What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429503?

The tribunal order states: Te Rongonui Waipouri must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5429503?

Cleaning: $569.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $497.80 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $181.88 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Drawers: $233.07 awarded to landlord; Oven: $503.13 awarded to landlord; Walls: $351.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $738.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429503?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13750260-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429503?

The tribunal order states: Te Rongonui Waipouri must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5429503?

Cleaning: $569.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $497.80 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $181.88 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Drawers: $233.07 awarded to landlord; Oven: $503.13 awarded to landlord; Walls: $351.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $738.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429503?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13750260-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1005, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429503 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429503 — net $3,119.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Swipe card replacement (balance remaining	$44.00	Swipe card replacement (balance remaining
Cleaning	$569.61	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$738.95	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet	$497.80	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Walls	$351.03	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Curtains	$181.88	Repairs: Curtains
Repairs: Kitchen drawers	$233.07	Repairs: Kitchen drawers
Repairs: Oven	$503.13	Repairs: Oven
Net award	$3,119.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,119.47

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.

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

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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

The law

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. 1

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Analysis

The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. No attempt to clean the premises has been made. Foodstuffs, rubbish, personal and household belongings have been left behind. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped and bench surfaces have not been wiped down. Overall, the premises were left in a very poor condition.

The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $569.61 b. Rubbish removal: $738.95

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Carpet

The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the carpet to be in very good condition. It is clean and no obvious stains are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the carpet to be in very poor condition. It is very dirty and badly stained. I find the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the extent of staining was such that full replacement of the carpet was required.

The actual cost to replace the carpet was $711.15. The landlord seeks $497.80 of this cost to reflect the age of the carpet at the end of tenancy, which was three years old. This seems reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $497.80. Walls

The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls to be in good condition. No significant marks, dents or scratches are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show dents and scratches to the walls. Parts of the wall are also badly stained, and it appears the tenant has painted a red design on one of the walls. I find the walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.

The actual cost to repair and paint the walls was $764.55. The landlord seeks $351.03 to reflect the principles of betterment and depreciation. The walls were last painted three years ago. The amount sought seems reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair and paint the walls is granted for $351.03. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. Curtains

The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the curtains to be in good condition. No significant marks are present, and they are nicely hung to the curtain rail. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show what appears to be blood stains on the bottom of one of the curtains. The curtains have also fallen off the curtain rack. I find the curtains were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.

The actual cost to replace the curtains was $291.00. The landlord seeks $181.88 to reflect the age of the curtains, which were 2 – 3 years old. The amount sought seems reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the curtains is granted for $181.88. Kitchen drawers

The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the kitchen drawers to be in good condition. All drawers are present and no damage is apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show one drawer is missing. I find this kitchen drawer was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord’s claim to repair the kitchen drawer is granted for $233.07. Oven

The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the oven to be in good condition. It is clean and the landlord claims it was working. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the oven to be very dirty. The landlord claims it was not working. I accept the landlord’s evidence. I find the oven was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.

The actual cost to replace the oven was $805.00. The landlord seeks $503.13 of this to reflect the age of the oven at the end of the tenancy, which was three years old. The amount sought seems reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the oven is granted for $503.13. Swipe cards

The landlord gave evidence that they replaced multiple swipe-cards for the tenant during the tenancy. They submitted invoices totalling $660.00 to replace swipe cards. The tenant has paid $616.00 towards this cost, which leaves a balance of $44.00 remaining. I accept the landlord’s evidence.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the swipe cards is granted for $44.00.

All of the amounts ordered are proved.

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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429503 — net $3,119.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Swipe card replacement (balance remaining	$44.00	Swipe card replacement (balance remaining
Cleaning	$569.61	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$738.95	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet	$497.80	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Walls	$351.03	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Curtains	$181.88	Repairs: Curtains
Repairs: Kitchen drawers	$233.07	Repairs: Kitchen drawers
Repairs: Oven	$503.13	Repairs: Oven
Net award	$3,119.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,119.47

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.

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

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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

The law

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. 1

The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $569.61 b. Rubbish removal: $738.95

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

The actual cost to replace the carpet was $711.15. The landlord seeks $497.80 of this cost to reflect the age of the carpet at the end of tenancy, which was three years old. This seems reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $497.80. Walls

The actual cost to replace the curtains was $291.00. The landlord seeks $181.88 to reflect the age of the curtains, which were 2 – 3 years old. The amount sought seems reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the curtains is granted for $181.88. Kitchen drawers

The landlord’s claim to repair the kitchen drawer is granted for $233.07. Oven

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the oven is granted for $503.13. Swipe cards

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the swipe cards is granted for $44.00.

All of the amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429503 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1005, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429503 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1005, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

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 damage that occurred during 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?

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions