What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5401434?

The tribunal order states: SAVANNA JOHNSTON must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5401434?

Cleaning: $481.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $744.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Garden Shed: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $332.50 awarded to landlord; Laundry Door: $65.61 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $49.73 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $537.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $537.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401434?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13220218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5401434?

The tribunal order states: SAVANNA JOHNSTON must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5401434?

Cleaning: $481.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $744.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Garden Shed: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $332.50 awarded to landlord; Laundry Door: $65.61 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $49.73 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $537.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $537.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401434?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13220218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Carbery Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401434 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401434 — net $3,229.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$481.43		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$537.75		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Holes in walls	$332.50		Repairs: Holes in walls
Repairs: Towel rail	$49.73		Repairs: Towel rail
Repairs: Laundry door	$65.61		Repairs: Laundry door
Carpet replacement	$744.32		Carpet replacement
Repairs: Garden shed	$1,000.00		Repairs: Garden shed
Rubbish removal	$537.75		Rubbish removal
Amount already paid by tenant towards repairs		$520.00	Amount already paid by tenant towards repairs
Total award	$3,749.09	$520.00
Net award	$3,229.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,229.09

Order

SAVANNA JOHNSTON must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,229.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 3 March 2026. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Analysis
The landlord seeks $962.87 for general cleaning of the entire house and deep cleaning of the kitchen cupboards, oven and rangehood. The landlord also seeks $537.75 for rubbish removal.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. With the exception of the kitchen and some decal stickers in the hallway, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $481.43. This is 50% of the total sought to reflect the likely time spent cleaning the kitchen and removing the stickers.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy also show a lot of rubbish underneath the house. The landlord gave evidence that no rubbish was present at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord submitted a work order for $537.75 to remove the rubbish. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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. 7
Fair wear and tear has been described as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8
The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. The landlord must not be any better or worse off. To achieve this, there may need to be a reduction to the total amount of compensation sought to reflect betterment and depreciation. This is particularly the case where full replacement or reinstatement has been undertaken. Holes in walls
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any holes in the walls. The photographs taken at the end show holes in walls in the bedrooms, hallway, dining room and living room.
I find the walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a work order totalling $332.50 to repair the holes. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Towel rail
There is a towel rail in the bathroom in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. There is no towel rail in the bathroom in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.
I find the towel rail was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord submitted a work order for $49.73 to replace the towel rail. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Laundry door
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the laundry door to be in a good condition. The photographs taken at the end show it is damaged.
I find the laundry door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a work order for $65.61 to repair the door. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Carpet
The carpet in the hallway and living room is in good condition in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. In the photographs taken at the end, the carpet in these areas is badly stained.
I find the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord spent $981.66 replacing the carpet in these areas. The landlord seeks $744.32 of this and accepts there needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. The carpet was three years old at the end of the tenancy.
The amount sought by the landlord seems reasonable considering the age of the carpet. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $744.32. Garden shed
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a garden shed is present and in good condition. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the shed has been dismantled.
I find the shed was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord seeks $1,236.17 to replace the shed. The landlord does not know how old the shed was at the end of the tenancy however, it appears relatively new in the entry photographs. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced it was only a couple of years old. Therefore, there should only be a small reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. I consider a reduction of $236.17 reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,000.00. Amount already paid by tenant
The landlord submitted an account ledger for the tenant. The tenant has already paid the landlord $520.00 towards repairs. This needs to be deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded to the landlord. For this reason, I have recorded a credit of $520.00 in favour of the tenant in the tabled order. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401434 — net $3,229.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$481.43		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$537.75		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Holes in walls	$332.50		Repairs: Holes in walls
Repairs: Towel rail	$49.73		Repairs: Towel rail
Repairs: Laundry door	$65.61		Repairs: Laundry door
Carpet replacement	$744.32		Carpet replacement
Repairs: Garden shed	$1,000.00		Repairs: Garden shed
Rubbish removal	$537.75		Rubbish removal
Amount already paid by tenant towards repairs		$520.00	Amount already paid by tenant towards repairs
Total award	$3,749.09	$520.00
Net award	$3,229.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,229.09

Order

SAVANNA JOHNSTON must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,229.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 3 March 2026. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Analysis
The landlord seeks $962.87 for general cleaning of the entire house and deep cleaning of the kitchen cupboards, oven and rangehood. The landlord also seeks $537.75 for rubbish removal.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. With the exception of the kitchen and some decal stickers in the hallway, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $481.43. This is 50% of the total sought to reflect the likely time spent cleaning the kitchen and removing the stickers.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy also show a lot of rubbish underneath the house. The landlord gave evidence that no rubbish was present at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord submitted a work order for $537.75 to remove the rubbish. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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. 7
Fair wear and tear has been described as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8
The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. The landlord must not be any better or worse off. To achieve this, there may need to be a reduction to the total amount of compensation sought to reflect betterment and depreciation. This is particularly the case where full replacement or reinstatement has been undertaken. Holes in walls
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any holes in the walls. The photographs taken at the end show holes in walls in the bedrooms, hallway, dining room and living room.
I find the walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a work order totalling $332.50 to repair the holes. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Towel rail
There is a towel rail in the bathroom in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. There is no towel rail in the bathroom in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.
I find the towel rail was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord submitted a work order for $49.73 to replace the towel rail. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Laundry door
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the laundry door to be in a good condition. The photographs taken at the end show it is damaged.
I find the laundry door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a work order for $65.61 to repair the door. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Carpet
The carpet in the hallway and living room is in good condition in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. In the photographs taken at the end, the carpet in these areas is badly stained.
I find the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord spent $981.66 replacing the carpet in these areas. The landlord seeks $744.32 of this and accepts there needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. The carpet was three years old at the end of the tenancy.
The amount sought by the landlord seems reasonable considering the age of the carpet. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $744.32. Garden shed
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a garden shed is present and in good condition. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the shed has been dismantled.
I find the shed was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord seeks $1,236.17 to replace the shed. The landlord does not know how old the shed was at the end of the tenancy however, it appears relatively new in the entry photographs. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced it was only a couple of years old. Therefore, there should only be a small reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. I consider a reduction of $236.17 reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,000.00. Amount already paid by tenant
The landlord submitted an account ledger for the tenant. The tenant has already paid the landlord $520.00 towards repairs. This needs to be deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded to the landlord. For this reason, I have recorded a credit of $520.00 in favour of the tenant in the tabled order. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401434 — Property damage at 7 Carbery Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401434 — Property damage at 7 Carbery Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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 damage that occurred during the tenancy?

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 damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions