How much money was awarded in case 5417788?

Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; S Remedy Pink Scribble On Wall: $57.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417788?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5417788?

Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; S Remedy Pink Scribble On Wall: $57.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417788?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16B Haast Street, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5417788 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417788 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417788 — net $295.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
s Remedy pink scribble on wall	$57.50	s Remedy pink scribble on wall
Repair lounge wall - gouge mark	$180.00	Repair lounge wall - gouge mark
Repair damage to corner of wall	$57.50	Repair damage to corner of wall
Net award	$295.00
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$295.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $295.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited: $295.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,105.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. One tenant represented both tenants at today’s hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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.

The landlord has made a number of claims under this heading and I shall address each of them in turn. Pink scribbles on post

The pre-entry inspection report does not note pink scribbles on this post. The photo taken on 11 November 2025, 2 days after the tenancy ended, show the pink scribbles on the post.

On this evidence I am satisfied that the pink scribbles occurred during this tenancy. It is beyond fair wear and tear.

An invoice shows that the cost of repairing this damage was $57.50 and the tenants are required to pay this amount. Blood mark on wall in bedroom

A photo taken at the end of the tenancy shows what the landlord has described as a blood mark on a wall.

I am dismissing this part of their claim because this is a cleaning issue and the photographs show that the house was left reasonably clean.

Further to this, the invoice shows that there was no cost attached to cleaning off the blood mark. Damage on living room back wall

The pre-entry photographs do not indicate that there was any gouging on this wall when the tenants moved in.

The photographs show that at the end of the tenancy there was a gouge mark in this wall.

The tenants claim that this was fair wear and tear because the area was quite small, the dining room furniture was necessarily close to the wall and so it was inevitable that damage would occur to the wall when chairs are pushed back.

I do not consider that this damage was fair wear and tear. This is because there was a gouge mark, rather than just scuff marks.

However, I am ordering the tenants to pay $180.00 towards the $287.50 cost of repair. This is because when the tenants moved in to the tenancy the panitwork was only 3 months old. At the beginning of the tenancy minor marks were already recorded. This indicates to me that the black wall was particularly sensitive to showing damage. Painting the deck

The landlord claims the cost of cleaning the deck and removing what appears to be gold paint on the deck.

I am dismissing this part of the claim because the pre-entry photos are taken from too great a distance to see whether the gold paint was already there. Further to this, the pre-entry photos show that the deck paintwork was already in poor condition when the tenancy started. Living room wall

The evidence shows that the corner of the black living room wall was gouged.

Again, I consider this to be beyond fair wear and tear because it was a gouge, and not just scuff marks.

I am therefore ordering the tenants to pay the cost of this repair - $57.50. Repair of marks on bedroom wall

The landlord claims $115.00 for the cost of repairing purported damage to the bedroom wall.

However, the photos provided as evidence show very minor marks which I am satisfied is fair wear and tear.

The tenants are therefore not required to pay this cost. Repair of office wall dent and scrape

The landlord claims $115.00 to repair the dent and scrape on the office wall.

I am dismissing this claim because no photographic was provided to support it. Filing fee reimbursement

I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee by the tenants because the landlord was not substantially successful with this claim against them. Suppression of names

I am allowing the tenants’ application for suppression of their names because they were substantially successful with their defence to this claim. C ter Haar 16 April 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417788 — net $295.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
s Remedy pink scribble on wall	$57.50	s Remedy pink scribble on wall
Repair lounge wall - gouge mark	$180.00	Repair lounge wall - gouge mark
Repair damage to corner of wall	$57.50	Repair damage to corner of wall
Net award	$295.00
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$295.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $295.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited: $295.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,105.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. One tenant represented both tenants at today’s hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord has made a number of claims under this heading and I shall address each of them in turn. Pink scribbles on post
The pre-entry inspection report does not note pink scribbles on this post. The photo taken on 11 November 2025, 2 days after the tenancy ended, show the pink scribbles on the post.
On this evidence I am satisfied that the pink scribbles occurred during this tenancy. It is beyond fair wear and tear.
An invoice shows that the cost of repairing this damage was $57.50 and the tenants are required to pay this amount. Blood mark on wall in bedroom
A photo taken at the end of the tenancy shows what the landlord has described as a blood mark on a wall.
I am dismissing this part of their claim because this is a cleaning issue and the photographs show that the house was left reasonably clean.
Further to this, the invoice shows that there was no cost attached to cleaning off the blood mark. Damage on living room back wall
The pre-entry photographs do not indicate that there was any gouging on this wall when the tenants moved in.
The photographs show that at the end of the tenancy there was a gouge mark in this wall.
The tenants claim that this was fair wear and tear because the area was quite small, the dining room furniture was necessarily close to the wall and so it was inevitable that damage would occur to the wall when chairs are pushed back.
I do not consider that this damage was fair wear and tear. This is because there was a gouge mark, rather than just scuff marks.
However, I am ordering the tenants to pay $180.00 towards the $287.50 cost of repair. This is because when the tenants moved in to the tenancy the panitwork was only 3 months old. At the beginning of the tenancy minor marks were already recorded. This indicates to me that the black wall was particularly sensitive to showing damage. Painting the deck
The landlord claims the cost of cleaning the deck and removing what appears to be gold paint on the deck.
I am dismissing this part of the claim because the pre-entry photos are taken from too great a distance to see whether the gold paint was already there. Further to this, the pre-entry photos show that the deck paintwork was already in poor condition when the tenancy started. Living room wall
The evidence shows that the corner of the black living room wall was gouged.
Again, I consider this to be beyond fair wear and tear because it was a gouge, and not just scuff marks.
I am therefore ordering the tenants to pay the cost of this repair - $57.50. Repair of marks on bedroom wall
The landlord claims $115.00 for the cost of repairing purported damage to the bedroom wall.
However, the photos provided as evidence show very minor marks which I am satisfied is fair wear and tear.
The tenants are therefore not required to pay this cost. Repair of office wall dent and scrape
The landlord claims $115.00 to repair the dent and scrape on the office wall.
I am dismissing this claim because no photographic was provided to support it. Filing fee reimbursement
I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee by the tenants because the landlord was not substantially successful with this claim against them. Suppression of names
I am allowing the tenants’ application for suppression of their names because they were substantially successful with their defence to this claim. C ter Haar 16 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417788 — Property damage at 16B Haast Street, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417788 — Property damage at 16B Haast Street, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions