What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436696 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5436696?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,852.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power Charges: $291.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,508.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436696?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436696?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13518049-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436696 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5436696?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,852.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power Charges: $291.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,508.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436696?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436696?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13518049-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436696 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436696 — net $8,080.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent compensation	$400.00	Rent compensation
Power charges	$291.12	Power charges
Damage	$4,508.55	Damage
Compensation	$2,852.50	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,080.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,080.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Doron Seu-Leniu must pay [The landlord/s] $8,080.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent compensation$400.00 Power charges$291.12 Damage$4,508.55 Compensation$2,852.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,080.17

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlords appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 6 April 2024. The sole tenant is Doron Seu- Leniu
The tenancy did not go well, rent arrears arose, and the premises were damaged.
The tenancy ended by order of the Tribunal on 16 December 2025 (application 5394323). That order required that immediate possession of the premises be returned to the landlord. The order also required the payment of rent arrears, power, repairs, and the filing fee, totalling $3,781.04. The bond was ordered to be paid to the landlord in full, meaning the tenant owed (once bond was deducted) the sum of $981.04.
The landlord advised that the tenant did not return the premises until 23 December 2025.
The current claim relates to costs and damages that were not covered in the earlier order of the Tribunal.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Loss of rent - $400.00 b. Power charge 291.12 c. Damage - $4,508.55 d. Compensation - $2,852.50

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

The landlord has claimed compensation under four broad headings. I will consider those in turn. Claim 1 – Rent compensation
The previous Tribunal order, covered rent arrears until 19 December 2025. The landlords seek a further four days of rent payments until the premises were returned on 23 December 2025.
The tenant is liable to pay rent until possession was returned to the landlord. The landlord’s claim of $400.00 is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Power charges
The landlord claims $291.12 for power charges. The landlords opened the power account for the tenant because he did not have a good credit history, so the landlords paid the power but the tenant was meant to pay the costs to the landlord directly. He did not do so.
The landlord has claimed $291.12 being power charges up to 20 December 2025. The power invoice has been provided to support that claim.
The tenant is liable for all outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenancy, which I accept this claim is for. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 - Damage
The landlord claims the following repair costs to repair damage at the end of the tenancy. a. Window repair $210.00 b. General repairs $4,102.05 c. Fireplace repair $196.50
With any compensation claim, to receive an order, the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case, the window repair related to a single window, an invoice from [glass repairer] has been provided to the sum of $210.00. I am satisfied that damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for this damage. This claim is ordered in full.
The landlord has also claimed for wide-ranging general repair costs. Those include the costs associated with the following work: a. Repairing a garage door. b. Repairing three internal doors that had been punched or kicked. c. Repairing smashed walls in the kitchen, bedroom and hallway. d. Repairing a damaged door jamb. e. Painting required to the door jambs. f. Repair damage to the walls in the bedrooms, hallway and bathroom. g. Replacing door locks to the front and back doors. h. Removing glued LED strip lighting from a bedroom, and i. Repairing the front door.
The materials for that work came to $867.00, and the landlord has charged labour at of $2520.00, with travel costs of $180.00.
Taking into consideration the photographs provided at the end of the tenancy, I am satisfied this damage was likely to have occurred during the tenancy, and it is not fair wear and tear. The damage is likely to be intentional damage, certainly the tenant has not proven otherwise. This claim is entirely reasonable, and is ordered in full.
Finally, the landlord claimed repair cost to the fireplace. An invoice has been provided from [Chimney cleaning service] relating to repairs required for the fire. I have no reason to believe that this damage was not caused during the tenancy, and based on what the landlord described at the hearing, of missing hardware and damage from burning plastics, the damage would not be fair wear and tear. The damage would likely fall into the intentional category, but it could be careless damage; either way, the tenant is liable for the repair cost.
The result is that I find the landlord’s claims for damage repair costs to be established in full. Claim 4 - Compensation
The landlord claims compensation of $2,852.50 which relates to: a. Tip fees - $190.50 b. Removal of tenant goods to storage - $1,520.00 c. Labour for rubbish removal - $200.00 d. Cleaning at end of tenancy - $820.00 e. Paint stripping and cleaning garage window - $122.00
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The photographs taken when the premises were returned to the landlord, show that there was extensive rubbish and tenant goods left in the premises. The premises were very dirty. Some windows had been painted. The standard at which the premises were returned, were far from the required standard of being reasonably clean and tidy, meaning the tenant is liable for the costs incurred with removing and disposing of goods, as well as cleaning. The amounts claimed by the landlord seem reasonable given the standard of the premises were returned.
This claim is established and ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlords were wholly successful, and they seek name suppression which is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436696 — net $8,080.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent compensation	$400.00	Rent compensation
Power charges	$291.12	Power charges
Damage	$4,508.55	Damage
Compensation	$2,852.50	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,080.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,080.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Doron Seu-Leniu must pay [The landlord/s] $8,080.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent compensation$400.00 Power charges$291.12 Damage$4,508.55 Compensation$2,852.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,080.17

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlords appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 6 April 2024. The sole tenant is Doron Seu- Leniu
The tenancy did not go well, rent arrears arose, and the premises were damaged.
The tenancy ended by order of the Tribunal on 16 December 2025 (application 5394323). That order required that immediate possession of the premises be returned to the landlord. The order also required the payment of rent arrears, power, repairs, and the filing fee, totalling $3,781.04. The bond was ordered to be paid to the landlord in full, meaning the tenant owed (once bond was deducted) the sum of $981.04.
The landlord advised that the tenant did not return the premises until 23 December 2025.
The current claim relates to costs and damages that were not covered in the earlier order of the Tribunal.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Loss of rent - $400.00 b. Power charge 291.12 c. Damage - $4,508.55 d. Compensation - $2,852.50

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

The landlord has claimed compensation under four broad headings. I will consider those in turn. Claim 1 – Rent compensation
The previous Tribunal order, covered rent arrears until 19 December 2025. The landlords seek a further four days of rent payments until the premises were returned on 23 December 2025.
The tenant is liable to pay rent until possession was returned to the landlord. The landlord’s claim of $400.00 is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Power charges
The landlord claims $291.12 for power charges. The landlords opened the power account for the tenant because he did not have a good credit history, so the landlords paid the power but the tenant was meant to pay the costs to the landlord directly. He did not do so.
The landlord has claimed $291.12 being power charges up to 20 December 2025. The power invoice has been provided to support that claim.
The tenant is liable for all outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenancy, which I accept this claim is for. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 - Damage
The landlord claims the following repair costs to repair damage at the end of the tenancy. a. Window repair $210.00 b. General repairs $4,102.05 c. Fireplace repair $196.50
With any compensation claim, to receive an order, the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case, the window repair related to a single window, an invoice from [glass repairer] has been provided to the sum of $210.00. I am satisfied that damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for this damage. This claim is ordered in full.
The landlord has also claimed for wide-ranging general repair costs. Those include the costs associated with the following work: a. Repairing a garage door. b. Repairing three internal doors that had been punched or kicked. c. Repairing smashed walls in the kitchen, bedroom and hallway. d. Repairing a damaged door jamb. e. Painting required to the door jambs. f. Repair damage to the walls in the bedrooms, hallway and bathroom. g. Replacing door locks to the front and back doors. h. Removing glued LED strip lighting from a bedroom, and i. Repairing the front door.
The materials for that work came to $867.00, and the landlord has charged labour at of $2520.00, with travel costs of $180.00.
Taking into consideration the photographs provided at the end of the tenancy, I am satisfied this damage was likely to have occurred during the tenancy, and it is not fair wear and tear. The damage is likely to be intentional damage, certainly the tenant has not proven otherwise. This claim is entirely reasonable, and is ordered in full.
Finally, the landlord claimed repair cost to the fireplace. An invoice has been provided from [Chimney cleaning service] relating to repairs required for the fire. I have no reason to believe that this damage was not caused during the tenancy, and based on what the landlord described at the hearing, of missing hardware and damage from burning plastics, the damage would not be fair wear and tear. The damage would likely fall into the intentional category, but it could be careless damage; either way, the tenant is liable for the repair cost.
The result is that I find the landlord’s claims for damage repair costs to be established in full. Claim 4 - Compensation
The landlord claims compensation of $2,852.50 which relates to: a. Tip fees - $190.50 b. Removal of tenant goods to storage - $1,520.00 c. Labour for rubbish removal - $200.00 d. Cleaning at end of tenancy - $820.00 e. Paint stripping and cleaning garage window - $122.00
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The photographs taken when the premises were returned to the landlord, show that there was extensive rubbish and tenant goods left in the premises. The premises were very dirty. Some windows had been painted. The standard at which the premises were returned, were far from the required standard of being reasonably clean and tidy, meaning the tenant is liable for the costs incurred with removing and disposing of goods, as well as cleaning. The amounts claimed by the landlord seem reasonable given the standard of the premises were returned.
This claim is established and ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlords were wholly successful, and they seek name suppression which is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436696 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436696 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions