What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380329?

The tribunal order states: Tusaga Lagafaoa Lavata to pay V & E Property Management Limited $859.78

How much money was awarded in case 5380329?

Chorus Fibre Box Charging Cable: $42.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $314.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380329?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13196756-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380329?

The tribunal order states: Tusaga Lagafaoa Lavata to pay V & E Property Management Limited $859.78

How much money was awarded in case 5380329?

Chorus Fibre Box Charging Cable: $42.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $314.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380329?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13196756-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Kohekohe Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380329 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380329 — net $859.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$314.78	Water rates
Lock/key replacement: Replace garage door opender	$75.00	Lock/key replacement: Replace garage door opender
Chorus fibre box charging cable	$42.00	Chorus fibre box charging cable
Repairs: Replace and repaint damaged bedroom door	$400.00	Repairs: Replace and repaint damaged bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$859.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$859.78

Order

Tusaga Lagafaoa Lavata to pay V & E Property Management Limited $859.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $859.78 (BN-00074669) to V & E Property Management Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.22 (BN-00074669) to Tusaga Lagafaoa Lavata immediately.

Reasons

On 3 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears, telling the Tribunal the amount claimed had been paid in full.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Emma He, 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. 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 22 November 2024 with the fixed term due to end on 21 November 2025.
The tenancy ended on 14 November 2025.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks water rates totalling $452.72.
The landlord provided water rates invoices and corresponding water bills for the following period: a. 3 April 2025 to 5 May 2025 totalling $81.07 – the tenant invoice indicates that this paid. b. 3 July 2025 to 6 August 2025 totalling $255.29 – the tenant invoice indicates that the tenant paid $114.31, leaving a balance owing of $140.98. c. 6 August 2025 to 3 September 2025 totalling $173.80 – no payment has been made in respect of this invoice.
The landlord also provided an incomplete tenancy invoices document which shows they billed the tenant for water rates for the period 3 September 2025 to 2 October 2025 in the amount of $162.94. No invoice or water rates bill was provided to evidence the amount claimed.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal orders the tenant pay water rates of $314.78, for the period 6 July 2025 to 3 September 2025. The Tribunal declines to order water rates for the period 3 April 2025 to 5 May 2025 as this has previously been paid. The Tribunal also declined to order water rates for the period 3 September 2025 to 2 October 2025, as there was no evidence beyond the landlord generated tenancy invoices document substantiating the amount claimed.

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.
The landlord seeks $150.00 compensation after paying replacing an automatic garage door opener that was not returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. A tenant invoice generated by the landlord was provided to evidence the amount claimed. No receipt or invoice from the supplier of the replacement garage door remote was provided.
Having heard from the landlord the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to return one of the two remote garage door remotes at the end of the tenancy. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the amount claimed. Replacement garage door remotes range in cost from $30.00 to $115.00. The amount claimed exceeds that range. On that basis the Tribunal awards $75.00 for the cost of the replacement remote.
The landlord seeks $42.00 after paying to replace a missing Chorus fibre box charging cable at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tenant took it when they moved out and failed to return it. A new charging cable had to be purchased as the new tenants needed to use the fibre box.
The Tribunal was provided with pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the charging cable was provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs prove the charging cable was missing at the end of the tenancy. On the evidence provided the Tribunal is satisfied the charging cable was missing at the end of the tenancy 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.
The landlord seeks $400.00 to replace and paint a bedroom door that was damaged during the tenancy. No invoice or receipts for the costs of the replacement door, labour and paint were provided. The landlord did provide their own invoice for the amount claimed.
The Tribunal was provided with pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the door was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs show the door to be significantly damaged with several large cracks and splinting of the wood.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the door at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant is responsible for the damage to the door and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal considers the amount claimed to be reasonable in the circumstances and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because V & E Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380329 — net $859.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$314.78	Water rates
Lock/key replacement: Replace garage door opender	$75.00	Lock/key replacement: Replace garage door opender
Chorus fibre box charging cable	$42.00	Chorus fibre box charging cable
Repairs: Replace and repaint damaged bedroom door	$400.00	Repairs: Replace and repaint damaged bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$859.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$859.78

Order

Tusaga Lagafaoa Lavata to pay V & E Property Management Limited $859.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $859.78 (BN-00074669) to V & E Property Management Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.22 (BN-00074669) to Tusaga Lagafaoa Lavata immediately.

Reasons

On 3 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears, telling the Tribunal the amount claimed had been paid in full.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Emma He, 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. 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 22 November 2024 with the fixed term due to end on 21 November 2025.
The tenancy ended on 14 November 2025.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks water rates totalling $452.72.
The landlord provided water rates invoices and corresponding water bills for the following period: a. 3 April 2025 to 5 May 2025 totalling $81.07 – the tenant invoice indicates that this paid. b. 3 July 2025 to 6 August 2025 totalling $255.29 – the tenant invoice indicates that the tenant paid $114.31, leaving a balance owing of $140.98. c. 6 August 2025 to 3 September 2025 totalling $173.80 – no payment has been made in respect of this invoice.
The landlord also provided an incomplete tenancy invoices document which shows they billed the tenant for water rates for the period 3 September 2025 to 2 October 2025 in the amount of $162.94. No invoice or water rates bill was provided to evidence the amount claimed.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal orders the tenant pay water rates of $314.78, for the period 6 July 2025 to 3 September 2025. The Tribunal declines to order water rates for the period 3 April 2025 to 5 May 2025 as this has previously been paid. The Tribunal also declined to order water rates for the period 3 September 2025 to 2 October 2025, as there was no evidence beyond the landlord generated tenancy invoices document substantiating the amount claimed.

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.
The landlord seeks $150.00 compensation after paying replacing an automatic garage door opener that was not returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. A tenant invoice generated by the landlord was provided to evidence the amount claimed. No receipt or invoice from the supplier of the replacement garage door remote was provided.
Having heard from the landlord the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to return one of the two remote garage door remotes at the end of the tenancy. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the amount claimed. Replacement garage door remotes range in cost from $30.00 to $115.00. The amount claimed exceeds that range. On that basis the Tribunal awards $75.00 for the cost of the replacement remote.
The landlord seeks $42.00 after paying to replace a missing Chorus fibre box charging cable at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tenant took it when they moved out and failed to return it. A new charging cable had to be purchased as the new tenants needed to use the fibre box.
The Tribunal was provided with pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the charging cable was provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs prove the charging cable was missing at the end of the tenancy. On the evidence provided the Tribunal is satisfied the charging cable was missing at the end of the tenancy 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.
The landlord seeks $400.00 to replace and paint a bedroom door that was damaged during the tenancy. No invoice or receipts for the costs of the replacement door, labour and paint were provided. The landlord did provide their own invoice for the amount claimed.
The Tribunal was provided with pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the door was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs show the door to be significantly damaged with several large cracks and splinting of the wood.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the door at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant is responsible for the damage to the door and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal considers the amount claimed to be reasonable in the circumstances and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because V & E Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380329 — Property damage at 43 Kohekohe Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380329 — Property damage at 43 Kohekohe Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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 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