Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5425145 — Property damage at 44 Upham Terrace, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414
Published 10 April 2026 · Application 5425145
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Palmerston North
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Baker
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $222.88
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $222.88
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rubbish removal | $86.53 | claim for the removal of rubbish is proven. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises? | |
| Repairs | $136.35 | Repairs | |
| Net award | $222.88 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $222.88 |
Claims and awards for application 5425145 — net $222.88 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $86.53
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- claim for the removal of rubbish is proven. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Repairs
- Amount
- $136.35
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs
Net award
Landlord $222.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $222.88
Dismissed claims
- Cleaning
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Manaia Wehe Coley must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $222.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$86.53 Repairs$136.35 Total award$222.88 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$222.88
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by video.
- Having been warned three times for disrupting the hearing by interrupting and speaking over the landlord’s representative, the tenant was removed from the meeting. See section 112 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of the premises as the tenant was packing up to leave, not at the end of the tenancy when vacant possession was given.
- The tenant provided photographs of some rooms of the premises showing that all her possessions had been removed.
- From the landlord’s photographic evidence, it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
- The landlord’s claim for the removal of rubbish related to items left outside around the grounds and these were clearly visible in the landlord’s photographs. The tenant did not produce any photographic evidence regarding the outside of the property.
- The landlord’s modest claim for the removal of rubbish is proven.
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 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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There were three holes in the living room walls. b. There was one hole in the wall of bedroom1.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s112, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425145?
The tribunal order states: Manaia Wehe Coley must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $222.88
How much money was awarded in case 5425145?
Property Damage: $136.35 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $86.53 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425145?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425145?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425475-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.