What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426629 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5426629?

Cleaning: $1,000.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $839.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: 2 X Bins: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $303.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426629?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745537-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426629 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5426629?

Cleaning: $1,000.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $839.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: 2 X Bins: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $303.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426629?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745537-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 7, 84 Kings Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426629 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Unit 7, 84 Kings Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426629 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426629 — net $5,347.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$303.69	Water rates
Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal	$1,000.50	Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal
Lock/key replacement	$471.50	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: 2 x bins	$184.00	Replace furnishings: 2 x bins
Rubbish removal	$138.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to paintwork	$5,175.00	Repairs to paintwork
Repairs: electrical	$316.25	Repairs: electrical
Repairs to carpet in bedroom	$839.50	Repairs to carpet in bedroom
General repairs	$471.50	General repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,347.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,347.94

Claims and awards for application 5426629 — net $5,347.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $303.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal

Amount: $1,000.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $471.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace furnishings: 2 x bins

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: 2 x bins

Rubbish removal

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lealofi Lole must pay [The landlord/s] $5,347.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for odour removal in the bathroom is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing took place on 13 May 2026 at Auckland District Court. Three representatives of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why the tenant would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
On 14 May 2026, I issued an order requesting further information from the landlord. This information was provided.
The landlord is claiming unpaid water rates, compensation and payment from the bond.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord has provided invoices showing that the tenant owes $303.69 (including GST) for unpaid water rates.
This claim is proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant kept a dog at the premises without the landlord’s permission. The landlord said that there was a strong odour of wet dog in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also provided an entry inspection and exit inspection reports with photographs showing that there were marks on the carpet that were not present at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord is claiming $1,000.50 (including GST) to have the odours and stains removed. The reason for the high cost is because they first had the carpets cleaned and then when that did not work arranged for the carpets to be steam cleaned and the stains treated. I award $1,000.50 (including GST) for the cleaning of and the treatments to the carpet.
The landlord also claimed $60.00 for an odour they said was present in the bathroom. The landlord has not satisfied me that this was necessary. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is claiming $471.50 (including GST) to replace security locks including resetting of pins, registering of key cards, replacing mailbox lock and replacing the garage remote. These claims are proved, and I award $471.50 (including GST) for replacement security locks.
The tenant did not leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy. Specifically, 2 bins were removed from the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $184.00 (including GST) to replace these bins. This claim is proved, and I award $184.00 (including GST) for this claim.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $138.00 (including GST) to remove rubbish left at the premises. This claim is proved, and I award $138.00 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to paintwork: i. The landlord says the premises was new when the tenancy started. The photographs in the landlord’s entry and exit inspection reports show that there was an excessive amount of damage to the paintwork throughout the premises during the tenancy. ii. I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was not caused either intentionally or carelessly. iii. The landlord is claiming $5,750.00 (including GST) to restore the paintwork. This sum includes a charge $811.76 (including GST) for project management. I have attributed this cost to the paintwork as I consider this is where most of the project management costs would have been incurred. iv. I must take betterment and depreciation into account. 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. v. I consider there should be a reduction to allow for the lifespan of interior paintwork in a rental residential premises. I take judicial notice that paintwork in a rental residential premises needs to be redone every 5-7 years. The tenant was at the premises for approximately 18 months. I award $5,175.00 (including GST) being the sum claimed less 10% to allow for betterment and depreciation. b. Electrical work: i. The landlord says that some of the lights and power outlets and covers were missing at the end of the tenancy. Specifically, the landlord is claiming $316.25 plus GST to replace and install the missing stair light, and to replace and install missing covers for power outlets in the bedroom and kitchen. ii. This claim is proved. I award $316.25 (including GST). c. Damage to carpet in downstairs bedroom: i. The landlord’s entry and exit inspection reports show that there was damage to the carpet in the bedroom on the ground floor during the tenancy which was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. The landlord is claiming $839.50 including GST and project management cost for this work. ii. This claim is proved, and I award 839.50 (including GST). d. General repairs: i. The landlord is claiming $471.50 (including GST) for repairs to/of: a damaged floor edge trim; damage to the entry rubber strip; the stuck lock of the entry hallway door; damage to a window stay in a bedroom; and to replace the broken garden gate latch. ii. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. iii. I award $471.50 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord has provided itemised invoices to support their claims. Filing fee and suppression:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the landlord’s application for suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426629 — net $5,347.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$303.69	Water rates
Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal	$1,000.50	Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal
Lock/key replacement	$471.50	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: 2 x bins	$184.00	Replace furnishings: 2 x bins
Rubbish removal	$138.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to paintwork	$5,175.00	Repairs to paintwork
Repairs: electrical	$316.25	Repairs: electrical
Repairs to carpet in bedroom	$839.50	Repairs to carpet in bedroom
General repairs	$471.50	General repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,347.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,347.94

Claims and awards for application 5426629 — net $5,347.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $303.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal

Amount: $1,000.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning including stain and odour removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $471.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace furnishings: 2 x bins

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: 2 x bins

Rubbish removal

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lealofi Lole must pay [The landlord/s] $5,347.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for odour removal in the bathroom is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing took place on 13 May 2026 at Auckland District Court. Three representatives of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why the tenant would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
On 14 May 2026, I issued an order requesting further information from the landlord. This information was provided.
The landlord is claiming unpaid water rates, compensation and payment from the bond.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord has provided invoices showing that the tenant owes $303.69 (including GST) for unpaid water rates.
This claim is proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant kept a dog at the premises without the landlord’s permission. The landlord said that there was a strong odour of wet dog in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also provided an entry inspection and exit inspection reports with photographs showing that there were marks on the carpet that were not present at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord is claiming $1,000.50 (including GST) to have the odours and stains removed. The reason for the high cost is because they first had the carpets cleaned and then when that did not work arranged for the carpets to be steam cleaned and the stains treated. I award $1,000.50 (including GST) for the cleaning of and the treatments to the carpet.
The landlord also claimed $60.00 for an odour they said was present in the bathroom. The landlord has not satisfied me that this was necessary. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is claiming $471.50 (including GST) to replace security locks including resetting of pins, registering of key cards, replacing mailbox lock and replacing the garage remote. These claims are proved, and I award $471.50 (including GST) for replacement security locks.
The tenant did not leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy. Specifically, 2 bins were removed from the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $184.00 (including GST) to replace these bins. This claim is proved, and I award $184.00 (including GST) for this claim.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $138.00 (including GST) to remove rubbish left at the premises. This claim is proved, and I award $138.00 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to paintwork: i. The landlord says the premises was new when the tenancy started. The photographs in the landlord’s entry and exit inspection reports show that there was an excessive amount of damage to the paintwork throughout the premises during the tenancy. ii. I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was not caused either intentionally or carelessly. iii. The landlord is claiming $5,750.00 (including GST) to restore the paintwork. This sum includes a charge $811.76 (including GST) for project management. I have attributed this cost to the paintwork as I consider this is where most of the project management costs would have been incurred. iv. I must take betterment and depreciation into account. 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. v. I consider there should be a reduction to allow for the lifespan of interior paintwork in a rental residential premises. I take judicial notice that paintwork in a rental residential premises needs to be redone every 5-7 years. The tenant was at the premises for approximately 18 months. I award $5,175.00 (including GST) being the sum claimed less 10% to allow for betterment and depreciation. b. Electrical work: i. The landlord says that some of the lights and power outlets and covers were missing at the end of the tenancy. Specifically, the landlord is claiming $316.25 plus GST to replace and install the missing stair light, and to replace and install missing covers for power outlets in the bedroom and kitchen. ii. This claim is proved. I award $316.25 (including GST). c. Damage to carpet in downstairs bedroom: i. The landlord’s entry and exit inspection reports show that there was damage to the carpet in the bedroom on the ground floor during the tenancy which was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. The landlord is claiming $839.50 including GST and project management cost for this work. ii. This claim is proved, and I award 839.50 (including GST). d. General repairs: i. The landlord is claiming $471.50 (including GST) for repairs to/of: a damaged floor edge trim; damage to the entry rubber strip; the stuck lock of the entry hallway door; damage to a window stay in a bedroom; and to replace the broken garden gate latch. ii. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. iii. I award $471.50 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord has provided itemised invoices to support their claims. Filing fee and suppression:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the landlord’s application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426629 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 7, 84 Kings Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426629 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 7, 84 Kings Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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