What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5387838?

The tribunal order states: Kanuka Teepa must pay Visionwest Community Trust $10,530.96 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5387838?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; bathroom fittings, clothesline, door…: $992.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,673.44 awarded to landlord; Laminate Flooring: $1,604.23 awarded to landlord; Outstanding from invoice charged dur…: $1,233.31 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $279.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,090.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387838?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13288343-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5387838?

The tribunal order states: Kanuka Teepa must pay Visionwest Community Trust $10,530.96 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5387838?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; bathroom fittings, clothesline, door…: $992.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,673.44 awarded to landlord; Laminate Flooring: $1,604.23 awarded to landlord; Outstanding from invoice charged dur…: $1,233.31 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $279.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,090.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387838?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13288343-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 675 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387838 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 675 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387838 — 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 5387838 — net $10,530.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: painting	$1,000.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: carpet	$1,673.44	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers	$992.00	Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers
Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during	$1,233.31	Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during
Repairs: laminate flooring	$1,604.23	Repairs: laminate flooring
Rubbish removal	$3,090.00	Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$630.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Replace smoke alarms: and bathroom trap	$279.98	Replace smoke alarms: and bathroom trap
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,530.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,530.96

Claims and awards for application 5387838 — net $10,530.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: painting

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting

Repairs: carpet

Amount: $1,673.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: carpet

Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers

Amount: $992.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers

Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during

Amount: $1,233.31
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during

Repairs: laminate flooring

Amount: $1,604.23
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: laminate flooring

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Rubbish Removal

Order

Kanuka Teepa must pay Visionwest Community Trust $10,530.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Nallogoni. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenant was served to an email address which is an address for service on their tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 11 October 2022 and ended on 21 July 2025. This means the tenancy lasted two years and nine months.
The landlord said these were the first tenants to live in this premises. All fittings and fixtures were brand new at the start of this tenancy.

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 landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the tenants left the premises in the following condition: a. A large amount of rubbish inside and outside the premises, b. Premises including carpet heavily soiled throughout, c. Missing smoke alarms.
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.
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 damage to the premises caused during the tenancy included the following: a. The soiling to the carpet amounted to damage, b. There were holes in the walls in bedroom three that needed repairing and repainting, c. The laminate flooring was heavily damaged, d. Many fittings and fixtures were damaged or missing including bathroom fittings, door stoppers, blinds and the clothesline.
The landlord provided invoices and a large amount of photographs which supported these claims.
When I look at the nature of the damage, (missing fittings and very heavy soiling) and the extent of the damage throughout the property, I determine this damage exceeds careless damage. I determine this to be intentional damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy lasted two years and nine months. That is thirty-three months. The IRD depreciation guide lists chattels such as carpet and curtains as being depreciable over eight years. That is ninety-six months. These are the amounts I have used to calculate the residual value of the depreciable chattels. Where an item such as the carpet has needed replacing, I have multiplied the claim by 63/96, being sixty-three months of use left in the carpet out of a total amount of ninety-six months. This is the amount the landlord should be compensated.
Because Visionwest Community Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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 5387838 — net $10,530.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: painting	$1,000.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: carpet	$1,673.44	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers	$992.00	Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers
Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during	$1,233.31	Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during
Repairs: laminate flooring	$1,604.23	Repairs: laminate flooring
Rubbish removal	$3,090.00	Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$630.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Replace smoke alarms: and bathroom trap	$279.98	Replace smoke alarms: and bathroom trap
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,530.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,530.96

Claims and awards for application 5387838 — net $10,530.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: painting

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting

Repairs: carpet

Amount: $1,673.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: carpet

Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers

Amount: $992.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: bathroom fittings, clothesline, door stoppers

Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during

Amount: $1,233.31
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Outstanding from invoice charged during

Repairs: laminate flooring

Amount: $1,604.23
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: laminate flooring

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Rubbish Removal

Order

Kanuka Teepa must pay Visionwest Community Trust $10,530.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Nallogoni. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenant was served to an email address which is an address for service on their tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 11 October 2022 and ended on 21 July 2025. This means the tenancy lasted two years and nine months.
The landlord said these were the first tenants to live in this premises. All fittings and fixtures were brand new at the start of this tenancy.

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 landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the tenants left the premises in the following condition: a. A large amount of rubbish inside and outside the premises, b. Premises including carpet heavily soiled throughout, c. Missing smoke alarms.
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.
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 damage to the premises caused during the tenancy included the following: a. The soiling to the carpet amounted to damage, b. There were holes in the walls in bedroom three that needed repairing and repainting, c. The laminate flooring was heavily damaged, d. Many fittings and fixtures were damaged or missing including bathroom fittings, door stoppers, blinds and the clothesline.
The landlord provided invoices and a large amount of photographs which supported these claims.
When I look at the nature of the damage, (missing fittings and very heavy soiling) and the extent of the damage throughout the property, I determine this damage exceeds careless damage. I determine this to be intentional damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy lasted two years and nine months. That is thirty-three months. The IRD depreciation guide lists chattels such as carpet and curtains as being depreciable over eight years. That is ninety-six months. These are the amounts I have used to calculate the residual value of the depreciable chattels. Where an item such as the carpet has needed replacing, I have multiplied the claim by 63/96, being sixty-three months of use left in the carpet out of a total amount of ninety-six months. This is the amount the landlord should be compensated.
Because Visionwest Community Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387838 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 675 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387838 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 675 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland

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