What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486914 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5486914?

Compensation: $1,440.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5486914 D…: $3,438.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $532.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $849.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Cladding: $289.46 awarded to landlord; Holes And Painting: $5,788.83 awarded to landlord; Light Fittings, Remote Etc: $525.56 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blinds: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486914?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14182560-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486914 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5486914?

Compensation: $1,440.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5486914 D…: $3,438.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $532.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $849.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Cladding: $289.46 awarded to landlord; Holes And Painting: $5,788.83 awarded to landlord; Light Fittings, Remote Etc: $525.56 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blinds: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486914?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14182560-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5486914 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486914 — net $15,141.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5486914 dated 17 July 2026	$3,438.60	Previous order application 5486914 dated 17 July 2026
Rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: light fittings, remote etc	$525.56	Repairs: light fittings, remote etc
Replace furnishings: blinds	$750.00	Replace furnishings: blinds
Replace furnishings: carpet	$500.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: holes and painting	$5,788.83	Repairs: holes and painting
Repairs: doors	$849.00	Repairs: doors
Window repairs	$532.00	Window repairs
Repairs: exterior cladding	$289.46	Repairs: exterior cladding
Further compensation of 3 week’s rent	$1,440.00	Further compensation of 3 week’s rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,141.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,141.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $15,141.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant, who had not attended the previous hearing on 17 July 2026.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 17 July 2026 an order was made for rent arrears up to 18 February 2026 and refund of the bond. The balance owing in that order was $3,438.60. That amount has been incorporated into this order, also under the same case number.
The remaining claims were adjourned to enable the landlord to collate the evidence and provide photographs of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant had abandoned the premises and stopped paying rent in December 2024. Under the fixed-term tenancy she was obliged to pay until 18 February and so the rent arrears to that date were ordered on 17 July.

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, 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Rubbish
The landlord provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, there was a considerable amount of rubbish and abandoned items throughout the property. The landlord has provided an itemised account of expenses incurred in clearing the property. The total comes to $1,000, which is entirely reasonable.
At the end of the tenancy a number of chattels were either missing or damaged. The landlord provided an itemised account for the light bulbs, light fittings, remote control, smoke alarms and ends of towel rails that were all missing, as well as labour for repairs/reinstatement. The amount of $526.56 ordered has been 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.
Based on the photos provided and evidence of the landlord, I am satisfied, the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Holes in walls and stickers and marks on them b. 3 broken windows and a sliding door c. Damage to 4 doors d. Window treatments damaged or missing e. Carpet uplifted and left on the fence f. Underfloor insulation damaged by animals.
The quote for replacement insulation says Upon inspection it is clear to see tom cats from around the neighbourhood have found access into under your floor space and have ripped and torn down all the previously installed insulation and have urinated all over it also. This is generally to mark their territory and once one does it, all the cats around the neighbourhood join in to try and claim their territory hence it being such a mess
The landlord believes that this was caused by the tenant’s animals that were there without the landlord’s consent.
I accept it is possible that the tenant’s animals caused this, but I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s pets are solely responsible. It could have been caused by any number of animals. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided an itemised summary and photographs which show extensive damage in the property at the end of the tenancy. There are holes in walls, stickers on walls, damaged doors, including holes. It is in a very poor state. The photos show a blacked out window, broken windows and holes in the exterior sides of the house. The carpet has been uplifted.
The entry inspection photos are not ideal because they were taken when the previous tenant’s belongings were there, and the photos are not extensive.
However, I am satisfied based on the state of the property at the end of the tenancy, in which furniture and belongings are also there, that it is more likely than not that the damage evident at the end of the tenancy occurred during this tenancy. It is not damage that was likely hidden by furniture before this tenant move in.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
It is strongly recommended that in future, the landlord takes photos of all walls when the property is empty, as well as exterior walls and doors, before a tenant moves in.
I have taken into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As explained at the hearing, according to the IRD depreciation guides in a rental property, the expected life of a carpet in a rental property is 8 years old. This carpet was in the property when it was bought in 2011. Therefore it was at least 13 years old at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says that it had been in reasonable condition and, but for the actions of the tenant, it would not have been replaced. The replacement cost was $3,680. I have decided that $500 is reasonable compensation given the age of the carpet.
The window treatments were all either missing, soiled or damaged. They had all been replaced in July 2022. Therefore at the end of the tenancy they were over 3 years old. The replacement cost in 2025 was $1,003.57. Some depreciation has been taken from this amount and the sum of $750 is ordered.
The remaining amounts ordered are the amounts claimed and supported by invoices and photographs. Loss of rent
The landlord had also applied for 21 weeks’ loss of rent while repairing the premises. There was a delay in commencing work because there was someone else living at the property. The landlord is reminded that an application for possession can be made against a non-tenant under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Based on the damage described below, I am satisfied that the landlord should be compensated for some loss of rent and order a further 3 weeks, which comes to $1,440. Interest
The landlord also sought interest of 5%. Interest is sometimes payable on unpaid debts where there are penalty clauses in agreements that allow for interest. There is no such clause in the tenancy agreement. This would be prohibited by section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal there does not have the power to order interest. Exemplary damages
The landlord had claimed exemplary damages for damage to the property, including the damage to the insulation, and for subletting the property.
The Act specifies that certain breaches of the parties’ respective responsibilities amount to “unlawful acts” for which exemplary damages may be payable. Damage by the tenant, even where intentional, is not one of them.
Assigning the lease without the landlord’s consent is an unlawful act under section 43B, but the evidence of such an assignment is sparse. There was someone else living at the premises at the end of the tenancy, but no-one was paying rent. Rather, it seems that the tenant moved out and let someone else move in. That person was more likely a squatter. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the lease was assigned to that person.
The claims for exemplary damages are dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant the landlord name suppression. T Baker, 08 September 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486914 — net $15,141.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5486914 dated 17 July 2026	$3,438.60	Previous order application 5486914 dated 17 July 2026
Rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: light fittings, remote etc	$525.56	Repairs: light fittings, remote etc
Replace furnishings: blinds	$750.00	Replace furnishings: blinds
Replace furnishings: carpet	$500.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: holes and painting	$5,788.83	Repairs: holes and painting
Repairs: doors	$849.00	Repairs: doors
Window repairs	$532.00	Window repairs
Repairs: exterior cladding	$289.46	Repairs: exterior cladding
Further compensation of 3 week’s rent	$1,440.00	Further compensation of 3 week’s rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,141.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,141.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $15,141.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant, who had not attended the previous hearing on 17 July 2026.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 17 July 2026 an order was made for rent arrears up to 18 February 2026 and refund of the bond. The balance owing in that order was $3,438.60. That amount has been incorporated into this order, also under the same case number.
The remaining claims were adjourned to enable the landlord to collate the evidence and provide photographs of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant had abandoned the premises and stopped paying rent in December 2024. Under the fixed-term tenancy she was obliged to pay until 18 February and so the rent arrears to that date were ordered on 17 July.

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, 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Rubbish
The landlord provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, there was a considerable amount of rubbish and abandoned items throughout the property. The landlord has provided an itemised account of expenses incurred in clearing the property. The total comes to $1,000, which is entirely reasonable.
At the end of the tenancy a number of chattels were either missing or damaged. The landlord provided an itemised account for the light bulbs, light fittings, remote control, smoke alarms and ends of towel rails that were all missing, as well as labour for repairs/reinstatement. The amount of $526.56 ordered has been 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.
Based on the photos provided and evidence of the landlord, I am satisfied, the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Holes in walls and stickers and marks on them b. 3 broken windows and a sliding door c. Damage to 4 doors d. Window treatments damaged or missing e. Carpet uplifted and left on the fence f. Underfloor insulation damaged by animals.
The quote for replacement insulation says Upon inspection it is clear to see tom cats from around the neighbourhood have found access into under your floor space and have ripped and torn down all the previously installed insulation and have urinated all over it also. This is generally to mark their territory and once one does it, all the cats around the neighbourhood join in to try and claim their territory hence it being such a mess
The landlord believes that this was caused by the tenant’s animals that were there without the landlord’s consent.
I accept it is possible that the tenant’s animals caused this, but I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s pets are solely responsible. It could have been caused by any number of animals. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided an itemised summary and photographs which show extensive damage in the property at the end of the tenancy. There are holes in walls, stickers on walls, damaged doors, including holes. It is in a very poor state. The photos show a blacked out window, broken windows and holes in the exterior sides of the house. The carpet has been uplifted.
The entry inspection photos are not ideal because they were taken when the previous tenant’s belongings were there, and the photos are not extensive.
However, I am satisfied based on the state of the property at the end of the tenancy, in which furniture and belongings are also there, that it is more likely than not that the damage evident at the end of the tenancy occurred during this tenancy. It is not damage that was likely hidden by furniture before this tenant move in.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
It is strongly recommended that in future, the landlord takes photos of all walls when the property is empty, as well as exterior walls and doors, before a tenant moves in.
I have taken into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As explained at the hearing, according to the IRD depreciation guides in a rental property, the expected life of a carpet in a rental property is 8 years old. This carpet was in the property when it was bought in 2011. Therefore it was at least 13 years old at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says that it had been in reasonable condition and, but for the actions of the tenant, it would not have been replaced. The replacement cost was $3,680. I have decided that $500 is reasonable compensation given the age of the carpet.
The window treatments were all either missing, soiled or damaged. They had all been replaced in July 2022. Therefore at the end of the tenancy they were over 3 years old. The replacement cost in 2025 was $1,003.57. Some depreciation has been taken from this amount and the sum of $750 is ordered.
The remaining amounts ordered are the amounts claimed and supported by invoices and photographs. Loss of rent
The landlord had also applied for 21 weeks’ loss of rent while repairing the premises. There was a delay in commencing work because there was someone else living at the property. The landlord is reminded that an application for possession can be made against a non-tenant under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Based on the damage described below, I am satisfied that the landlord should be compensated for some loss of rent and order a further 3 weeks, which comes to $1,440. Interest
The landlord also sought interest of 5%. Interest is sometimes payable on unpaid debts where there are penalty clauses in agreements that allow for interest. There is no such clause in the tenancy agreement. This would be prohibited by section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal there does not have the power to order interest. Exemplary damages
The landlord had claimed exemplary damages for damage to the property, including the damage to the insulation, and for subletting the property.
The Act specifies that certain breaches of the parties’ respective responsibilities amount to “unlawful acts” for which exemplary damages may be payable. Damage by the tenant, even where intentional, is not one of them.
Assigning the lease without the landlord’s consent is an unlawful act under section 43B, but the evidence of such an assignment is sparse. There was someone else living at the premises at the end of the tenancy, but no-one was paying rent. Rather, it seems that the tenant moved out and let someone else move in. That person was more likely a squatter. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the lease was assigned to that person.
The claims for exemplary damages are dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant the landlord name suppression. T Baker, 08 September 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486914 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486914 — Property damage

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

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.