Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5419771 — Property damage at 47 Staverton Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022
Decided 8 April 2026 · Published 8 April 2026 · Application 5419771
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
H Ben Fayed
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,340.56
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $5,340.56
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $414.00 | Cleaning | |
| Carpet replacement excess | $750.00 | Carpet replacement excess | |
| Ranch slider window excess | $750.00 | Ranch slider window excess | |
| Rubbish removal | $1,725.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Light bulbs | $241.50 | Light bulbs | |
| Lock/key replacement | $290.23 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Bathroom Window reglazing | $400.00 | Bathroom Window reglazing | |
| Water rates | $686.83 | Water rates | |
| Filing Fee 5207671 | $27.00 | Filing Fee 5207671 | |
| Filing Fee 5309781 | $28.00 | Filing Fee 5309781 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $5,340.56 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $5,340.56 |
Claims and awards for application 5419771 — net $5,340.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $414.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Carpet replacement excess
- Amount
- $750.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet replacement excess
Ranch slider window excess
- Amount
- $750.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Ranch slider window excess
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $1,725.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Light bulbs
- Amount
- $241.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Light bulbs
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $290.23
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Bathroom Window reglazing
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Bathroom Window reglazing
Water rates
- Amount
- $686.83
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Filing Fee 5207671
- Amount
- $27.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing Fee 5207671
Filing Fee 5309781
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing Fee 5309781
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $5,340.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $5,340.56
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Ema Penu, Sione Taumaoe and Maatulimanu Penu must pay Kingdom Home Property Management Limited As Agent For Chester Tai and Chester Tai $5,340.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- Order 5309781 and 5207671 are superseded and no longer enforceable.
- This tenancy commenced on 27 May 2023 and concluded on 22 September 2025.
- The applicant seeks the following awards: a) $686.83 for water rates arrears to the end of the tenancy b) $750 for an insurance excess for carpet replacement c) $750 for an insurance excess for ranch slider window replacement d) $828 for cleaning e) $1,725 for rubbish removal f) $241.50 for light bulb replacement g) $290.23 for replacement of the front door lock h) $400 for the re-glazing of the bathroom window
Is the respondent liable for the water rates arrears?
- The respondent has provided a water rates summary showing the amounts owing to the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that this record is accurate.
- The sum of $686.83 is awarded.
Is the respondent liable for the carpet replacement?
- The carpet was replaced during the tenancy, in the first year, due to leaking in the room. This was agreed by both parties during the hearing.
- The applicant has provided photographs showing the new carpet to be severely stained at the conclusion of the tenancy. The respondent states that the carpet was not stained when they vacated.
- I accept that the condition reflected in the exit inspection report dated 23 September 2025 is accurate. On the basis of the staining, it was reasonable to replace the carpet.
- The $750 insurance excess is therefore awarded.
Is the respondent liable for the ranch slider window excess?
- The applicant states that the ranch slider window, which is large, was broken. The respondent states that they returned home and found it in that condition.
- When asked whether this was reported to the landlord, the respondent confirmed that it was not.
- I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the window was broken by the respondent or by a person at the property with the respondent’s permission. The damage is consistent with the overall condition of the property.
- The $750 insurance excess is therefore awarded.
Is the respondent liable for the move-out cleaning?
- The respondent states that the property was left tidy, but accepts that the detail cleaning may not have been completed properly.
- I have reviewed the exit inspection photographs and accept that the property condition was in breach of the tenants obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the invoice provided describes a more extensive clean than what was required, including a deep clean and additional work such as windows.
- In the circumstances, it is appropriate to award half of the invoiced amount.
- $414 is awarded for cleaning.
Is the respondent liable for the rubbish removal?
- The applicant states that a significant amount of rubbish was left in the garden, including curtains installed by the respondent which were not removed. The applicant advised that while they were willing to retain the curtains, they were in a condition that required disposal.
- Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires tenants, at the end of the tenancy, to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish.
- I am satisfied that the respondent was in breach of this obligation and that the rubbish removal cost was reasonably incurred as a result.
- The cost of $1,725 for rubbish removal is therefore awarded.
Is the respondent liable for the light bulb replacement?
- The applicant states that light bulbs in several areas of the property were missing or not functioning at the end of the tenancy.
- I am satisfied that light bulbs were removed by the respondent. This is consistent with the condition of the property as recorded in the exit inspection report.
- The sum of $241.50 is awarded. Is the respondent liable for the front door lock replacement
- The applicant states that the entire front door lock was removed. The respondent accepted this was the case and accepted liability.
- The sum of $290.23 is awarded by consent.
Is the respondent liable for the re-glazing of the bathroom window?
- Both the applicant and the respondent agree that this damage occurred during the tenancy and that the respondent accepts liability.
- The sum of $400 is awarded by consent. Superseded Orders
- The parties have previously attended the Tenancy Tribunal on multiple occasions, and there remain outstanding amounts from earlier orders and mediated agreements. The applicant has requested that those amounts be incorporated into this order.
- The remaining balance of water arrears has been addressed in this decision, together with the filing fees.
- Accordingly, Order No. 5309781 and Order No. 5207671 are now redundant and no longer enforceable, and are superseded by this order. Flea and cockroach treatments:
- The applicant originally made claims for flea and cockroach treatment. After the hearing the applicant and respondent had a discussion outside the courtroom and then knocked on the door. The applicant advised the adjudicator that they were withdrawing their claim for cockroach and flea treatment. Filing Fee
- As the applicant has been substantially successful in this application, the application filing fee is awarded. H Ben Fayed 08 April 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s29, s40(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5419771?
The tribunal order states: Ema Penu, Sione Taumaoe and Maatulimanu Penu must pay Kingdom Home
How much money was awarded in case 5419771?
Bathroom Window Reglazing: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.23 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Window Excess: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $686.83 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419771?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419771?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.