Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5429688 — Property damage at 61B Glenpark Avenue, Frankleigh Park, New Plymouth
Published 10 March 2026 · Application 5429688
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
New Plymouth
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Kemp
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,103.86
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,103.86
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 22/12/2026 | $600.00 | 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. | |
| Repairs: Replace satellite dish | $250.00 | Repairs: Replace satellite dish | |
| Repairs: Window bedroom and front door glass | $452.67 | Repairs: Window bedroom and front door glass | |
| Repairs: Cabinet drawer | $258.11 | Repairs: Cabinet drawer | |
| Repairs: Hole in kitchen wall | $131.39 | Repairs: Hole in kitchen wall | |
| Repairs: Holes in cupboard wall | $11.69 | Repairs: Holes in cupboard wall | |
| Repairs: Paint bedroom | $351.00 | Repairs: Paint bedroom | |
| Repairs: Carpet bedroom and lounge | $949.00 | Repairs: Carpet bedroom and lounge | |
| Cleaning: Cleaning including removing paint from windows | $100.00 | Cleaning: Cleaning including removing paint from windows | |
| Net award | $3,103.86 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,103.86 |
Claims and awards for application 5429688 — net $3,103.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 22/12/2026
- Amount
- $600.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Repairs: Replace satellite dish
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Replace satellite dish
Repairs: Window bedroom and front door glass
- Amount
- $452.67
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Window bedroom and front door glass
Repairs: Cabinet drawer
- Amount
- $258.11
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Cabinet drawer
Repairs: Hole in kitchen wall
- Amount
- $131.39
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Hole in kitchen wall
Repairs: Holes in cupboard wall
- Amount
- $11.69
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Holes in cupboard wall
Repairs: Paint bedroom
- Amount
- $351.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Paint bedroom
Repairs: Carpet bedroom and lounge
- Amount
- $949.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Carpet bedroom and lounge
Cleaning: Cleaning including removing paint from windows
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: Cleaning including removing paint from windows
Net award
Landlord $3,103.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,103.86
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Sid Te Wake Lambert must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,103.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 22 December 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The sum ordered 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 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors.
- The landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken bedroom window b. Broken door window c. Kitchen drawer missing d. Holes in cupboard wall (cut out) e. Hole in kitchen wall (cut out) f. Damage to bedroom walls g. Removal of carpet in bedroom and significant carpet damage (cutting) in lounge.
- I am satisfied that all of this damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord has no insurance but in any event, I am satisfied that the damage is more likely than not to be intentional, given the nature of the damage proven.
- I made no deduction in relation to the sums claimed for carpet and painting because I am satisfied that the landlord has already made an appropriate deduction in its application for these items (in other words full remedial value has not been sought by the landlord).
- I do not consider the landlord has obtained a benefit in remedying the other damage listed and so no deduction to account for betterment is appropriate on those items.
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 leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I am satisfied the tenant removed a satellite dish. I have awarded replacement costs but I have limited the sum claimed to $250 to take into account betterment and depreciation. The IRD depreciation guidelines for chattels in a residential property sets out that the expected lifespan for such an item is 12.5 years. There was no evidence available on the age of the dish at the start of the tenancy, but the pre-tenancy inspection shows a dish in very good condition. I therefore consider it reasonable to award this sum.
- I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks cleaning costs (which exclude rubbish removal).
- In terms of the required cleaning the landlord says that floors needed cleaning, two windows needed black paint scraping from them (the windows had been painted, perhaps as a form of window covering/screen) and the drawers and cupboards needed wiping.
- The photos provided do not sufficiently support the full cleaning sum claimed. The kitchen is painted wood and older making it harder to clean. The outgoing property inspection records that the kitchen and bathroom are reasonably clean. The images do not show a level of cleaning that justifies the total amount requested. As a result, the cleaning claim is reduced to reflect only the reasonable costs supported by the available evidence. I limit the cost of cleaning to $100.
- The landlord waives their right to the filing fee and does not seek suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s12, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429688?
The tribunal order states: Sid Te Wake Lambert must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities
How much money was awarded in case 5429688?
Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cabinet Drawer: $258.11 awarded to landlord; Carpet Bedroom And Lounge: $949.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Kitchen Wall: $131.39 awarded to landlord; Holes In Cupboard Wall: $11.69 awarded to landlord; Paint Bedroom: $351.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Satellite Dish: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Window Bedroom And Front Door Glass: $452.67 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429688?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429688?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13257211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.