What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401234 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5401234?

Cleaning: $50.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $516.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401234?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13196847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401234 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5401234?

Cleaning: $50.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $516.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401234?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13196847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401234 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401234 — net $254.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Rangehood	$50.50	Cleaning: Rangehood
Repairs (missing drawers	$516.22	Repairs (missing drawers
Net award	$254.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$254.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $254.72 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord had originally applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
However, at the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears, and therefore rent was not considered as part of this order.

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 claims for a small amount of cleaning required to the rangehood, where the filters were required to be cleaned. They did carry out further cleaning at the property but only claim for $50.50 for the rangehood cleaning.
The tenant says that she did clean and tidy the house, and believed it was left reasonably clean and tidy. She also says she was advised by her housing manager that it did not need to be perfect.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and it is obvious that the tenant did carry out cleaning throughout the property. From the photographs I can see that the filters in the rangehood likely required some further cleaning to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy and the amount ordered appears reasonable for this and is proved.

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 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.
The landlord claims for repairs to: a. A broken cabinet drawer in the bathroom of $258.11. b. A missing kitchen cabinet kick panel of $37.84. c. A kitchen drawer replacement of $258.11 (reusing hardware).
Photographs and evidence of the repair costs have been provided.
The tenant says that any damage was reasonable wear and tear given the length of time she was living in the property. She says that some things had broken off, but she had left the materials there so they could be refixed and believes the amounts being sought are too high considering these factors.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and am satisfied that the bathroom drawer and kitchen drawer were missing at the end of the tenancy and required replacement. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant may have left broken drawer materials behind at the end of the tenancy, but these materials were likely unable to be used given they were particleboard wood and the screw hole could have been damaged.
In respect of the kitchen cabinet kick panel, despite being provided with photographic references, I have inadequate evidence to be satisfied that this item required repair and the amount sought of $37.84 is therefore dismissed.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Missing drawers in kitchen and bathroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant sought name suppression and on hearing from both parties, and the circumstances the tenant was in, I am satisfied that the personal interests of the tenant outweigh any public interest in publication. The tenant was successful on one item, and the remaining items were at the lower end in terms of value. Name suppression is granted to the tenant.
Name suppression was not sought by the landlord. R Harvey-Lane 26 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401234 — net $254.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Rangehood	$50.50	Cleaning: Rangehood
Repairs (missing drawers	$516.22	Repairs (missing drawers
Net award	$254.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$254.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $254.72 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord had originally applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
However, at the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears, and therefore rent was not considered as part of this order.

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 claims for a small amount of cleaning required to the rangehood, where the filters were required to be cleaned. They did carry out further cleaning at the property but only claim for $50.50 for the rangehood cleaning.
The tenant says that she did clean and tidy the house, and believed it was left reasonably clean and tidy. She also says she was advised by her housing manager that it did not need to be perfect.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and it is obvious that the tenant did carry out cleaning throughout the property. From the photographs I can see that the filters in the rangehood likely required some further cleaning to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy and the amount ordered appears reasonable for this and is proved.

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 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.
The landlord claims for repairs to: a. A broken cabinet drawer in the bathroom of $258.11. b. A missing kitchen cabinet kick panel of $37.84. c. A kitchen drawer replacement of $258.11 (reusing hardware).
Photographs and evidence of the repair costs have been provided.
The tenant says that any damage was reasonable wear and tear given the length of time she was living in the property. She says that some things had broken off, but she had left the materials there so they could be refixed and believes the amounts being sought are too high considering these factors.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and am satisfied that the bathroom drawer and kitchen drawer were missing at the end of the tenancy and required replacement. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant may have left broken drawer materials behind at the end of the tenancy, but these materials were likely unable to be used given they were particleboard wood and the screw hole could have been damaged.
In respect of the kitchen cabinet kick panel, despite being provided with photographic references, I have inadequate evidence to be satisfied that this item required repair and the amount sought of $37.84 is therefore dismissed.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Missing drawers in kitchen and bathroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant sought name suppression and on hearing from both parties, and the circumstances the tenant was in, I am satisfied that the personal interests of the tenant outweigh any public interest in publication. The tenant was successful on one item, and the remaining items were at the lower end in terms of value. Name suppression is granted to the tenant.
Name suppression was not sought by the landlord. R Harvey-Lane 26 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401234 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401234 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions