What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5139788?

The tribunal order states: Elizabeth Tohovaka-young must pay 3To1 Property Management Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5139788?

Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,037.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,070.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12105867-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5139788?

The tribunal order states: Elizabeth Tohovaka-young must pay 3To1 Property Management Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5139788?

Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,037.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,070.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12105867-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Loughanure Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5139788 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5139788 — net $8,627.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$520.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,070.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$6,037.50	Repairs
Net award	$8,627.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,627.50

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.

This is the second part of a hearing that was previous part heard on 20 March 2025. On that day I terminated the tenancy for abandonment, awarded rent arrears, water bill, repairs to window and ranch slider and reimbursed the filing fee. The bond was refunded to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

This hearing was scheduled to address the vacated costs.

The landlord has applied for compensation at the end of the tenancy, for cleaning, lawns, pest control, rubbish removal and full replaster and repaint of interior of the house.

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 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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a pre let inspection and photos and an exit inspection and photos. Furthermore, provided the Tribunal with invoices paid for the cost of the cleaning, lawns, pest control and rubbish removal.

The photos show a property that was effectively destroyed inside with numerous holes on walls and graffiti everywhere. The rubbish left to remove was extreme and the house filthy.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for these costs.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Walls and doors throughout the entire house were smashed in, leaving gaping holes and extensive graffiti on every conceivable surface.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This is clearly intentional damage, and the tenant must be held liable for the extensive damaged caused to this property.

The landlord said that the tenant had allowed people into the house without the knowledge of consent of the landlord. These people stayed at the property and where likely to be the people responsible for the damage.

However, the tenant did not advise the landlord that she was vacating the property and allowing random unknown people to enter the property.

The landlord has provided detailed photos and inspection reports, plus an invoice for $6037.50 for the cost of the replastering and repainting.

I cannot consider depreciation in this case as the damage was so extensive that there was no other option other than to do the repairs. The landlord is simply being put back into the position she should have been in had the tenant not breached the RTA and her tenancy agreement.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5139788 — net $8,627.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$520.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,070.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$6,037.50	Repairs
Net award	$8,627.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,627.50

Order

Elizabeth Tohovaka-young must pay 3To1 Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Zhang $8627.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$520.00 Rubbish removal$2,070.00 Repairs$6,037.50 Total award$8,627.50 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8627.50

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
This is the second part of a hearing that was previous part heard on 20 March 2025. On that day I terminated the tenancy for abandonment, awarded rent arrears, water bill, repairs to window and ranch slider and reimbursed the filing fee. The bond was refunded to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
This hearing was scheduled to address the vacated costs.
The landlord has applied for compensation at the end of the tenancy, for cleaning, lawns, pest control, rubbish removal and full replaster and repaint of interior of the house.

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 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a pre let inspection and photos and an exit inspection and photos. Furthermore, provided the Tribunal with invoices paid for the cost of the cleaning, lawns, pest control and rubbish removal.
The photos show a property that was effectively destroyed inside with numerous holes on walls and graffiti everywhere. The rubbish left to remove was extreme and the house filthy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for these costs.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Walls and doors throughout the entire house were smashed in, leaving gaping holes and extensive graffiti on every conceivable surface.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This is clearly intentional damage, and the tenant must be held liable for the extensive damaged caused to this property.
The landlord said that the tenant had allowed people into the house without the knowledge of consent of the landlord. These people stayed at the property and where likely to be the people responsible for the damage.
However, the tenant did not advise the landlord that she was vacating the property and allowing random unknown people to enter the property.
The landlord has provided detailed photos and inspection reports, plus an invoice for $6037.50 for the cost of the replastering and repainting.
I cannot consider depreciation in this case as the damage was so extensive that there was no other option other than to do the repairs. The landlord is simply being put back into the position she should have been in had the tenant not breached the RTA and her tenancy agreement.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139788 — Property damage at 25 Loughanure Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139788 — Property damage at 25 Loughanure Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

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