What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5453110?

The tribunal order states: Merehana Smith must pay Manner Property Management Limited $17,869.25

How much money was awarded in case 5453110?

Cleaning: $948.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13,225.00 awarded to landlord; Letterbox: $202.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,725.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13559597-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5453110?

The tribunal order states: Merehana Smith must pay Manner Property Management Limited $17,869.25

How much money was awarded in case 5453110?

Cleaning: $948.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13,225.00 awarded to landlord; Letterbox: $202.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,725.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13559597-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

373A College Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453110 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453110 — net $17,869.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,260.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$2,725.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$948.75	Cleaning
Repairs: letterbox	$202.00	Repairs: letterbox
Repairs: internal damage	$13,225.00	Repairs: internal damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,869.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,869.25

Merehana Smith must pay Manner Property Management Limited $17,869.25 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,260.00 Rubbish removal$2,725.50 Cleaning$948.75 Repairs: letterbox$202.00 Repairs: internal damage$13,225.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$18,389.25 Bond$520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$17,869.25

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord made application to the Tribunal on 24 February 2026 which was more than two months after the end of the tenancy.

This application and the notices of hearing were emailed to the tenant at the email address given as the email address for service in the tenancy agreement. The landlord advised that none of the emails it has sent to the tenant have been returned. The email address therefore appears to be still current and active.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has been served in accordance with section 91A(2)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic and video evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what she wanted and left anything else, including a substantial amount of rubbish. The tenant made no attempt to clean the premises.

The landlord provided quotations for the work required to remove the rubbish and clean the premises. These amounts are in keeping with invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees in this area for similar work and it is appropriate to award the landlord the sums sought.

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 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 provided photographic and video evidence of extensive damage throughout the premises, together with evidence of the undamaged state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. There were dozens if not hundreds of holes of varying sizes, some large and many small, throughout the premises with damage to every wall and almost every door. Many of the holes had been inexpertly plastered. Many of the holes appeared from their size and location to have been caused by kicks or punches. From their nature and profusion the damage was intentional. The tenant’s liability is for the full cost of repair.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Once again, the landlord produced a quotation for the repairs and advised that the work had not yet been completed. The damage was as extensive and significant as any that I have seen. The sum claimed is at the lower end of invoices which the Tribunal sees for such extensive repair work in this area. It is appropriate that the landlord be awarded the sum which it is seeking.

The landlord also claimed for the replacement of the oven and provided a quotation. This claim was not included in the landlord’s application and there was no evidence that the tenant has not been provided with details of the claim. There was also no evidence that the stove required replacement. The photographic evidence showed damage but there was no evidence that the landlord had attempted to repair the stove or that the cost of repair was greater than the cost of replacement. In the absence of this evidence, the Tribunal dismisses the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing the stove.

I have considered 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 landlord’s photographic evidence is that the premises were in good condition at the start of the tenancy and that there was no evidence of wear and tear to the walls or doors. From this evidence I conclude that it is not appropriate to deduct any amount for betterment or depreciation because once the work has been completed, the premises will not be in a significantly better condition than one would expect at the end of the tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Manner Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453110 — net $17,869.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,260.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$2,725.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$948.75	Cleaning
Repairs: letterbox	$202.00	Repairs: letterbox
Repairs: internal damage	$13,225.00	Repairs: internal damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,869.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,869.25

Order

Merehana Smith must pay Manner Property Management Limited $17,869.25 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,260.00 Rubbish removal$2,725.50 Cleaning$948.75 Repairs: letterbox$202.00 Repairs: internal damage$13,225.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$18,389.25 Bond$520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$17,869.25

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord made application to the Tribunal on 24 February 2026 which was more than two months after the end of the tenancy.
This application and the notices of hearing were emailed to the tenant at the email address given as the email address for service in the tenancy agreement. The landlord advised that none of the emails it has sent to the tenant have been returned. The email address therefore appears to be still current and active.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has been served in accordance with section 91A(2)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic and video evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what she wanted and left anything else, including a substantial amount of rubbish. The tenant made no attempt to clean the premises.
The landlord provided quotations for the work required to remove the rubbish and clean the premises. These amounts are in keeping with invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees in this area for similar work and it is appropriate to award the landlord the sums sought.
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 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 provided photographic and video evidence of extensive damage throughout the premises, together with evidence of the undamaged state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. There were dozens if not hundreds of holes of varying sizes, some large and many small, throughout the premises with damage to every wall and almost every door. Many of the holes had been inexpertly plastered. Many of the holes appeared from their size and location to have been caused by kicks or punches. From their nature and profusion the damage was intentional. The tenant’s liability is for the full cost of repair.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Once again, the landlord produced a quotation for the repairs and advised that the work had not yet been completed. The damage was as extensive and significant as any that I have seen. The sum claimed is at the lower end of invoices which the Tribunal sees for such extensive repair work in this area. It is appropriate that the landlord be awarded the sum which it is seeking.
The landlord also claimed for the replacement of the oven and provided a quotation. This claim was not included in the landlord’s application and there was no evidence that the tenant has not been provided with details of the claim. There was also no evidence that the stove required replacement. The photographic evidence showed damage but there was no evidence that the landlord had attempted to repair the stove or that the cost of repair was greater than the cost of replacement. In the absence of this evidence, the Tribunal dismisses the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing the stove.
I have considered 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 landlord’s photographic evidence is that the premises were in good condition at the start of the tenancy and that there was no evidence of wear and tear to the walls or doors. From this evidence I conclude that it is not appropriate to deduct any amount for betterment or depreciation because once the work has been completed, the premises will not be in a significantly better condition than one would expect at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Manner Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453110 — Property damage at 373A College Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453110 — Property damage at 373A College Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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