What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404728 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 5404728?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lights: $182.56 awarded to landlord; Walls, door handle, door stopper, ca…: $3,693.48 awarded to landlord; Window: $1,417.61 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,325.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404728?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13309576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404728 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 5404728?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lights: $182.56 awarded to landlord; Walls, door handle, door stopper, ca…: $3,693.48 awarded to landlord; Window: $1,417.61 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,325.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404728?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13309576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 15 Cyril Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404728 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404728 — net $5,990.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: and cleaning	$1,325.00	Rubbish removal: and cleaning
Repairs: Lights	$182.56	Repairs: Lights
Repairs: Window	$1,417.61	Repairs: Window
Repairs: Walls, door handle, door stopper, cabinetry, exterior	$3,693.48	Repairs: Walls, door handle, door stopper, cabinetry, exterior
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,990.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,990.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Porshea Loren Afamasaga must pay [The landlord/s] $5,990.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $656.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 18 March 2026. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 and remove all goods and rubbish. 1
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The tenant left furniture such as, mattresses and chairs, at the premises at the end of the tenancy. They also left rubbish and miscellaneous household items behind. There has clearly been no attempt to clean the premises. The floors do not look vacuumed or mopped. Draws and cupboards are dirty. The oven and rangehood are also dirty.
For these reasons, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all goods and rubbish.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,325.00 to clean the premises and dispose of rubbish. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) & (iii). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord seeks compensation for a number of repairs. They do not have insurance. Oven door
The landlord seeks $103.00 to repair the oven door, which they claim did not close properly at the end of the tenancy.
I am not convinced the damage to the oven door exceeds fair wear and tear. This is because the oven appears old in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not know the exact age of the oven, but described it as being “not new” and “very old.” The oven is a free standing, white oven.
The estimated lifespan of an oven is 8 years, according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates IR265. Based on the photographs of the oven, I am convinced it is nearing the end of its estimated useful lifespan. It is reasonably foreseeable that an oven door might incur some damage over time due to everyday use. An oven is used on a frequent basis, which increases the rate of wear and tear over time. No evidence of unreasonable use of the oven was submitted by the landlord.
For these reasons, the landlord has not proven the damage to the oven door exceeds fair wear and tear, and this claim is dismissed. Lights
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show no damage to the outside sensor light or light in the laundry. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the outdoor sensor light fitting is missing. The light has also been pulled away from the ceiling and is dangling. The light fitting in the laundry is also missing.
I find the sensor light and light in the laundry were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $182.56 to repair both lights. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Window
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show no damage to the window in bedroom 3. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the bottom window sash is missing. The landlord gave evidence the bedroom was locked from the inside and the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, gained access to the bedroom by forcing the window open with a tool, which caused damage.
I find the window in bedroom 3 was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,417.61 to repair the window. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Repairs to the walls, door handle, door stopper, kitchen cabinet door and exterior
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show some minor marks to the walls throughout the premises. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a large, black mark on the wall in the lounge. In bedroom 1, there are scribbled on the walls. In bedroom 2, there is a large hook on the wall. In bedroom 3 there are clusters of what appear to be nail holes in the wall, as well as some other slightly bigger holes. I find all of this damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the door in the toilet is in a reasonable state of repair. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show the latch bolt is missing. I find the latch bolt was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a door stopper is present in the bathroom. The photographs taken at the end show the doorstopper is missing. I find the doorstopper was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the kitchen cabinetry is in good condition. The photographs taken at the end show one of the doors is missing. I find the door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a fence around the outside of the house. It appears quite old, but there is no graffiti on it. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show parts of the fence have been painted white and graffitied on. I find the fence was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $3,693.48 to repair all of these items. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. I do not make any adjustment for betterment and depreciation. This is because only small parts of the walls were repaired and painted, as opposed to whole rooms. Similarly, only the damaged portion of the fence was replaced.
All of 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. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404728 — net $5,990.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: and cleaning	$1,325.00	Rubbish removal: and cleaning
Repairs: Lights	$182.56	Repairs: Lights
Repairs: Window	$1,417.61	Repairs: Window
Repairs: Walls, door handle, door stopper, cabinetry, exterior	$3,693.48	Repairs: Walls, door handle, door stopper, cabinetry, exterior
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,990.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,990.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Porshea Loren Afamasaga must pay [The landlord/s] $5,990.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $656.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 18 March 2026. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 and remove all goods and rubbish. 1
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The tenant left furniture such as, mattresses and chairs, at the premises at the end of the tenancy. They also left rubbish and miscellaneous household items behind. There has clearly been no attempt to clean the premises. The floors do not look vacuumed or mopped. Draws and cupboards are dirty. The oven and rangehood are also dirty.
For these reasons, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all goods and rubbish.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,325.00 to clean the premises and dispose of rubbish. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) & (iii). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord seeks compensation for a number of repairs. They do not have insurance. Oven door
The landlord seeks $103.00 to repair the oven door, which they claim did not close properly at the end of the tenancy.
I am not convinced the damage to the oven door exceeds fair wear and tear. This is because the oven appears old in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not know the exact age of the oven, but described it as being “not new” and “very old.” The oven is a free standing, white oven.
The estimated lifespan of an oven is 8 years, according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates IR265. Based on the photographs of the oven, I am convinced it is nearing the end of its estimated useful lifespan. It is reasonably foreseeable that an oven door might incur some damage over time due to everyday use. An oven is used on a frequent basis, which increases the rate of wear and tear over time. No evidence of unreasonable use of the oven was submitted by the landlord.
For these reasons, the landlord has not proven the damage to the oven door exceeds fair wear and tear, and this claim is dismissed. Lights
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show no damage to the outside sensor light or light in the laundry. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the outdoor sensor light fitting is missing. The light has also been pulled away from the ceiling and is dangling. The light fitting in the laundry is also missing.
I find the sensor light and light in the laundry were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $182.56 to repair both lights. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Window
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show no damage to the window in bedroom 3. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the bottom window sash is missing. The landlord gave evidence the bedroom was locked from the inside and the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, gained access to the bedroom by forcing the window open with a tool, which caused damage.
I find the window in bedroom 3 was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,417.61 to repair the window. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Repairs to the walls, door handle, door stopper, kitchen cabinet door and exterior
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show some minor marks to the walls throughout the premises. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a large, black mark on the wall in the lounge. In bedroom 1, there are scribbled on the walls. In bedroom 2, there is a large hook on the wall. In bedroom 3 there are clusters of what appear to be nail holes in the wall, as well as some other slightly bigger holes. I find all of this damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the door in the toilet is in a reasonable state of repair. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show the latch bolt is missing. I find the latch bolt was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a door stopper is present in the bathroom. The photographs taken at the end show the doorstopper is missing. I find the doorstopper was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the kitchen cabinetry is in good condition. The photographs taken at the end show one of the doors is missing. I find the door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a fence around the outside of the house. It appears quite old, but there is no graffiti on it. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show parts of the fence have been painted white and graffitied on. I find the fence was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $3,693.48 to repair all of these items. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. I do not make any adjustment for betterment and depreciation. This is because only small parts of the walls were repaired and painted, as opposed to whole rooms. Similarly, only the damaged portion of the fence was replaced.
All of 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. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404728 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 15 Cyril Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404728 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 15 Cyril Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland

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 damage that occurred during the tenancy?

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 damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions