Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5471373 — Property damage at 23A Tuhoe Avenue, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120
Decided 9 June 2026 · Published 9 June 2026 · Application 5471373
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Whakatane
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Kemp
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $350.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $350.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs: Painting | $250.00 | Repairs: Painting | |
| Garage lock and handle | $100.00 | Garage lock and handle | |
| Net award | $350.00 | ||
| Bond | $2,200.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $350.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5471373 — net $350.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Repairs: Painting
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Painting
Garage lock and handle
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Garage lock and handle
Net award
Landlord $350.00
Bond
Landlord $2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $350.00
Dismissed claims
- The Removal Of Rubbish So It
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Rose Anderson to pay Ohope Beach Holiday (Being the trading name of Liana Marlene Wait) $350.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-16970805) immediately apportioned as follows: Ohope Beach Holiday (Being the trading name of Liana Marlene Wait): $350.00 Rose Anderson: $1,850.00
- The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
- The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal and cleaning floor of paint is dismissed.
Reasons
- Only Ms Wait attended the hearing for the landlord. This took place by video conference.
- I am satisfied the tenant has been served so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord is Ohope Beach Holiday which I heard is the trading name of Liana Marlene Wait who trades as a sole trader. Her name is added to the order. Burden of proof
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord did not provide sufficient rent records to prove the claim for rent arrears.
- The spreadsheet provided did not run from the start of the tenancy it was unclear to follow and some of the additions within it were also unclear. There was no running arears total.
- I offered the landlord an additional opportunity to update this at the hearing but this could not be improved and the landlord did not seek to expand on the evidence filed.
- The claim is dismissed.
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 did not want to continue with the claim for the removal of rubbish so it is dismissed.
- The landlord says that the tenant put paint on the driveway including an area that she whitewashed - a photograph of this was provided. She says this has been cleaned but the paint remains. She seeks cleaning costs of $300. There are no pre tenancy inspections, but I find it more likely than not that the landlord conducting inspections would notice if such an area was painted during the tenancy. I find the tenant has not left the driveway reasonably clean and tidy by leaving the paint.
- The landlord seeks $300 but this is unsupported by any evidence of the cost actually incurred or of the nature of the cleaning work actually done.
- This part of the application is therefore not sufficiently proven and is dismissed.
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.
- I heard that the landlord usually manages airbnbs rather than residential premises. However, this tenancy lasted a reasonable number of years.
- There is no ingoing property inspection report or photographs of the premises to show its condition at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord says the tenant damaged a handle and lock in the garage. I heard how the tenant said to the landlord that this was a result of a break in but there is no evidence from the tenant to support this.
- The fact the damage was done during the tenancy is supported by the tenant’s unsupported claim that it was as a result of a break in as well as the nature of the damage. Given the nature of the damage (the handle is entirely missing) I accept this is likely to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the nature of the damage I regard this damage to most likely be intentional.
- 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. Therefore, betterment and depreciation should be taken into consideration. In calculating this, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan is important information.
- I must apply depreciation, and this is difficult because there is no evidence as to age and no probative evidence as to the condition of the handle at the start of the tenancy. There is also no sum for this work set out on the invoice provided by the maintenance person who remedied the work (the sum is part of a global amount). The landlord suggested $600 might be the cost.
- The lack of evidence regarding the precise cost of repairing this damage makes the Tribunal’s task more difficult. In the absence of more detailed evidence, the Tribunal must make a broad assessment of what constitutes fair compensation for this damage. As the landlord bears the burden of proving the claim, any uncertainty must be resolved in the tenant’s favour. The Tribunal is therefore required to estimate an amount that fairly compensates the landlord for this proven damage. For those reasons, that assessment must be conservative.
- Taking into account the Tribunal’s experience in assessing and remedying this type of damage, together with the absence of probative evidence available to allow for depreciation and the lack of information about the precise cost of the remedial work, I consider the sum of $100 to be reasonable. An order has therefore been made in that amount
- The landlord also says there was damage to the hallway and bedrooms meaning they had to be painted in full. Very limited photographs were provided of the damage despite the landlord saying the damage was extensive throughout.
- While there is also no photographic evidence or inspections recording of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy I have no reason to doubt the landlord’s position that the property was painted just before the tenancy started.
- It appears that the tenant has made a poor effort to remedy some of the areas concerned. I therefore find it more likely than not that damage to the walls and a door occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- Given the nature of the damage I regard this damage to most likely be intentional. For example, one area of damage related to a laundry area in the hallway where the tenant had stuck on tiles and they were coming off or had come off the wall.
- The landlord seeks $1,200 for the repainting but again, this was simply a guess by the landlord as the invoice included other work.
- On the basis of the evidence presented and taking into account depreciation and the lack of a better account of the loss, I award the landlord $250 for the painting which is a sum I consider to be reasonable on the evidence provided. Filing fee
- I decline to award the filing fee because the landlord has not substantially succeeded with the claim it has bought.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471373?
The tribunal order states: Rose Anderson to pay Ohope Beach Holiday (Being the trading name of Liana
How much money was awarded in case 5471373?
Garage Lock And Handle: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $250.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471373?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471373?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13692837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.