Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5476445 — Rent arrears at 31 Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072
Decided 5 Jun 2026 · Published 5 Jun 2026 · Application 5476445
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Moanaroa Vaoga and Carlene Rameka must pay [The landlord/s] $1,183.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [Property Manager].
- Neither of the tenants attended. Moanaroa Vaoga sent an email to the Tribunal at 12.11pm yesterday, seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 2pm the same day, on the basis that she is in Hamilton and unable to make it today. There was no correspondence from Carlene Rameka.
- I reviewed the file prior to the hearing and noted that notices of hearing were sent out on 18 May 2026 advising the parties of the date, time and location of the hearing. I declined the adjournment on the basis that the tenants have had ample time to make arrangements to attend or to seek an adjournment.
- The hearing therefore proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
- This tenancy began on 7 September 2018 and ended on 20 February 2026.
- 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 advised at the start of the hearing that the bond has been released to the landlord and so I have nominally deducted the amount of the bond from the landlord’s claim.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended once the tenants vacated the property on 20 February 2026.
- The landlord produced a rent summary showing that the rent was in arrears in the amount of $1808.04 at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord also claimed two water invoices from the end of the tenancy (10 February 2026 and 5 March 2026) and produced copies. I note that the landlord only claimed for the portion of the 5 March 2026 invoice to the end of the tenancy.
- These claims 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 produced a routine inspection report from the start of the tenancy and outgoing inspection report showing extensive damage to the property. Locks/doors/windows
- The property was not left secure. Locks had been removed, doors had been damaged, and window locks had been removed. The landlord engaged a locksmith to secure the property who provided an invoice in the amount of $455.50.
- I am satisfied that it was necessary for the landlord to secure the property at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed is reasonable. I therefore order that the tenant pay the landlord compensation in the sum of $455.50. General damage
- The evidence produced shows that there was significant damage to the property including numerous holes in the walls, graffiti on the walls, missing doors and damaged flooring.
- The landlord has filed an insurance claim for repair of the damage and has had that claim accepted. The insurer has applied an insurance excess in the amount of $750.00. The landlord seeks to recover this amount from the tenants.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount of the insurance excess is less than the cost to repair the damage.
- This claim is proved. I therefore order that the tenant pay the landlord the amount of the insurance excess ($750.00) by way of compensation. Contamination
- The landlord said that they were advised to do methamphetamine testing due to the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord undertook detailed methamphetamine testing and produced a report from AllClear showing levels of contamination above 15μg/100cm 2 (the level above which the property is considered to be legally contaminated 1 ) as follows: a. Bedroom 1 – Door: 86 μg/100cm 2 b. Office – Door: 60μg/100cm 2 c. Bedroom 3 – Door: 29μg/100cm 2 cm
- The landlord has filed an insurance claim for decontamination and has had that claim accepted. The insurer has applied an insurance excess in the amount of $750.00. The landlord seeks to recover this amount from the tenants.
- This was a longstanding tenancy. The landlord was uncertain as to whether pre- tenancy methamphetamine test was done but has searched their records and has been unable to find a copy of any such test.
- Without further evidence I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
- This claim is not proved and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.00.
- The landlord also sought an order for name suppression in their application. The landlord is entitled to an order for name suppression as they are the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).