What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5200133?

The tribunal order states: Aiesha Masters, Tamara Moses and Sheeran Rimene must pay Tbt Property

How much money was awarded in case 5200133?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,868.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $770.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,482.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Yale Door Lock: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Shower Drain: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $949.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200133?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12377303-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5200133?

The tribunal order states: Aiesha Masters, Tamara Moses and Sheeran Rimene must pay Tbt Property

How much money was awarded in case 5200133?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,868.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $770.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,482.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Yale Door Lock: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Shower Drain: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $949.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200133?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12377303-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10E Blossom Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5200133 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

10E Blossom Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5200133 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5200133 — net $4,033.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 April 2025	$1,482.86	Rent arrears to 14 April 2025
Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20	$949.73	Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Replace Yale door lock	$700.00	Replace Yale door lock
Repairs to sliding door lock	$170.00	Repairs to sliding door lock
Repairs and repaint the walls, ceiling and 2 doors	$1,868.75	Repairs and repaint the walls, ceiling and 2 doors
Repairs to blinds	$770.50	Repairs to blinds
Repairs of exterior cladding	$575.00	Repairs of exterior cladding
Unblock shower drain	$402.50	Unblock shower drain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,033.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,033.84

Claims and awards for application 5200133 — net $4,033.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14 April 2025

Amount: $1,482.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14 April 2025

Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20

Amount: $949.73
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20

Cleaning

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Replace Yale door lock

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace Yale door lock

Repairs to sliding door lock

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

Aiesha Masters, Tamara Moses and Sheeran Rimene must pay Tbt Property Management Limited $4,033.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 24 October 2025, application 4944794.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6406356-015) to Tbt Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. Mr Ayer and Ms Ashar attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone, but the calls went to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s 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.
On 24 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy (4944794), for water arrears of $1,082.11 and the filing fee of $27.00. The outstanding amount from this order is into the order for water rates above.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 14 April 2025. The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy.
The claim for rent arrears is proved.
The landlord has provided a ledger showing sums invoice to the tenant. This is mostly water arrears but also includes other invoices. The sum for water owing is $949.73. This is inclusive of and not in addition to the amount ordered on 24 October 2025.
This claim is also proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $287.50 (inclusive of GST) for cleaning of the premises. I am satisfied that this is reasonable.
The claim for cleaning is proved and I award $287.50 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the door lock; damage to the sliding door lock; damage to the walls, ceiling and two doors; damage to the blinds; damaged to the exterior cladding; and a blocked drain in the shower.
Damage to the Yale door lock: a. The landlord claims that the Yale door lock (a keypad entry system) was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged lock to support this claim and an invoice for $700 (inclusive of GST) to show that the lock has been replaced. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved, and I award $700 (inclusive of GST).
Damage to the sliding door lock: a. The landlord claims that the sliding door lock was damaged during the tenancy and has provided a photograph showing this damage. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $170 (inclusive of GST) showing that the lock has been repaired. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved and I award $170 (inclusive of GST).
Damage to the walls, the ceiling and two doors: a. The landlord claims that the tenant has caused significant damage to the walls and ceiling including damage to the paintwork and holes. The landlord also claims that during the tenancy two doors were damaged and left with holes in them. The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage. b. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $2,875.00 (including GST) to repair and repaint the damage. The landlord advises that the house was last repainted in April 2021 and prior to the start of the tenancy had one tenant. The landlord says that the interior of rental properties usually need to be repainted every 5 years. I agree with that assessment. c. The landlord provided video footage of the premises taken shortly before the tenancy started. The video footage shows that there was damage to the paintwork but no holes or nicks in the walls. d. I am satisfied that the majority of the damage to the walls, 2 doors and the ceiling was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. e. I am required to betterment and depreciation into account. 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. f. I find that the premises were due to be repainted in approximately April 2026. I accept that the landlord has had to pay for repairs to the holes in the walls and have the premises painted earlier than 5 years. g. The invoice does not include a breakdown of time spent painting the interior and time spent repairing the holes and other damage. Taking into account the condition of the walls at the start of the premises and that the interior of the premises were due to be repainted in or about April 2026, I award 65% of the sum claimed being $1,868.75 (including GST).
Damage to the blinds: a. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the blinds throughout the house were damaged during the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showed damage to or missing cords and damage to and missing slates. The landlord has provided an invoice for $770.50 (including GST) showing that the repairs have been done. b. I am satisfied that the damage to the blinds was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. As set out above, I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. However, as the blinds were repaired not replaced, it is not necessary to apply depreciation. d. This claim is proved, and I award $770.50 (including GST).
Damage to the exterior cladding: a. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the exterior cladding on a pillar at the front of the house was damaged. The landlord did not have a photograph of the pillar from the start of the tenancy. However, I consider it is highly unlikely that the premises would have been let in that condition and accept that the damage was caused during the tenancy. b. I am also satisfied that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. The landlord has provided an invoice of $575 (including GST) to repair the cladding. d. This claim is proved, and I award $575 (including GST).
Blocked shower drain: a. The landlord claims that the shower drain was blocked by an object during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs of the shower drain and an invoice for $402.50 (inclusive of GST) to repair the drain. b. I am satisfied that the damage to the shower drain was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved, and I award $402.50 (inclusive of GST). The filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5200133 — net $4,033.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 April 2025	$1,482.86	Rent arrears to 14 April 2025
Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20	$949.73	Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Replace Yale door lock	$700.00	Replace Yale door lock
Repairs to sliding door lock	$170.00	Repairs to sliding door lock
Repairs and repaint the walls, ceiling and 2 doors	$1,868.75	Repairs and repaint the walls, ceiling and 2 doors
Repairs to blinds	$770.50	Repairs to blinds
Repairs of exterior cladding	$575.00	Repairs of exterior cladding
Unblock shower drain	$402.50	Unblock shower drain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,033.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,033.84

Claims and awards for application 5200133 — net $4,033.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14 April 2025

Amount: $1,482.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14 April 2025

Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20

Amount: $949.73
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Unpaid water rates (inclusive of water rates and filing fee ordered in previous order application 4944794 dated 24/10/20

Cleaning

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Replace Yale door lock

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace Yale door lock

Repairs to sliding door lock

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

Aiesha Masters, Tamara Moses and Sheeran Rimene must pay Tbt Property Management Limited $4,033.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 24 October 2025, application 4944794.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6406356-015) to Tbt Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. Mr Ayer and Ms Ashar attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone, but the calls went to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s 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.
On 24 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy (4944794), for water arrears of $1,082.11 and the filing fee of $27.00. The outstanding amount from this order is into the order for water rates above.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 14 April 2025. The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy.
The claim for rent arrears is proved.
The landlord has provided a ledger showing sums invoice to the tenant. This is mostly water arrears but also includes other invoices. The sum for water owing is $949.73. This is inclusive of and not in addition to the amount ordered on 24 October 2025.
This claim is also proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $287.50 (inclusive of GST) for cleaning of the premises. I am satisfied that this is reasonable.
The claim for cleaning is proved and I award $287.50 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the door lock; damage to the sliding door lock; damage to the walls, ceiling and two doors; damage to the blinds; damaged to the exterior cladding; and a blocked drain in the shower.
Damage to the Yale door lock: a. The landlord claims that the Yale door lock (a keypad entry system) was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged lock to support this claim and an invoice for $700 (inclusive of GST) to show that the lock has been replaced. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved, and I award $700 (inclusive of GST).
Damage to the sliding door lock: a. The landlord claims that the sliding door lock was damaged during the tenancy and has provided a photograph showing this damage. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $170 (inclusive of GST) showing that the lock has been repaired. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved and I award $170 (inclusive of GST).
Damage to the walls, the ceiling and two doors: a. The landlord claims that the tenant has caused significant damage to the walls and ceiling including damage to the paintwork and holes. The landlord also claims that during the tenancy two doors were damaged and left with holes in them. The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage. b. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $2,875.00 (including GST) to repair and repaint the damage. The landlord advises that the house was last repainted in April 2021 and prior to the start of the tenancy had one tenant. The landlord says that the interior of rental properties usually need to be repainted every 5 years. I agree with that assessment. c. The landlord provided video footage of the premises taken shortly before the tenancy started. The video footage shows that there was damage to the paintwork but no holes or nicks in the walls. d. I am satisfied that the majority of the damage to the walls, 2 doors and the ceiling was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. e. I am required to betterment and depreciation into account. 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. f. I find that the premises were due to be repainted in approximately April 2026. I accept that the landlord has had to pay for repairs to the holes in the walls and have the premises painted earlier than 5 years. g. The invoice does not include a breakdown of time spent painting the interior and time spent repairing the holes and other damage. Taking into account the condition of the walls at the start of the premises and that the interior of the premises were due to be repainted in or about April 2026, I award 65% of the sum claimed being $1,868.75 (including GST).
Damage to the blinds: a. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the blinds throughout the house were damaged during the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showed damage to or missing cords and damage to and missing slates. The landlord has provided an invoice for $770.50 (including GST) showing that the repairs have been done. b. I am satisfied that the damage to the blinds was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. As set out above, I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. However, as the blinds were repaired not replaced, it is not necessary to apply depreciation. d. This claim is proved, and I award $770.50 (including GST).
Damage to the exterior cladding: a. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the exterior cladding on a pillar at the front of the house was damaged. The landlord did not have a photograph of the pillar from the start of the tenancy. However, I consider it is highly unlikely that the premises would have been let in that condition and accept that the damage was caused during the tenancy. b. I am also satisfied that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. The landlord has provided an invoice of $575 (including GST) to repair the cladding. d. This claim is proved, and I award $575 (including GST).
Blocked shower drain: a. The landlord claims that the shower drain was blocked by an object during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs of the shower drain and an invoice for $402.50 (inclusive of GST) to repair the drain. b. I am satisfied that the damage to the shower drain was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved, and I award $402.50 (inclusive of GST). The filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200133 — Property damage at 10E Blossom Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200133 — Property damage at 10E Blossom Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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