What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132708?

The tribunal order states: Kacey Ramanui must pay Eves Realty Limited Acting Agent For Sanjeev &

How much money was awarded in case 5132708?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $464.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $965.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132708?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12032296-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132708?

The tribunal order states: Kacey Ramanui must pay Eves Realty Limited Acting Agent For Sanjeev &

How much money was awarded in case 5132708?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $464.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $965.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132708?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12032296-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58A Matene Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132708 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132708 — net $4,707.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$965.59	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$3,250.00	Repairs
Lock/key replacement	$464.56	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,707.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,707.15

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

This tenancy began on 26 June 2025 and ended on 23 December 2024.

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 tenant did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant did not return the keys.

I find the claims as ordered above to be proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord undertook a routine inspection in November 2024 and noticed a significant amount of damage to the interior of the property. There were holes in walls and knife marks in the door frames.

The tenant told the landlord she had been held hostage for three days by three girls and had a detailed story about what had happened. The landlord was so disturbed she reported it to the police but it later turned out the tenant had had a massive fight with her partner.

By the end of the tenancy, there was a large amount of damage at the property, Detailed before and after photos were provided to me. These showed damage to almost every door, holes in the walls, smashed glass windows and the like.

The landlord submitted 18 insurance claims for all the damage and had to effectively pay 18 excesses. Of those claims, the landlord seeks to recover only the 6 excesses that relate to the deliberate damage caused by the tenant.

This damage covered holes in the walls, a hole in the garage wall, replacing carpet in one of the rooms which had blood stains on it, replacing the smashed glass door in the shower and the smashed vanity.

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.

A photo was not provided of the hole in the garage so I cannot be satisfied that that damage occurred. However I consider that all of the other damage was deliberate and was unrelated to wear and tear.

I therefore allow the claim for the cost of 5 excesses. The landlord’s evidence is that the damage claimed was all repaired as per the declaration of loss that was provided.

Because Eves Realty Limited Acting Agent For Sanjeev & Neeraj Kumar & Sharma has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132708 — net $4,707.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$965.59	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$3,250.00	Repairs
Lock/key replacement	$464.56	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,707.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,707.15

Order

Kacey Ramanui must pay Eves Realty Limited Acting Agent For Sanjeev & Neeraj Kumar & Sharma $4,707.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

This tenancy began on 26 June 2025 and ended on 23 December 2024.
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 tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
I find the claims as ordered above to be proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord undertook a routine inspection in November 2024 and noticed a significant amount of damage to the interior of the property. There were holes in walls and knife marks in the door frames.
The tenant told the landlord she had been held hostage for three days by three girls and had a detailed story about what had happened. The landlord was so disturbed she reported it to the police but it later turned out the tenant had had a massive fight with her partner.
By the end of the tenancy, there was a large amount of damage at the property, Detailed before and after photos were provided to me. These showed damage to almost every door, holes in the walls, smashed glass windows and the like.
The landlord submitted 18 insurance claims for all the damage and had to effectively pay 18 excesses. Of those claims, the landlord seeks to recover only the 6 excesses that relate to the deliberate damage caused by the tenant.
This damage covered holes in the walls, a hole in the garage wall, replacing carpet in one of the rooms which had blood stains on it, replacing the smashed glass door in the shower and the smashed vanity.
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.
A photo was not provided of the hole in the garage so I cannot be satisfied that that damage occurred. However I consider that all of the other damage was deliberate and was unrelated to wear and tear.
I therefore allow the claim for the cost of 5 excesses. The landlord’s evidence is that the damage claimed was all repaired as per the declaration of loss that was provided.
Because Eves Realty Limited Acting Agent For Sanjeev & Neeraj Kumar & Sharma has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132708 — Property damage at 58A Matene Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132708 — Property damage at 58A Matene Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions