What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427672?

The tribunal order states: Evelyn Candise Vasho Harris must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5427672?

Cleaning: $318.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $25.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $821.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13450670-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427672?

The tribunal order states: Evelyn Candise Vasho Harris must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5427672?

Cleaning: $318.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $25.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $821.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13450670-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Hangar Lane, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427672 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427672 — net $1,516.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet replacement (depreciated	$821.00	Replace furnishings: carpet replacement (depreciated
Cleaning	$318.57	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.99	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: gate latch replacement	$25.78	Lock/key replacement: gate latch replacement
Net award	$1,516.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,516.34

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant did not attend the hearing via the video or telephone link as instructed in the notice of hearing. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy started on 16 October 2019 and ended on 16 December 2025.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided comprehensive evidence in the form of entry and exit inspection photographs. The landlord claims that the kitchen cupboards, rangehood and stove required extensive cleaning. The was also rubbish left behind which had to be disposed of.

An exterior gate latch was also missing and had to be replaced.

Having sighted the photographic evidence and the landlord’s expense schedule I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the carpet in the living room, bedroom 3 and entry hallway. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The exit photographs clearly show significant staining throughout various areas of the carpet. This resulted in the carpet having to be replaced.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The claim for carpet replacement is established.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427672 — net $1,516.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet replacement (depreciated	$821.00	Replace furnishings: carpet replacement (depreciated
Cleaning	$318.57	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.99	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: gate latch replacement	$25.78	Lock/key replacement: gate latch replacement
Net award	$1,516.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,516.34

Order

Evelyn Candise Vasho Harris must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,516.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant did not attend the hearing via the video or telephone link as instructed in the notice of hearing. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 16 October 2019 and ended on 16 December 2025.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided comprehensive evidence in the form of entry and exit inspection photographs. The landlord claims that the kitchen cupboards, rangehood and stove required extensive cleaning. The was also rubbish left behind which had to be disposed of.
An exterior gate latch was also missing and had to be replaced.
Having sighted the photographic evidence and the landlord’s expense schedule I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations at the end of the tenancy.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the carpet in the living room, bedroom 3 and entry hallway. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The exit photographs clearly show significant staining throughout various areas of the carpet. This resulted in the carpet having to be replaced.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The claim for carpet replacement is established.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427672 — Property damage at 24 Hangar Lane, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427672 — Property damage at 24 Hangar Lane, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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