How much money was awarded in case 5418910?

Cleaning: $848.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $387.55 awarded to landlord; Walls: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $244.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13680887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5418910?

Cleaning: $848.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $387.55 awarded to landlord; Walls: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $244.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13680887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418910 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418910 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 5418910 — net $2,108.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 6 November 2025	$244.43	Water rates to 6 November 2025
Repairs: Walls	$2,800.00	Repairs: Walls
Cleaning	$848.70	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$387.55	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,108.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,108.68

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

Faamanatuga Pa'u and Fale Avei-Pa'u must pay [The landlord/s] $2,108.68 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a representative family member attend on their behalf.

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

How much is owed for and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices that prove the amount owing of $244.43 at the end of the tenancy.

This amount was not disputed by the tenants and the amount ordered is proved.

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 the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they were required to carry out further cleaning. A cleaning invoice has been provided for $848.70 and some of the areas noted are kitchen cupboards, fridge area, rangehood, oven, lighting, bathroom ceiling, shower, vanity, window joinery, skirtings, doors and frames.

On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenants did not leave the property reasonable clean and tidy and the cleaning appears to reasonably reflect the works required to reach the statutory standard.

The landlord also says the tenants did not return the keys. The tenants believed that they were left in the letterbox, however, the landlord was unable to find these and was required to change the locks at a cost of $387.55.

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 says that during the tenancy there was significant damage caused to the walls of the premises. This included several holes, markings and drawings throughout the property.

The landlord claims for the quoted cost to repair and paint these areas totalling $2,700.00.

The tenants raised concerns about the quantum of the wall repairs and considered that it may have included areas that were not damaged during the tenancy.

On review of the evidence, I consider that wall damage was caused during the tenancy. Given how extensive this damage was, some of this must be considered intentional. I have reduced the amount awarded very slightly to reflect that some wear and tear would be expected at the end of the tenancy, and although the damage went well beyond that standard, once repairs were carried out, the walls would be “as new”. 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 off.

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

The amount ordered is proved.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 31 May 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418910 — net $2,108.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 6 November 2025	$244.43	Water rates to 6 November 2025
Repairs: Walls	$2,800.00	Repairs: Walls
Cleaning	$848.70	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$387.55	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,108.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,108.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Faamanatuga Pa'u and Fale Avei-Pa'u must pay [The landlord/s] $2,108.68 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a representative family member attend on their behalf.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices that prove the amount owing of $244.43 at the end of the tenancy.
This amount was not disputed by the tenants and the amount ordered is proved.

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 the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they were required to carry out further cleaning. A cleaning invoice has been provided for $848.70 and some of the areas noted are kitchen cupboards, fridge area, rangehood, oven, lighting, bathroom ceiling, shower, vanity, window joinery, skirtings, doors and frames.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenants did not leave the property reasonable clean and tidy and the cleaning appears to reasonably reflect the works required to reach the statutory standard.
The landlord also says the tenants did not return the keys. The tenants believed that they were left in the letterbox, however, the landlord was unable to find these and was required to change the locks at a cost of $387.55.
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 says that during the tenancy there was significant damage caused to the walls of the premises. This included several holes, markings and drawings throughout the property.
The landlord claims for the quoted cost to repair and paint these areas totalling $2,700.00.
The tenants raised concerns about the quantum of the wall repairs and considered that it may have included areas that were not damaged during the tenancy.
On review of the evidence, I consider that wall damage was caused during the tenancy. Given how extensive this damage was, some of this must be considered intentional. I have reduced the amount awarded very slightly to reflect that some wear and tear would be expected at the end of the tenancy, and although the damage went well beyond that standard, once repairs were carried out, the walls would be “as new”. 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 off.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 31 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418910 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418910 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for and water rates?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for and water rates?

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