What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429389 about?

The tribunal order states: Manatu Lolohea must pay Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For George &

How much money was awarded in case 5429389?

Property Damage: $171.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429389?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13454434-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429389 about?

The tribunal order states: Manatu Lolohea must pay Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For George &

How much money was awarded in case 5429389?

Property Damage: $171.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429389?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13454434-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Wharara Lane, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429389 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429389 — net $171.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$171.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$171.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$171.00

Order

Manatu Lolohea must pay Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For George & Wesley Hopner & Bradley $171.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Moros, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant, Ms Lolohea, did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and outgoings following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 3 January 2026. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant must prove the claims on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is the burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claimed $491.43 in water rates up to 3 January 2026, the end of the tenancy. Whilst the landlord provided a general summary of all tenant invoices, which included multiple types of invoices as well as some water transactions, the landlord did not provide a specific water rates ledger nor did they provide any water rates invoices for any periods claimed. As the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim, I dismiss this claim.

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. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $899.30 for cleaning, $230.00 for carpet cleaning and $172.00 for removal of a Flexibin at the end of the tenancy.
Whilst the landlord provided invoices in the amounts claimed for cleaning and removal of the Flexibin, the landlord did not provide any invoice for the carpet cleaning cost, nor did they provide any inspection reports or photographs or copies of correspondence between the parties about the cleaning or the removal of the Flexibin. Given this, the landlord has not provided sufficient additional supporting evidence to show the requirement for the landlord to incur these costs and so I dismiss the claims for cleaning, carpet cleaning and removal of the Flexibin. Locks
The landlord said the tenant returned a key, but it was not the key to the property. The property manager said she texted the tenant about this and spoke with the tenant’s partner, to ask the tenant to return the correct key to the property but there was no response. As a result of this, the landlord said they had to change the locks. The landlord provided an invoice for changing the locks in the amount of $171.00, which I find is a reasonable cost for this. Therefore, I award the landlord $171.00 for the landlord changing the locks at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered above is 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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Blind replacement a. A blind in one of the bedrooms had to be replaced as it had a tear in it. The landlord claimed $365.00 for replacing the blind. The landlord did not provide any entry or exit photographs of the blind in question, nor did the landlord provide any invoice to prove the amount claimed. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Wall damage b. The landlord said the tenant damaged the walls in two areas – in the hallway and the lounge. The landlord said the hole in the lounge that was for the TV wires was made worse by the tenant. The landlord claimed $258.75 for repairing and painting these two holes and provided an invoice for this work in this amount. However, the landlord did not provide any entry or exit photographs of these walls or the damage found at the end of the tenancy. Given this, I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove the requirement for the landlord to incur this cost and so dismiss this claim. TV bracket c. The landlord also claimed $79.99 to replace a TV bracket they said the tenant removed and took with her when the tenancy ended. The landlord did not provide an invoice for this cost, nor did the landlord provide any other additional supporting evidence to prove this claim, such as entry and exit photographs, correspondence with the tenant about this or anything else. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. Name suppression is only available to parties if they have been wholly successful with the claim, which is not the case here as most of the landlord’s claims have been dismissed, or if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. There was no evidence provided as to why the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name and so the landlord’s request for name suppression is declined. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429389 — net $171.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$171.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$171.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$171.00

Order

Manatu Lolohea must pay Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For George & Wesley Hopner & Bradley $171.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Moros, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant, Ms Lolohea, did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and outgoings following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 3 January 2026. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant must prove the claims on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is the burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claimed $491.43 in water rates up to 3 January 2026, the end of the tenancy. Whilst the landlord provided a general summary of all tenant invoices, which included multiple types of invoices as well as some water transactions, the landlord did not provide a specific water rates ledger nor did they provide any water rates invoices for any periods claimed. As the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim, I dismiss this claim.

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. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $899.30 for cleaning, $230.00 for carpet cleaning and $172.00 for removal of a Flexibin at the end of the tenancy.
Whilst the landlord provided invoices in the amounts claimed for cleaning and removal of the Flexibin, the landlord did not provide any invoice for the carpet cleaning cost, nor did they provide any inspection reports or photographs or copies of correspondence between the parties about the cleaning or the removal of the Flexibin. Given this, the landlord has not provided sufficient additional supporting evidence to show the requirement for the landlord to incur these costs and so I dismiss the claims for cleaning, carpet cleaning and removal of the Flexibin. Locks
The landlord said the tenant returned a key, but it was not the key to the property. The property manager said she texted the tenant about this and spoke with the tenant’s partner, to ask the tenant to return the correct key to the property but there was no response. As a result of this, the landlord said they had to change the locks. The landlord provided an invoice for changing the locks in the amount of $171.00, which I find is a reasonable cost for this. Therefore, I award the landlord $171.00 for the landlord changing the locks at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered above is 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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Blind replacement a. A blind in one of the bedrooms had to be replaced as it had a tear in it. The landlord claimed $365.00 for replacing the blind. The landlord did not provide any entry or exit photographs of the blind in question, nor did the landlord provide any invoice to prove the amount claimed. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Wall damage b. The landlord said the tenant damaged the walls in two areas – in the hallway and the lounge. The landlord said the hole in the lounge that was for the TV wires was made worse by the tenant. The landlord claimed $258.75 for repairing and painting these two holes and provided an invoice for this work in this amount. However, the landlord did not provide any entry or exit photographs of these walls or the damage found at the end of the tenancy. Given this, I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove the requirement for the landlord to incur this cost and so dismiss this claim. TV bracket c. The landlord also claimed $79.99 to replace a TV bracket they said the tenant removed and took with her when the tenancy ended. The landlord did not provide an invoice for this cost, nor did the landlord provide any other additional supporting evidence to prove this claim, such as entry and exit photographs, correspondence with the tenant about this or anything else. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. Name suppression is only available to parties if they have been wholly successful with the claim, which is not the case here as most of the landlord’s claims have been dismissed, or if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. There was no evidence provided as to why the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name and so the landlord’s request for name suppression is declined. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429389 — Property damage at 8 Wharara Lane, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429389 — Property damage at 8 Wharara Lane, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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