What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5264940?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Teitiba and George Johnson must pay Theta Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5264940?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; (Adjusted: $4,646.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12041142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5264940?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Teitiba and George Johnson must pay Theta Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5264940?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; (Adjusted: $4,646.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12041142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 1217, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5264940 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5264940 — net $5,087.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (adjusted	$4,646.00	Repairs: (adjusted
Cleaning	$414.00	Cleaning
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,087.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,087.00

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. Attempts were made to contact the tenants on the telephone numbers provided. Both attempts were unsuccessful.

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

The tenants moved into the property on or about 9 July 2021. The tenancy ended on 7 May 2025.

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 landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided exit photographs confirming the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The photographs confirm that the tenants left the premises in a state which can only be described as disgraceful, including the condition of the kitchen appliances and cabinetry.

I have also sighted an invoice from CNP Cleaning Services dated 8 May 2025 in support of the amount claimed.

Based on the evidence provided I am entirely satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The tenants clearly breached their obligations in respect of this.

The amount ordered for cleaning is 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.

The landlord claims that the tenants caused significant damage to the premises during the tenancy.

The landlord provided exit photographs dated 15 May 2025. The landlord confirmed that no entry photographs were taken by the property manager. Evidence of a routine inspection however was provided during the hearing in support of these claims. The inspection was dated September 2023. The landlord also provided evidence of other routine inspections undertaken during the tenancy.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The damage was extensive and required repairs to all areas of the premises including ceilings, walls, door frames and windows. There was also evidence provided confirming that the tenants had taped material to the ceiling to cover the smoke detector in one of the rooms. I am satisfied that the damaged caused by the tenants is intentional. Carpet replacement

The landlord also claims for carpet replacement. As recorded above, the landlord was unable to produce an entry inspection report which confirms the state of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. There was also no evidence provided confirming attempts to professionally clean the carpet. I have no evidence confirming the age of the carpet.

In the absence of such evidence I am not persuaded that the tenants should be liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.

The claim for damage compensation is allowed with a reduction for the carpet portion of the invoice from John N Building Services dated 10 May 2025. The amount awarded is therefore calculated as $6210 less $2170 = $4040.00 plus GST totalling $4646.00. Pest control claim

The landlord claims that they needed to have the premises professionally treated for pests. The landlord stated during the hearing that they attempted to address the issue with their own bait traps which did not work.

The landlord has provided a photograph of a single cockroach. They have also provided an invoice from Go Pest dated 21 May 2025 for $145.00.

This in my view does not prove, even on the balance of probabilities, an infestation of pests attributable to the tenants.

In the absence of proper evidence this claim must be dismissed.

Because Theta Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5264940 — net $5,087.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (adjusted	$4,646.00	Repairs: (adjusted
Cleaning	$414.00	Cleaning
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,087.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,087.00

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. Attempts were made to contact the tenants on the telephone numbers provided. Both attempts were unsuccessful.

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

The tenants moved into the property on or about 9 July 2021. The tenancy ended on 7 May 2025.

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

I have also sighted an invoice from CNP Cleaning Services dated 8 May 2025 in support of the amount claimed.

Based on the evidence provided I am entirely satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The tenants clearly breached their obligations in respect of this.

The amount ordered for cleaning is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenants caused significant damage to the premises during the tenancy.

In the absence of such evidence I am not persuaded that the tenants should be liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.

The landlord has provided a photograph of a single cockroach. They have also provided an invoice from Go Pest dated 21 May 2025 for $145.00.

This in my view does not prove, even on the balance of probabilities, an infestation of pests attributable to the tenants.

In the absence of proper evidence this claim must be dismissed.

Because Theta Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264940 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Apartment 1217, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264940 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Apartment 1217, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton,

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