What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5360681?

The tribunal order states: Bob Allen Makaea must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,130.97

How much money was awarded in case 5360681?

Patching Holes And Painting: $630.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360681?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12998373-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5360681?

The tribunal order states: Bob Allen Makaea must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,130.97

How much money was awarded in case 5360681?

Patching Holes And Painting: $630.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360681?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12998373-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360681 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360681 — net $3,130.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: patching holes and painting	$630.97	Repairs: patching holes and painting
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,130.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,130.97

Order

Bob Allen Makaea must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,130.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Campbell, representing the landlord, and Mr Makaea, the tenant, both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agree that the tenancy ended on 5 August 2025.
The landlord explained that there was a termination order made by the Tribunal, in an earlier application, for immediate termination, but the landlord allowed for some further time for the tenant to move out.
The tenant said that he was not given sufficient time to finish up any repairs and clear all his rubbish himself.

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 landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an Inspection Report dated 6 August 2025 with multiple photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord pointed to several photographs showing a very large pile of rubbish that was left outside the property, along with various pot plants, cuttings, garden waste and other rubbish items.
The tenant agreed he had left this rubbish, which he said included a fridge, old couches, double bunks, tall boy, computer desk, rubbish bags, boxes, pot plants and other rubbish. However, the tenant said he was only given 7 days to leave the property and was told by his housing manager to clear out all rubbish, stack it up and leave it outside to be disposed of. The tenant confirmed there was no discussion he had with the housing manager though that the landlord would pay for the cost of removing and disposing of this rubbish, though the tenant assumed they might. The tenant said that, had he known what the landlord would charge for this, he would have removed all the rubbish, which he had stacked neatly outside the property.
The landlord claimed $3,943.50 for removing and disposing of 22 cubic metres of rubbish. Given the photographs provided, which I accept show a number of larger items to be removed and disposed of, I find the amount of the landlord’s claim to be excessive. Given the photographs provided, the confirmation by the tenant of the larger and other items he left, I find a more reasonable amount to remove and dispose of the rubbish left by the tenant to be $2,500.00.
The amounts ordered are 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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Patching and painting of multiple holes in walls throughout the property in the bedrooms, hallway, living room, dining room and kitchen. b. The landlord provided photographs in their Inspection Report dated 6 August 2025 and highlighted the photographs showing most of the holes in the walls as patched by the tenant, and requiring sanding and painting, and some areas that had holes that needed patching as well as painting. Of all the holes in the walls discussed, the tenant appeared to only dispute one of them, in the hallway, which he said was not there when they left the property. However, as the photographs were part of the Inspection Report completed only 1 day after the tenant left the property, I accept the landlord’s evidence of the hole in the hallway walls. The tenant said he has carried out most of the plastering of the holes himself. c. The landlord claimed a total of $1,091.44 for patching and painting these holes in the walls. Of this amount, $921.00 was for painting only, and the remaining $170.47 was for patching the holes only. d. The tenant said the multiple holes in the walls had been caused by his son who has mental health issues, and that the drawings and scribbles on the walls were done by his 4-year-old grandson. The tenant is responsible for the actions of anyone present or living at the property, however. As there were multiple holes in the walls and scribbles in various parts of the property, I find the damage to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part, given he was responsible for the actions of others at the property and he did not appear to have prevented further damage by his family over time. e. As I find the damage to be intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. f. The landlord has claimed $921.00 for painting the holes and $170.47 for patching the holes, for a total of $1,091.44, which I find to be a reasonable cost before considering depreciation. g. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. h. There was no evidence provided or discussed about when the property was last painted but from the photographs provided, it appears that the walls were last painted at least 5 years ago, if not more. i. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $921.00 cost of painting only by 50% for depreciation to an award of $460.50 for the walls to be painted only. I add to this the landlord’s claim for plastering the holes in the walls, $170.47, which makes the total award to the landlord for plastering and painting the holes to be $630.97. j. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression, indicating he has had problems finding a new place to live. However, there was no other evidence provided as to why the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenant. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360681 — net $3,130.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: patching holes and painting	$630.97	Repairs: patching holes and painting
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,130.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,130.97

Order

Bob Allen Makaea must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,130.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Campbell, representing the landlord, and Mr Makaea, the tenant, both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agree that the tenancy ended on 5 August 2025.
The landlord explained that there was a termination order made by the Tribunal, in an earlier application, for immediate termination, but the landlord allowed for some further time for the tenant to move out.
The tenant said that he was not given sufficient time to finish up any repairs and clear all his rubbish himself.

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 landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an Inspection Report dated 6 August 2025 with multiple photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord pointed to several photographs showing a very large pile of rubbish that was left outside the property, along with various pot plants, cuttings, garden waste and other rubbish items.
The tenant agreed he had left this rubbish, which he said included a fridge, old couches, double bunks, tall boy, computer desk, rubbish bags, boxes, pot plants and other rubbish. However, the tenant said he was only given 7 days to leave the property and was told by his housing manager to clear out all rubbish, stack it up and leave it outside to be disposed of. The tenant confirmed there was no discussion he had with the housing manager though that the landlord would pay for the cost of removing and disposing of this rubbish, though the tenant assumed they might. The tenant said that, had he known what the landlord would charge for this, he would have removed all the rubbish, which he had stacked neatly outside the property.
The landlord claimed $3,943.50 for removing and disposing of 22 cubic metres of rubbish. Given the photographs provided, which I accept show a number of larger items to be removed and disposed of, I find the amount of the landlord’s claim to be excessive. Given the photographs provided, the confirmation by the tenant of the larger and other items he left, I find a more reasonable amount to remove and dispose of the rubbish left by the tenant to be $2,500.00.
The amounts ordered are 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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Patching and painting of multiple holes in walls throughout the property in the bedrooms, hallway, living room, dining room and kitchen. b. The landlord provided photographs in their Inspection Report dated 6 August 2025 and highlighted the photographs showing most of the holes in the walls as patched by the tenant, and requiring sanding and painting, and some areas that had holes that needed patching as well as painting. Of all the holes in the walls discussed, the tenant appeared to only dispute one of them, in the hallway, which he said was not there when they left the property. However, as the photographs were part of the Inspection Report completed only 1 day after the tenant left the property, I accept the landlord’s evidence of the hole in the hallway walls. The tenant said he has carried out most of the plastering of the holes himself. c. The landlord claimed a total of $1,091.44 for patching and painting these holes in the walls. Of this amount, $921.00 was for painting only, and the remaining $170.47 was for patching the holes only. d. The tenant said the multiple holes in the walls had been caused by his son who has mental health issues, and that the drawings and scribbles on the walls were done by his 4-year-old grandson. The tenant is responsible for the actions of anyone present or living at the property, however. As there were multiple holes in the walls and scribbles in various parts of the property, I find the damage to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part, given he was responsible for the actions of others at the property and he did not appear to have prevented further damage by his family over time. e. As I find the damage to be intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. f. The landlord has claimed $921.00 for painting the holes and $170.47 for patching the holes, for a total of $1,091.44, which I find to be a reasonable cost before considering depreciation. g. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. h. There was no evidence provided or discussed about when the property was last painted but from the photographs provided, it appears that the walls were last painted at least 5 years ago, if not more. i. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $921.00 cost of painting only by 50% for depreciation to an award of $460.50 for the walls to be painted only. I add to this the landlord’s claim for plastering the holes in the walls, $170.47, which makes the total award to the landlord for plastering and painting the holes to be $630.97. j. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression, indicating he has had problems finding a new place to live. However, there was no other evidence provided as to why the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenant. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360681 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360681 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

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

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

Frequently asked questions