What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5433269?

The tribunal order states: Caroline Leilua must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,298.63

How much money was awarded in case 5433269?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $989.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $89.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13559648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5433269?

The tribunal order states: Caroline Leilua must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,298.63

How much money was awarded in case 5433269?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $989.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $89.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13559648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9A Teelin Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5433269 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5433269 — net $1,298.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: oven	$60.00	Cleaning: oven
Lawns and Garden work	$160.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$89.63	Rubbish removal
Carpet and underlay replacement	$989.00	Carpet and underlay replacement
Net award	$1,298.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,298.63

Order

Caroline Leilua must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,298.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 28 January 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Jenni Davis, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

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 “Act”).

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $165.86 to clean the oven and $48.45 to the clean the rangehood after paying a contractor to bring these areas up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish. The landlord provided an exit inspection report with photographs proving the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the entry inspection photographs with the exit inspection photographs. The oven was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from grease spots. The end of tenancy photographs show a strip of grease staining between the door and the oven cavity. The Tribunal is satisfied that this discrete area was not returned in a reasonably clean condition. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the whole oven needed to be cleaned and on that basis the amount of $60.00 is ordered.
There were no pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the condition of the rangehood at the commencement of the tenancy. As the landlord has failed to prove the condition of the rangehood at the commencement of the tenancy the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant has failed to return it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The claim for compensation for cleaning of the rangehood is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the lawns in a tidy condition?

The landlord seeks $160.00 lawn mowing costs after paying a contractor to slash and mow the lawns and remove and dump the green waste following the end of the tenancy. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the lawns had been recently mowed and edges trimmed at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy photographs show the lawns were long and overgrowing the concrete driveway. The landlord told the Tribunal the lawns had to be slashed before the grass could be mowed.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of lawns at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to return the lawns in a tidy condition and the amount claimed is reasonable.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

The landlord seeks compensation of $89.63 after paying a contractor to remove and dump six round, blue and white planters following the end of the tenancy. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection report shows the property was not supplied with these planters. The exit inspection report shows six medium to large size planters on the edge of the lawn parallel with the driveway. Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove these planters at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 seeks compensation for damage to the carpet and underlay in entrance hall, living room, bedroom one and bedroom two totalling $989.00. The landlord adjusted the amount claimed to reflect depreciation. A breakdown of the costs and depreciation calculations was provided.
The pre-tenancy report and photographs records the carpet was provided in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet had been replaced immediately prior to the tenant moving in. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was approximately five years old.
The exit inspection report and photographs shows the carpet had been extensively stained with black, brown, and red marks, and the carpet in the living room had, what appeared to be, small round holes (approximately the size of a fifty-cent piece). The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they had the carpet professionally cleaned but the stains were unsuccessfully treated.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the carpet staining occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
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. The Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has properly calculated the depreciation rates for the carpet, taking into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan, and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Despite being wholly successful the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5433269 — net $1,298.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: oven	$60.00	Cleaning: oven
Lawns and Garden work	$160.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$89.63	Rubbish removal
Carpet and underlay replacement	$989.00	Carpet and underlay replacement
Net award	$1,298.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,298.63

Order

Caroline Leilua must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,298.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 28 January 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Jenni Davis, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

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 “Act”).

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $165.86 to clean the oven and $48.45 to the clean the rangehood after paying a contractor to bring these areas up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish. The landlord provided an exit inspection report with photographs proving the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the entry inspection photographs with the exit inspection photographs. The oven was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from grease spots. The end of tenancy photographs show a strip of grease staining between the door and the oven cavity. The Tribunal is satisfied that this discrete area was not returned in a reasonably clean condition. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the whole oven needed to be cleaned and on that basis the amount of $60.00 is ordered.
There were no pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the condition of the rangehood at the commencement of the tenancy. As the landlord has failed to prove the condition of the rangehood at the commencement of the tenancy the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant has failed to return it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The claim for compensation for cleaning of the rangehood is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the lawns in a tidy condition?

The landlord seeks $160.00 lawn mowing costs after paying a contractor to slash and mow the lawns and remove and dump the green waste following the end of the tenancy. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the lawns had been recently mowed and edges trimmed at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy photographs show the lawns were long and overgrowing the concrete driveway. The landlord told the Tribunal the lawns had to be slashed before the grass could be mowed.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of lawns at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to return the lawns in a tidy condition and the amount claimed is reasonable.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

The landlord seeks compensation of $89.63 after paying a contractor to remove and dump six round, blue and white planters following the end of the tenancy. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection report shows the property was not supplied with these planters. The exit inspection report shows six medium to large size planters on the edge of the lawn parallel with the driveway. Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove these planters at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 seeks compensation for damage to the carpet and underlay in entrance hall, living room, bedroom one and bedroom two totalling $989.00. The landlord adjusted the amount claimed to reflect depreciation. A breakdown of the costs and depreciation calculations was provided.
The pre-tenancy report and photographs records the carpet was provided in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet had been replaced immediately prior to the tenant moving in. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was approximately five years old.
The exit inspection report and photographs shows the carpet had been extensively stained with black, brown, and red marks, and the carpet in the living room had, what appeared to be, small round holes (approximately the size of a fifty-cent piece). The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they had the carpet professionally cleaned but the stains were unsuccessfully treated.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the carpet staining occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
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. The Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has properly calculated the depreciation rates for the carpet, taking into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan, and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Despite being wholly successful the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5433269 — Property damage at 9A Teelin Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5433269 — Property damage at 9A Teelin Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the lawns in a tidy condition?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

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

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the lawns in a tidy condition?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions