What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445029 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay GG Blue Enterprises Limited As Agent For Nadia

How much money was awarded in case 5445029?

Cleaning: $442.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; 2 x new shower heads and 2 x shower…: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint Holes: $807.30 awarded to landlord; Replace Door Handle: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14184678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445029 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay GG Blue Enterprises Limited As Agent For Nadia

How much money was awarded in case 5445029?

Cleaning: $442.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; 2 x new shower heads and 2 x shower…: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint Holes: $807.30 awarded to landlord; Replace Door Handle: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14184678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Harvie McWatt Drive, Totara Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445029 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445029 — net $2,411.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$442.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$160.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work: and exterior rubbish removal	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work: and exterior rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$460.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: plaster and paint holes	$807.30	Repairs: plaster and paint holes
Repairs: 2 x new shower heads and 2 x shower hoses	$276.00	Repairs: 2 x new shower heads and 2 x shower hoses
Repairs: replace door handle	$138.00	Repairs: replace door handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,411.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,411.80

Ms Armstrong, representing the landlord, attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord withdrew their compensation claims for carpet cleaning/stain removal, for repairing the side gate lock, and 3 claims for plastering and painting holes in the bedroom walls (the latter 4 claims which were included in the landlord’s invoice for $1,322.50 for ‘multiple jobs’).

The landlord said the tenancy started on 2 August 2024 and ended on 22 January 2026.

The landlord said the property was a brand-new build and the tenant was the first person to ever live in the property when the tenancy began.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided an Exit Inspection Report dated 24 January 2026, with a number of photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided invoices for all the claims made. Rubbish removal, cleaning and outside grounds maintenance

The landlord pointed to photographs in the Exit Inspection Report showing many items left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, including a mattress, bed base, bag, broken vacuum cleaner, chair, light stand, framed photographs, suitcase and other items. The landlord claimed $160.00 to remove the rubbish left inside the property and provided an invoice in this amount. The landlord said they gave the tenant a further 2 weeks after the tenancy ended in which to collect her belongings but said this did not occur. From the evidence provided, I find the landlord has proved the tenant left rubbish at the end of the tenancy and find the amount claimed for removing the rubbish is reasonable given this evidence. As such, I award the landlord $160.00 to remove interior rubbish at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord highlighted photographs showing a requirement for the property to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy, including photographs of several dirty kitchen drawers, a dirty rangehood and oven, the property needed to be vacuumed as the tenant’s vacuum had broken, the showers, both and toilets in both bathrooms were left dirty and grubby, and marks on the bedroom walls had to be cleaned. The landlord claimed $442.75 for cleaning, which I find is reasonable given the evidence provided. As such, I award the landlord $442.75 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord said the tenant left the lawns and outside grounds in an untidy condition and showed photographs of this. The photographs show various areas of the outside which needed to be weeded, as well as 2 outside rubbish bins full of rubbish, and several items left by the tenant outside, which had to be removed and dumped. The landlord claimed $100.00 for grounds maintenance/gardening/exterior rubbish removal and provided an invoice in this amount. I find this amount claimed reasonable given the evidence and so award the landlord $100.00 for garden work and grounds maintenance. Locks

The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord said the locks had to be replaced for the front door and 2 ranch sliders, both of which provided exterior access. The landlord claimed $460.00 to replace these locks, with an invoice in this amount, which I find reasonable, given the evidence. Therefore, I award $460.00 to the landlord to replace 3 locks at the end of the tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Holes in walls a. The landlord indicated that the tenant caused two large holes in the walls, one in the main bedroom and another in bedroom 3. The landlord showed photographs of these holes, both of which were large. The landlord said the tenant told them the hole in the main bedroom wall was caused when they were moving the bed and a corner of the bed went through the wall on exiting the premises. The landlord said the tenant told them the large round hole high up the wall in bedroom 3 was made by them for “ventilation”. From the size and shape of the hole in the wall in the main bedroom in the photographs shown (large and very square when the tenant attempted to replaster this hole) and the size and high up position of the hole in bedroom 3, and given the photographs of both of these holes, I do not accept that either of these holes were caused carelessly. From the photographs provided of these holes, I find it more likely that both holes were caused intentionally and so find this is intentional damage on the tenant’s part. b. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. c. The landlord provided an invoice for $897.00, which they said was for plastering and painting these two large holes in bedrooms 1 and 3. I find this to be a reasonable cost before considering depreciation, given the evidence. d. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. e. I find it reasonable that half the invoice is attributable to plastering both holes, being $448.50, and the other half the invoice of $448.50 is attributable to painting the holes. It is only the painting cost that is subject to depreciation. f. The landlord said the premises were last painted immediately before the tenancy began, around 2 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted bedroom walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $448.50 that I find reasonable for painting by 20% for depreciation to an award of $358.80 for the painting. I then add the $448.50 attributable to the plastering, for a total net depreciated award of $807.30 for plastering and painting both large holes in the bedrooms at the end of the tenancy. Shower heads and shower hoses in 2 bathrooms g. The landlord said that the shower heads and shower hoses had to be replaced in both bathrooms. The landlord provided photographs of both these showers showing the tenant had taped up both shower hoses. The landlord said the water was spraying out of sides of the hoses when they did the final inspection. The landlord said the tenant had told them that her 6-year-old had damaged both shower hoses by squeezing them as he could not reach the shower heads. h. Given that is the only evidence available about how the shower hoses and shower heads were damaged, I find the tenant likely carelessly damaged the shower heads and shower hoses in both bathrooms. i. As I find this is careless damage on the tenant’s part, the tenant is liable for the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent, minus any depreciation. The landlord advised the insurance excess is $1,250.00. j. The landlord claimed $300.00 plus GST, coming to $345.00, to replace the two shower hoses and two shower heads, which I find is a reasonable cost, given the evidence. k. The landlord said the shower heads and shower hoses were new at the start of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of shower heads to be around 15 years and of shower hoses to be around 4 years. I find a reasonable depreciation rate here to cover both the shower heads and shower hoses to be 20% and so reduce the claim I find reasonable, of $345.00, by 20% to a depreciated award of $276.00 for the two new sets of shower heads and shower hoses. l. As the amount of this claim is less than the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent, I award the landlord $276.00 to replace the shower heads and shower hoses in both bathrooms. Door handle m. The landlord said they had to replace one door handle in bedroom 2 and repair another door handle in the ensuite. The landlord provided photographs of the broken door handle in bedroom 2 and the door handle broken in the ensuite. The landlord said both were brand new at the start of the tenancy, given the house was a brand-new build. n. Given the evidence, I find it likely this was careless damage on the tenant’s part. As I find this is careless damage, the tenant is liable for the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent minus any depreciation. o. The landlord claimed $150.00 plus GST, coming to $172.50, to replace one door handle in bedroom 2 and to repair the door handle in the ensuite, which I find is reasonable, given the evidence. p. The landlord said the door handles were new at the start of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of door handles inside a rental property to be 10 years. As such, I deduct the $172.50 I find reasonable for this cost by 20% for depreciation to an award of $138.00 to replace the door handle in bedroom 2 at the end of the tenancy. q. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because GG Blue Enterprises Limited As Agent For Nadia Hasnain has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445029 — net $2,411.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$442.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$160.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work: and exterior rubbish removal	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work: and exterior rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$460.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: plaster and paint holes	$807.30	Repairs: plaster and paint holes
Repairs: 2 x new shower heads and 2 x shower hoses	$276.00	Repairs: 2 x new shower heads and 2 x shower hoses
Repairs: replace door handle	$138.00	Repairs: replace door handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,411.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,411.80

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord said the tenancy started on 2 August 2024 and ended on 22 January 2026.

The landlord said the property was a brand-new build and the tenant was the first person to ever live in the property when the tenancy began.

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

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because GG Blue Enterprises Limited As Agent For Nadia Hasnain has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445029 — Property damage at 20 Harvie McWatt Drive, Totara Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445029 — Property damage at 20 Harvie McWatt Drive, Totara Park, Auckland 2019

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.