What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5404701?

The tribunal order states: Tetamanu Rimaati must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $1,676.82

How much money was awarded in case 5404701?

Cleaning: $569.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $383.79 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $328.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13393314-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5404701?

The tribunal order states: Tetamanu Rimaati must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $1,676.82

How much money was awarded in case 5404701?

Cleaning: $569.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $383.79 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $328.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13393314-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55B Smeaton Drive, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404701 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404701 — net $1,676.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$569.61	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$328.42	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Walls	$383.79	Repairs: Walls
Replacement stove	$395.00	Replacement stove
Net award	$1,676.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,676.82

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 they were required to carry out further cleaning to meet the statutory standard, including the kitchen cupboards and a general clean throughout the property. They were also required to collect and dispose of rubbish left behind at the property.

They claim $569.62 for cleaning and $328.42 for rubbish removal and have provided photographs and evidence of costings in support of the claims.

On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are 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 $383.79 for the cost to repair holes made in walls at the property and $395.00 for a replacement stove.

The full cost of the stove replacement was $632.50, however, given the stove would have been around three years old at the end of the tenancy, the landlord only claims the depreciated amount.

The evidence shows that there were holes made in the walls of the property, caused during the tenancy, that required repair. The elements of the stove were also rusted through and the stove required replacement as a result.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls and oven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. R Harvey-Lane 02 April 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404701 — net $1,676.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$569.61	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$328.42	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Walls	$383.79	Repairs: Walls
Replacement stove	$395.00	Replacement stove
Net award	$1,676.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,676.82

Order

Tetamanu Rimaati must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $1,676.82 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 they were required to carry out further cleaning to meet the statutory standard, including the kitchen cupboards and a general clean throughout the property. They were also required to collect and dispose of rubbish left behind at the property.
They claim $569.62 for cleaning and $328.42 for rubbish removal and have provided photographs and evidence of costings in support of the claims.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are 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 $383.79 for the cost to repair holes made in walls at the property and $395.00 for a replacement stove.
The full cost of the stove replacement was $632.50, however, given the stove would have been around three years old at the end of the tenancy, the landlord only claims the depreciated amount.
The evidence shows that there were holes made in the walls of the property, caused during the tenancy, that required repair. The elements of the stove were also rusted through and the stove required replacement as a result.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls and oven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. R Harvey-Lane 02 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404701 — Property damage at 55B Smeaton Drive, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404701 — Property damage at 55B Smeaton Drive, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions