Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5405042 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 45 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland
Decided 2 April 2026 · Published 2 April 2026 · Application 5405042
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Manhire
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $8,161.61
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$222.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $7,939.61
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs: Door replacement x2 | $431.90 | Repairs: Door replacement x2 | |
| Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer | $271.05 | Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer | |
| Repairs: Wall repairs | $1,216.71 | Repairs: Wall repairs | |
| Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated | $747.00 | Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated | |
| Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement | $190.79 | Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement | |
| Cleaning | $845.46 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $4,458.70 | Rubbish removal | |
| Net award | $7,939.61 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $7,939.61 |
Claims and awards for application 5405042 — net $7,939.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Repairs: Door replacement x2
- Amount
- $431.90
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Door replacement x2
Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer
- Amount
- $271.05
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer
Repairs: Wall repairs
- Amount
- $1,216.71
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Wall repairs
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated
- Amount
- $747.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated
Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement
- Amount
- $190.79
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement
Cleaning
- Amount
- $845.46
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $4,458.70
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Net award
Landlord $7,939.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $7,939.61
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Margaret Paetaha Carswell must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $7,939.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $222.00 (3032405-011) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant did not join the hearing via the video or telephone link as instructed in the notice of hearing. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
- The landlord has applied for vacated compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy started on 16 October 2018 and ended on or about 23 October 2025. The landlord undertook an exit inspection on 22 October 2025.
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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord provided comprehensive entry and exit inspection photographs. The photographic evidence is compelling and clearly shows that the tenant left the premises in a disgraceful state at the end of the tenancy. There was significant rubbish left behind and the premises required extensive cleaning. I have also sighted the landlord’s expense schedule confirming the amounts claimed.
- 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Door replacement x2 • Cabinet handles and cabinet drawer replacement • Wall repairs • Carpet replacement (depreciated) • Bathroom mirror replacement
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord claims that the tenant caused significant damage to the premises during the tenancy.
- Comprehensive photographic evidence was provided by the landlord in support of their claims confirming significant and extensive damage throughout the premises. The bathroom mirror had been removed from the bathroom wall. There was graffiti throughout the property, both inside and out. I have also sighted the landlord’s expense schedule filed in support of the amounts claimed which are reasonable in all the circumstances.
- Having sighted the evidence provided I am entirely satisfied that the damage is intentional.
- The claims are established, and the amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in respect of the carpet. 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405042?
The tribunal order states: Margaret Paetaha Carswell must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities
How much money was awarded in case 5405042?
Cleaning: $845.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $431.90 awarded to landlord; Replace cabinet handles and cabinet…: $271.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,216.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.79 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,458.70 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405042?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405042?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13390439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.