What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437470 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 5437470?

Cleaning: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous order: 5437470 dated 18/03/…: $3,728.21 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $415.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $103.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437470?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13640409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437470 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 5437470?

Cleaning: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous order: 5437470 dated 18/03/…: $3,728.21 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $415.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $103.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437470?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13640409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437470 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437470 — net $6,015.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order: 5437470 dated 18/03/2026	$3,728.21	Previous order: 5437470 dated 18/03/2026
Lock/key replacement	$415.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet cleaning	$241.50	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$103.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to walls and doors	$1,500.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,015.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,015.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the first tenant’s name and identifying details.
[Tenant 1] and Ezra Lemusa must pay Garam Investments Limited as agent for Pradeepkumar Nathoo $6,015.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 18 March 2026 under application 5437470.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted by videoconference and was attended by Mr Nathoo, representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1], the tenant. The other tenant did not attend.
As noted in the earlier Tribunal order dated 18 March 2026, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, water charges, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord no longer seeks termination of the tenancy, having regained possession on 10 March 2026. The landlord’s application has been amended to include compensation.
After the first hearing, the landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates and payment from the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes, and the amount payable is noted in the table above.
The hearing was adjourned part-heard, and the balance of the landlord’s claim is considered below.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord seeks costs for carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and locksmith’s charges. The landlord has provided evidence, including photographs, invoices and oral evidence in support of the claim for carpet cleaning, and costs incurred to remove a large metal ramp that was left at the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states there were some stains in the carpet. The tenant accepts that the carpet would have required further cleaning to remove stains. She had asked the other tenant to remove the metal ramp, and had reminded him about it.
The other tenant did not return the keys, so the landlord incurred the cost of changing all the locks. The tenant supports the landlord’s claim.
Being satisfied that the landlord has established its claims, the amounts sought are ordered above. Compensation for tenant damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful in such claims, 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 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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 must be considered. The landlord’s claim for tenant damage
On the basis of the landlord’s evidence, which includes photographs, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Doors: the landlord had to replace 5 doors due to the extent of damage. • Walls: there were 6 holes that had to be repaired, with repair work involving gib, plastering and painting.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The total cost of repairing the above damage is $4,887.50, as shown in the invoice. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $1,500.00. The insurance assessor’s report has been provided. As this claim has been established, the amount sought is awarded above.
In determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation has been taken into account. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
The tenant who attended the hearing has requested name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of this tenant’s name and identifying details only. Name suppression for the other tenant is declined. The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437470 — net $6,015.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order: 5437470 dated 18/03/2026	$3,728.21	Previous order: 5437470 dated 18/03/2026
Lock/key replacement	$415.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet cleaning	$241.50	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$103.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to walls and doors	$1,500.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,015.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,015.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the first tenant’s name and identifying details.
[Tenant 1] and Ezra Lemusa must pay Garam Investments Limited as agent for Pradeepkumar Nathoo $6,015.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 18 March 2026 under application 5437470.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted by videoconference and was attended by Mr Nathoo, representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1], the tenant. The other tenant did not attend.
As noted in the earlier Tribunal order dated 18 March 2026, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, water charges, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord no longer seeks termination of the tenancy, having regained possession on 10 March 2026. The landlord’s application has been amended to include compensation.
After the first hearing, the landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates and payment from the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes, and the amount payable is noted in the table above.
The hearing was adjourned part-heard, and the balance of the landlord’s claim is considered below.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord seeks costs for carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and locksmith’s charges. The landlord has provided evidence, including photographs, invoices and oral evidence in support of the claim for carpet cleaning, and costs incurred to remove a large metal ramp that was left at the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states there were some stains in the carpet. The tenant accepts that the carpet would have required further cleaning to remove stains. She had asked the other tenant to remove the metal ramp, and had reminded him about it.
The other tenant did not return the keys, so the landlord incurred the cost of changing all the locks. The tenant supports the landlord’s claim.
Being satisfied that the landlord has established its claims, the amounts sought are ordered above. Compensation for tenant damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful in such claims, 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 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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 must be considered. The landlord’s claim for tenant damage
On the basis of the landlord’s evidence, which includes photographs, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Doors: the landlord had to replace 5 doors due to the extent of damage. • Walls: there were 6 holes that had to be repaired, with repair work involving gib, plastering and painting.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The total cost of repairing the above damage is $4,887.50, as shown in the invoice. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $1,500.00. The insurance assessor’s report has been provided. As this claim has been established, the amount sought is awarded above.
In determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation has been taken into account. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with the application.
The tenant who attended the hearing has requested name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of this tenant’s name and identifying details only. Name suppression for the other tenant is declined. The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437470 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437470 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions