidence of Damage
The outgoing inspection report and photographs show a number of areas of damage throughout the property. These include dents and scratches on the front door and door frame, multiple gouges, dents and scratches to internal walls, holes in walls and doors including in the stairwell, bedrooms and ensuite, and numerous blackened marks on walls and ceilings.
The landlord submitted that some of the blackened ceiling marks were caused by candle smoke, as acknowledged by the tenants.
The evidence also shows numerous holes in walls where fixtures had been installed and removed, together with significant scuffing and damage to paintwork across several areas of the property, including the garage, laundry and stairwell. Legal Framework
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
However, tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear resulting from ordinary use of the premises over time. Fair wear and tear reflects the natural deterioration that occurs through normal living in a property.
Where damage exceeds fair wear and tear and results from careless or intentional conduct, the tenant may be liable for the reasonable cost of repairing that damage.
The landlord bears the onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. Evidence such as inspection reports, photographs, and repair invoices are relevant to establishing such claims.
Even where liability is established, the Tribunal must consider depreciation and betterment. A landlord is not entitled to recover the cost of providing an item in a better condition than it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Allowance must therefore be made for the age and expected lifespan of items such as paintwork. Assessment
Having considered the evidence provided, including the inspection report, photographs, and repair invoice, I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenants caused damage to the premises that exceeds fair wear and tear.
While some minor scuffing and marks can reasonably occur during a tenancy of nearly four years, the extent and nature of the damage shown in the evidence goes beyond ordinary use of the premises.
The presence of numerous holes in walls and doors, gouges and dents in multiple areas, and smoke staining to ceilings from candles indicates damage requiring repair and repainting.
I therefore accept that the landlord incurred costs to remedy the damage following the end of the tenancy.
However, the property had been occupied for three years and eight months. Paintwork naturally deteriorates during normal occupation. When repainting is required following damage, it is necessary to account for the fact that the paint would not have remained in as-new condition indefinitely.
The Tribunal must therefore apply an allowance for depreciation to ensure the landlord is not placed in a better position than they would have been had the damage not occurred.
Taking this into account, I consider it appropriate to reduce the claim to reflect the depreciation of the paintwork over the course of the tenancy. Conclusion
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenants caused damage to the premises exceeding fair wear and tear and that repair work was required as a result.
However, after applying a reasonable allowance for depreciation, the full amount claimed is not justified.
Of the $1,663.14 claimed by the landlord after application of the bond, the Tribunal awards the sum of $1,500.00.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399908 — Property damage at 18B Calvert Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399908 — Property damage at 18B Calvert Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

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