What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5459444?

The tribunal order states: Maryagnes Faapepele must pay A Ashish and Rashmi Choudhary $2,182.84

How much money was awarded in case 5459444?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,348.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $178.23 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $38.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459444?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409182-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5459444?

The tribunal order states: Maryagnes Faapepele must pay A Ashish and Rashmi Choudhary $2,182.84

How much money was awarded in case 5459444?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,348.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $178.23 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $38.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459444?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409182-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14B Leven Lane, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459444 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459444 — net $2,182.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 13 March 2026	$2,348.57	Rent to 13 March 2026
Water charges	$38.04	Water charges
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$575.00	Pest control
Repairs to internal door	$805.00	Repairs to internal door
Repairs to flooring	$490.00	Repairs to flooring
Repairs to wallpaper: materials	$178.23	Repairs to wallpaper: materials
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,182.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,182.84

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 March 2026. The parties were given further time after the hearing to provide additional documents and comment. The tenant did not provide any comments in reply by 5pm on 10 April 2026 as required.

On 4 March 2026 the landlord applied for termination, rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant had vacated the premises by the hearing date. It is therefore unnecessary to deal with the application for termination.

The landlord advised that the bond was lodged and remains with Tenancy Services. I direct the Bond Centre to reimburse the bond to the landlord. Rent and Water

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 13 March 2025 to 11 March 2026 (the tenancy agreement gives the end date as 11 March 2025, most likely a typographical error). The parties had agreed the tenancy would not continue and the tenant vacated on 13 March 2026.

The landlord provided a rent summary showing arrears of $2,348.57 to 13 March 2026.

The landlord also provided a water invoice to 26 February 2026 for $38.04. The landlord claimed $330.91 in the application form. This probably reflects the overdue balance in the invoice of $271.04. However, the Tribunal has no way of knowing which proportion of this amount relates to consumption (recoverable from the tenant) and fixed charges (not recoverable). The award for water is $38.04. Cleaning and Pest Control

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.

The landlord claimed $366.85 for cleaning. There is a photograph of some cockroaches and photographs of the walls and a close-up of some blinds. There is evidence that the carpet had not been vacuumed and some personal belongings had been left behind. The photographs do not cover the whole house or enable the Tribunal to build a comprehensive picture of its overall condition. I award $100.00 for the cost of cleaning visible in the photographs.

The landlord claimed $402.50 and $172.50 for pest control treatment and follow up treatment ($575.00). The pest controller advised that the premises were badly infested with cockroaches.

The presence of cockroaches is often associated with the tenant’s obligation to keep premises reasonably clean. If the issue does not relate to cleanliness, then it is more likely to be categorised as a maintenance issue for the landlord.

The tenant said the infestation started behind the fridge. This suggests it was a cleanliness issue, because regular cleaning behind the fridge could have prevented the problem. I award the pest control costs. Damage

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.

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. The weekly rent was $660.00. The landlord advised that the insurance excess was $500.00.

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.

In the application form, the landlord claimed compensation for ripped wallpaper on a wall, a broken internal door, damaged bedroom flooring, and damage to kitchen fixtures. The Tribunal was provided with a photograph showing a large area of damaged wallpaper just outside the bathroom, a photograph showing ripped wallpaper in a room, ripped wallpaper where the toilet roll holder would have been, and damage to a door.

The claim for door damage was supported by a quote for $805.00. The tenant said a relative broke it. The damage was in the upper middle part of the door and would have required force. I award the cost of repair on the basis that this was intentional damage and the tenant’s liability is not limited to the insurance excess.

The claim for damaged flooring was supported by an invoice for $690.00 and a photograph of an area of damaged carpet. The landlord explained that this was for a temporary repair, and a further $300.00 was paid in cash for a permanent repair (as shown in text messages). According to the landlord, the cost of repair was divided equally between the parties, and the tenant agreed to pay $490.00. As this apportionment is in the tenant’s favour and is below the insurance excess, I award $490.00.

The landlord claimed the cost of materials ($178.23) for repairs to the damaged wallpaper. The tenant said the HRV had stopped working and she started to notice mould. The wall was wet, causing the wallpaper to start to come off and then her son had torn it. The tenant said the wallpaper was coming off when they moved in.

While I would not rule out a contribution to the damage from dampness, equally some of the damage was caused by the tenant or persons for whom she is responsible. The landlord has limited their claim to the cost of materials, which I award.

No evidence was presented to support a claim for damage in the kitchen. Filing Fee

The landlord has had some success. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459444 — net $2,182.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 13 March 2026	$2,348.57	Rent to 13 March 2026
Water charges	$38.04	Water charges
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$575.00	Pest control
Repairs to internal door	$805.00	Repairs to internal door
Repairs to flooring	$490.00	Repairs to flooring
Repairs to wallpaper: materials	$178.23	Repairs to wallpaper: materials
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,182.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,182.84

Order

Maryagnes Faapepele must pay A Ashish and Rashmi Choudhary $2,182.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5929375-004) to A Ashish and Rashmi Choudhary immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 March 2026. The parties were given further time after the hearing to provide additional documents and comment. The tenant did not provide any comments in reply by 5pm on 10 April 2026 as required.
On 4 March 2026 the landlord applied for termination, rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant had vacated the premises by the hearing date. It is therefore unnecessary to deal with the application for termination.
The landlord advised that the bond was lodged and remains with Tenancy Services. I direct the Bond Centre to reimburse the bond to the landlord. Rent and Water
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 13 March 2025 to 11 March 2026 (the tenancy agreement gives the end date as 11 March 2025, most likely a typographical error). The parties had agreed the tenancy would not continue and the tenant vacated on 13 March 2026.
The landlord provided a rent summary showing arrears of $2,348.57 to 13 March 2026.
The landlord also provided a water invoice to 26 February 2026 for $38.04. The landlord claimed $330.91 in the application form. This probably reflects the overdue balance in the invoice of $271.04. However, the Tribunal has no way of knowing which proportion of this amount relates to consumption (recoverable from the tenant) and fixed charges (not recoverable). The award for water is $38.04. Cleaning and Pest Control
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.
The landlord claimed $366.85 for cleaning. There is a photograph of some cockroaches and photographs of the walls and a close-up of some blinds. There is evidence that the carpet had not been vacuumed and some personal belongings had been left behind. The photographs do not cover the whole house or enable the Tribunal to build a comprehensive picture of its overall condition. I award $100.00 for the cost of cleaning visible in the photographs.
The landlord claimed $402.50 and $172.50 for pest control treatment and follow up treatment ($575.00). The pest controller advised that the premises were badly infested with cockroaches.
The presence of cockroaches is often associated with the tenant’s obligation to keep premises reasonably clean. If the issue does not relate to cleanliness, then it is more likely to be categorised as a maintenance issue for the landlord.
The tenant said the infestation started behind the fridge. This suggests it was a cleanliness issue, because regular cleaning behind the fridge could have prevented the problem. I award the pest control costs. Damage
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.
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. The weekly rent was $660.00. The landlord advised that the insurance excess was $500.00.
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.
In the application form, the landlord claimed compensation for ripped wallpaper on a wall, a broken internal door, damaged bedroom flooring, and damage to kitchen fixtures. The Tribunal was provided with a photograph showing a large area of damaged wallpaper just outside the bathroom, a photograph showing ripped wallpaper in a room, ripped wallpaper where the toilet roll holder would have been, and damage to a door.
The claim for door damage was supported by a quote for $805.00. The tenant said a relative broke it. The damage was in the upper middle part of the door and would have required force. I award the cost of repair on the basis that this was intentional damage and the tenant’s liability is not limited to the insurance excess.
The claim for damaged flooring was supported by an invoice for $690.00 and a photograph of an area of damaged carpet. The landlord explained that this was for a temporary repair, and a further $300.00 was paid in cash for a permanent repair (as shown in text messages). According to the landlord, the cost of repair was divided equally between the parties, and the tenant agreed to pay $490.00. As this apportionment is in the tenant’s favour and is below the insurance excess, I award $490.00.
The landlord claimed the cost of materials ($178.23) for repairs to the damaged wallpaper. The tenant said the HRV had stopped working and she started to notice mould. The wall was wet, causing the wallpaper to start to come off and then her son had torn it. The tenant said the wallpaper was coming off when they moved in.
While I would not rule out a contribution to the damage from dampness, equally some of the damage was caused by the tenant or persons for whom she is responsible. The landlord has limited their claim to the cost of materials, which I award.
No evidence was presented to support a claim for damage in the kitchen. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459444 — Property damage at 14B Leven Lane, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459444 — Property damage at 14B Leven Lane, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions