What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423635?

The tribunal order states: Ana Kofe must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $1,583.27

How much money was awarded in case 5423635?

Property Damage: $96.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $91.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.79 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $358.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $164.21 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $821.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423635?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423635?

The tribunal order states: Ana Kofe must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $1,583.27

How much money was awarded in case 5423635?

Property Damage: $96.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $91.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.79 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $358.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $164.21 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $821.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423635?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Brougham Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423635 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423635 — net $1,583.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: interior	$821.05	Rubbish removal: interior
Rubbish removal: exterior	$358.50	Rubbish removal: exterior
Rubbish removal: garage	$164.21	Rubbish removal: garage
Window repairs	$96.73	Window repairs
Repairs to door	$91.99	Repairs to door
Repairs to walls	$210.79	Repairs to walls
Net award	$1,583.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,583.27

Only the landlord, represented by Mr Campbell, attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.

This tenancy began on 6 October 2000 and ended on 13 November 2025, after the tenant was transferred to another property by the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation for rubbish removal and repair costs, and payment from the bond, following the end of the tenancy. While the tenant signed a bond refund form, the landlord advises that this form was not sent into the Bond Centre.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs. The landlord has produced inspection reports with photographic evidence showing the condition of the premises during the tenancy (in 2016), and when the tenancy ended. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not remove all rubbish.

In terms of the rubbish removal costs, the landlord’s evidence is that there were large bulky items left behind, including furniture, an outdoor table, and other items such as food, clothing and appliances. The landlord’s maintenance work order was provided, showing that the volume of the interior rubbish totalled 5 cubic metres. The exterior rubbish came to 2 cubic metres. There was also rubbish left in the garage, totalling 1 cubic metre.

Being satisfied that the landlord has established its claim for rubbish removal costs, the amounts sought are ordered above. Compensation for tenant damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage

The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful in such claims, 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 of the RTA.

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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.

When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. The landlord’s claim for tenant damage

On the basis of the landlord’s evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Window: the dining room window was damaged, had been removed and boarded up, and needed to be re-glazed. • Door damage: the door to bedroom 3 needed repairs and was missing a handle. • Wall repairs: there were holes and other damage to walls in the dining room, and bedrooms 1 and 3.

The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

In determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation has been taken into account. Filing fee and name suppression

While successful, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.

The landlord indicated that it would support the tenant’s name being suppressed. The tenant did not attend the hearing, and no specific reasons have been provided. Therefore, name suppression for the tenant is declined. The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423635 — net $1,583.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: interior	$821.05	Rubbish removal: interior
Rubbish removal: exterior	$358.50	Rubbish removal: exterior
Rubbish removal: garage	$164.21	Rubbish removal: garage
Window repairs	$96.73	Window repairs
Repairs to door	$91.99	Repairs to door
Repairs to walls	$210.79	Repairs to walls
Net award	$1,583.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,583.27

Order

Ana Kofe must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $1,583.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $160.00 (H00588100) to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Mr Campbell, attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This tenancy began on 6 October 2000 and ended on 13 November 2025, after the tenant was transferred to another property by the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation for rubbish removal and repair costs, and payment from the bond, following the end of the tenancy. While the tenant signed a bond refund form, the landlord advises that this form was not sent into the Bond Centre.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs. The landlord has produced inspection reports with photographic evidence showing the condition of the premises during the tenancy (in 2016), and when the tenancy ended. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
In terms of the rubbish removal costs, the landlord’s evidence is that there were large bulky items left behind, including furniture, an outdoor table, and other items such as food, clothing and appliances. The landlord’s maintenance work order was provided, showing that the volume of the interior rubbish totalled 5 cubic metres. The exterior rubbish came to 2 cubic metres. There was also rubbish left in the garage, totalling 1 cubic metre.
Being satisfied that the landlord has established its claim for rubbish removal costs, the amounts sought are ordered above. Compensation for tenant damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful in such claims, 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 of the RTA.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. The landlord’s claim for tenant damage
On the basis of the landlord’s evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Window: the dining room window was damaged, had been removed and boarded up, and needed to be re-glazed. • Door damage: the door to bedroom 3 needed repairs and was missing a handle. • Wall repairs: there were holes and other damage to walls in the dining room, and bedrooms 1 and 3.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
In determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation has been taken into account. Filing fee and name suppression
While successful, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.
The landlord indicated that it would support the tenant’s name being suppressed. The tenant did not attend the hearing, and no specific reasons have been provided. Therefore, name suppression for the tenant is declined. The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423635 — Property damage at 12 Brougham Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423635 — Property damage at 12 Brougham Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions