Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5339074 — Property damage at 86 Puriri Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102
Published 3 March 2026 · Application 5339074
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,195.93
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,195.93
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears (to 15 August 2025 | $884.32 | Rent arrears (to 15 August 2025 | |
| Rubbish removal | $300.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Lock/key replacement | $408.11 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Drain unblocked | $149.50 | Drain unblocked | |
| Repairs | $1,426.00 | Repairs | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,195.93 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,195.93 |
Claims and awards for application 5339074 — net $3,195.93 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears (to 15 August 2025
- Amount
- $884.32
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears (to 15 August 2025
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $408.11
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Drain unblocked
- Amount
- $149.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Drain unblocked
Repairs
- Amount
- $1,426.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $3,195.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,195.93
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Lisa Craig must pay Gg Blue Enterprises Limited T/A Propertyscouts Manukau As Agent For Nivair Malhi Marie $3,195.93 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- On 2 September 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Armstrong, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
- Following the hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for outstanding water rates. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy
- The tenancy commenced on 30 November 2024 and was periodic.
- The tenancy ended on 15 August 2025.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord told the Tribunal that at the end of the tenancy the tenant had rent arrears owing of $3,804.32. A rent summary for the amount claimed was previously filed with the Tribunal.
- The landlord said that since the application was filed the tenant has had the bond of $2,920.00 refunded to them which had been used to offset a portion of the rent owing. The landlord now seeks rent arrears of $884.32. The amount claimed is ordered.
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) of the Act.
Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?
- The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $350.00 + GST after paying a contractor to remove rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the property was provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish.
- The landlord said the contractor had to remove and dump the following items left behind at the end of the tenancy: a washing machine and fridge, two couches, toys, personal items, food, and rubbish.
- The tenancy agreement documents the only chattels provided with the tenancy were: curtains, garage door opener, stove and rangehood.
- The landlord provided exit inspection photographs which showed one couch and a chair, a small pile of rubbish in the laundry, a fridge, washing machine and a very small amount of rubbish in the garage and a black plastic container outside the front door, remaining at the end of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs, and end of tenancy inspection report do not appear to evidence children’s toys, personal items, or food remaining at the end of the tenancy.
- Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant did fail to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. Having compared the pre-tenancy and exit inspection photographs the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to remove: a small amount of rubbish, a washing machine, fridge, couch, chair, and black plastic container at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal accepts that these items would have been bulky and costly to dump but given the lack of other items of rubbish claimed for the Tribunal has limited the amount of compensation to $300.00 and that is what is ordered.
Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?
- The landlord seeks $408.11 compensation after paying a contractor to change the locks at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
- The landlord states the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy which required the two screen doors, front door, ranch slider and back door locks all to be changed for security purposes. The landlord said the tenant informed them the keys were lost during the move and could not be returned.
- The Tribunal is satisfied it was appropriate for the landlord to change the locks and the amount claimed is ordered.
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 of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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.
Is the tenant liable for plumbing costs?
- The landlord seeks compensation in the amount of $149.50 after paying a contractor to unblock the shower drain. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided. The invoice notes that the plumber was required to remove a buildup of hair from the drain.
- The landlord said the tenant lived in the property for nine months and failed to clear the drain which resulted in the blockage.
- For an award for compensation for plumbing costs the landlord needs to prove that the tenant, or someone at the property with the tenants consent, misused the drain causing a blockage carelessly or intentionally, and that the blockage was not due to fair wear and tear or some other obstruction (e.g. tree roots) old pipes or other structural issues.
- Having heard from the landlord and considering the notes on the plumbers invoice the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to clear the drain of hair causing the blockage. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is more than fair wear and tear and the amount claimed is ordered.
Is the tenant liable to pay for damage to the property?
- The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken window glazing in the garage and frame repair - $500.00 + GST b. Rehanging the garage (pedestrian) door - $ 80.00 + GST c. Bathroom window repair - $200.00 + GST d. Plaster repair of hole behind the front door + two additional holes - $330.00 + GST e. Repair the screen mesh on the front and back doors - $300.00 + GST f. Repair pantry door - $250.00 + GST
- During the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for repair costs for the bathroom window as the exit report and photographs failed to prove the damage.
- Following the hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for repair costs for two holes in the wall as they were unable to find exit photographs proving the damage, nor was the damage recorded on the exit inspection report.
- The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs showed the property was provided in good condition free from damage. The Tribunal specifically notes: a. The Garage door was hanging in place and the garage windows and frame were intact. b. The walls in the entry way were undamaged. c. The screens on the front and back door appear undamaged. d. The pantry door is hanging in place.
- The exit inspection photographs show: a. The garage door had been removed and was left in the garden. b. Two of the garage windows were broken and the top window frame had been removed and needed to be rehung. c. The front and backdoor screens were ripped in multiple places. d. The pantry door had been removed and was propped in place.
- The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the commencement and at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage identified in paragraph [32 a - d] occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- 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.
- The Tribunal finds the tenant liable to pay compensation in the amount of $1,426.00 and that is what is ordered. Other matters
- Because Gg Blue Enterprises Limited T/A Propertyscouts Manukau As Agent For Nivair Malhi Marie has been substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The landlord did not seek name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s4, s40, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5339074?
The tribunal order states: Lisa Craig must pay Gg Blue Enterprises Limited T/A Propertyscouts Manukau
How much money was awarded in case 5339074?
Drain Unblocked: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $408.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,426.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $884.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339074?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339074?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13220495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.