What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5436930?

The tribunal order states: Violet Lolita Mamaia Mamaia must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5436930?

Cleaning: $512.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,856.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Fixtures: $194.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $334.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13645364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5436930?

The tribunal order states: Violet Lolita Mamaia Mamaia must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5436930?

Cleaning: $512.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,856.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Fixtures: $194.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $334.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13645364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17B Range View Road, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436930 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436930 — net $5,286.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$512.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$334.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$3,856.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement
Repairs: Walls and fixtures	$194.32	Repairs: Walls and fixtures
Repairs: Painting	$390.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$5,286.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,286.32

Order

Violet Lolita Mamaia Mamaia must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $5,286.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 2 February 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.
The tenancy commenced on 4 August 2023 and was periodic.
The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025.

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”).
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $1,024.41 for cleaning costs and $1,166.51 for rubbish removal costs after paying a contractor to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition following the end of the tenancy. A tenant invoices letter and a maintenance work order was provided to prove the amounts claimed.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs. This report records the following: a. The floors had not been mopped or vacuumed. b. Not all kitchen items were removed, and the cupboards needed wiping out. c. The hob had a build-up of grease around two elements that needed to be removed. d. There was dust on the skirting boards in the entrance/hallway. e. The wet room bathroom and toilet needed emptying of personal care items and the surfaces needed to be cleaned. f. The family bathroom and toilet was returned in a very clean and tidy condition. g. The tenant failed to remove a small number of children’s toys, cleaning products, five black sacks of rubbish and general waste, a child’s scooter, plastic pipes, a chest of draws, a cot with mattress, baby bath and stroller.
The Tribunal heard that the property was a large six-bedroom, two-bathroom home. The maintenance work order records that the property required a “major” clean and that 6 cubic meters of rubbish from inside the property and 1 cubic meter of rubbish from outside the property was removed and dumped.
The exit inspection photographs do not show this. The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The evidence shows that while the property was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish, it was not extensively or heavily soiled nor was a large volume of rubbish left behind. Only one of the two bathrooms and toilets required cleaning. That bathroom and toilet was not heavily soiled. There was no evidence to suggest the walls, doors, or electrical fittings required cleaning. The kitchen cupboards did require wiping out but there was no evidence of excessive grease staining or heavy soiling. The landlord accepted their photographs show approximately two cubic meters of rubbish was required to be removed and dumped at the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal orders $512.00 for cleaning costs, half the amount claimed, and $334.00 for rubbish removed being 28.5% of the amount claimed.

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.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $5001.00 to replace the carpet in the property due to extensive staining. The maintenance work order detailed the amount claimed.
The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre-tenancy inspection photographs reflect this. At the end of the tenancy the landlord said the carpet was stained and unsanitary. The end of tenancy photographs show the carpet was returned extensively stained with multiple black, red and brown marks. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the carpet was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal considers that damage to the carpet was careless rather than intentional given the number of discrete stains in multiple areas of different colours.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a depreciation calculation for the carpet. The total cost of replacing the carpet was $5,888.40. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was 18 months old. The landlord seeks $5001.00 adjustment for 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 property is not insured and the maximum amount the Tribunal can award for careless damage is limited to four weeks' rent or market rent. The market rent for the property is $964.00. On that basis the amount of $3,856.00 is ordered.

Is the tenant liable to pay for wall and fitting remediation and painting costs?

The landlord seeks $194.32 for wall and fixture repairs and $390.00 painting costs. The maintenance work order detailed the amount claimed.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the pre-tenancy inspection photographs with the end of tenancy inspection photographs. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal was satisfied the following damaged was caused during the tenancy, and the damage was more than fair wear and tear: a. A fist sized in the living room wall. b. A fist sized hole in the wall in bedroom three. c. A long skinny hole in the wall in bedroom five. d. The front of a kitchen draw had detached; and e. Black marks, scratches and dents in bedroom one (which the landlord said could not be removed with cleaning).
The Tribunal was satisfied that that the holes required patching, the kitchen draw front required re-attached, and bedroom one required repainting to remediate the damage.
Again the Tribunal has considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord provided a depreciation calculation for repainting the bedroom. The total cost of the repainting was $556.98. The landlord indicated the walls were newly painted at the commencement of the tenancy with an estimated life cycle of five years. The Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord’s calculation properly reflected the cost less depreciation, and the amounts claimed are ordered. Other matters
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436930 — net $5,286.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$512.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$334.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$3,856.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement
Repairs: Walls and fixtures	$194.32	Repairs: Walls and fixtures
Repairs: Painting	$390.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$5,286.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,286.32

Order

Violet Lolita Mamaia Mamaia must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $5,286.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 2 February 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.
The tenancy commenced on 4 August 2023 and was periodic.
The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025.

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”).
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $1,024.41 for cleaning costs and $1,166.51 for rubbish removal costs after paying a contractor to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition following the end of the tenancy. A tenant invoices letter and a maintenance work order was provided to prove the amounts claimed.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs. This report records the following: a. The floors had not been mopped or vacuumed. b. Not all kitchen items were removed, and the cupboards needed wiping out. c. The hob had a build-up of grease around two elements that needed to be removed. d. There was dust on the skirting boards in the entrance/hallway. e. The wet room bathroom and toilet needed emptying of personal care items and the surfaces needed to be cleaned. f. The family bathroom and toilet was returned in a very clean and tidy condition. g. The tenant failed to remove a small number of children’s toys, cleaning products, five black sacks of rubbish and general waste, a child’s scooter, plastic pipes, a chest of draws, a cot with mattress, baby bath and stroller.
The Tribunal heard that the property was a large six-bedroom, two-bathroom home. The maintenance work order records that the property required a “major” clean and that 6 cubic meters of rubbish from inside the property and 1 cubic meter of rubbish from outside the property was removed and dumped.
The exit inspection photographs do not show this. The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The evidence shows that while the property was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish, it was not extensively or heavily soiled nor was a large volume of rubbish left behind. Only one of the two bathrooms and toilets required cleaning. That bathroom and toilet was not heavily soiled. There was no evidence to suggest the walls, doors, or electrical fittings required cleaning. The kitchen cupboards did require wiping out but there was no evidence of excessive grease staining or heavy soiling. The landlord accepted their photographs show approximately two cubic meters of rubbish was required to be removed and dumped at the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal orders $512.00 for cleaning costs, half the amount claimed, and $334.00 for rubbish removed being 28.5% of the amount claimed.

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.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $5001.00 to replace the carpet in the property due to extensive staining. The maintenance work order detailed the amount claimed.
The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre-tenancy inspection photographs reflect this. At the end of the tenancy the landlord said the carpet was stained and unsanitary. The end of tenancy photographs show the carpet was returned extensively stained with multiple black, red and brown marks. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the carpet was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal considers that damage to the carpet was careless rather than intentional given the number of discrete stains in multiple areas of different colours.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a depreciation calculation for the carpet. The total cost of replacing the carpet was $5,888.40. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was 18 months old. The landlord seeks $5001.00 adjustment for 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 property is not insured and the maximum amount the Tribunal can award for careless damage is limited to four weeks' rent or market rent. The market rent for the property is $964.00. On that basis the amount of $3,856.00 is ordered.

Is the tenant liable to pay for wall and fitting remediation and painting costs?

The landlord seeks $194.32 for wall and fixture repairs and $390.00 painting costs. The maintenance work order detailed the amount claimed.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the pre-tenancy inspection photographs with the end of tenancy inspection photographs. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal was satisfied the following damaged was caused during the tenancy, and the damage was more than fair wear and tear: a. A fist sized in the living room wall. b. A fist sized hole in the wall in bedroom three. c. A long skinny hole in the wall in bedroom five. d. The front of a kitchen draw had detached; and e. Black marks, scratches and dents in bedroom one (which the landlord said could not be removed with cleaning).
The Tribunal was satisfied that that the holes required patching, the kitchen draw front required re-attached, and bedroom one required repainting to remediate the damage.
Again the Tribunal has considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord provided a depreciation calculation for repainting the bedroom. The total cost of the repainting was $556.98. The landlord indicated the walls were newly painted at the commencement of the tenancy with an estimated life cycle of five years. The Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord’s calculation properly reflected the cost less depreciation, and the amounts claimed are ordered. Other matters
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436930 — Property damage at 17B Range View Road, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436930 — Property damage at 17B Range View Road, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

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 the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

Is the tenant liable to pay for wall and fitting remediation and painting costs?

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 the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet?

Is the tenant liable to pay for wall and fitting remediation and painting costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions