What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405042?

The tribunal order states: Margaret Paetaha Carswell must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5405042?

Cleaning: $845.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $431.90 awarded to landlord; Replace cabinet handles and cabinet…: $271.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,216.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.79 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,458.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405042?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405042?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13390439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405042?

The tribunal order states: Margaret Paetaha Carswell must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5405042?

Cleaning: $845.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $431.90 awarded to landlord; Replace cabinet handles and cabinet…: $271.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,216.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.79 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,458.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405042?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405042?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13390439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 45 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405042 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 45 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405042 — 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 5405042 — net $7,939.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Door replacement x2	$431.90	Repairs: Door replacement x2
Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer	$271.05	Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer
Repairs: Wall repairs	$1,216.71	Repairs: Wall repairs
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated	$747.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated
Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement	$190.79	Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement
Cleaning	$845.46	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$4,458.70	Rubbish removal
Net award	$7,939.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,939.61

Claims and awards for application 5405042 — net $7,939.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: Door replacement x2

Amount: $431.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Door replacement x2

Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer

Amount: $271.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer

Repairs: Wall repairs

Amount: $1,216.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall repairs

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

Amount: $747.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement

Amount: $190.79
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Margaret Paetaha Carswell must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $7,939.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $222.00 (3032405-011) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant did not join the hearing via the video or telephone link as instructed in the notice of hearing. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for vacated compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 16 October 2018 and ended on or about 23 October 2025. The landlord undertook an exit inspection on 22 October 2025.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided comprehensive entry and exit inspection photographs. The photographic evidence is compelling and clearly shows that the tenant left the premises in a disgraceful state at the end of the tenancy. There was significant rubbish left behind and the premises required extensive cleaning. I have also sighted the landlord’s expense schedule confirming the amounts claimed.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Door replacement x2 • Cabinet handles and cabinet drawer replacement • Wall repairs • Carpet replacement (depreciated) • Bathroom mirror replacement
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused significant damage to the premises during the tenancy.
Comprehensive photographic evidence was provided by the landlord in support of their claims confirming significant and extensive damage throughout the premises. The bathroom mirror had been removed from the bathroom wall. There was graffiti throughout the property, both inside and out. I have also sighted the landlord’s expense schedule filed in support of the amounts claimed which are reasonable in all the circumstances.
Having sighted the evidence provided I am entirely satisfied that the damage is intentional.
The claims are established, and the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in respect of the carpet. 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of 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 5405042 — net $7,939.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Door replacement x2	$431.90	Repairs: Door replacement x2
Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer	$271.05	Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer
Repairs: Wall repairs	$1,216.71	Repairs: Wall repairs
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated	$747.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated
Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement	$190.79	Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement
Cleaning	$845.46	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$4,458.70	Rubbish removal
Net award	$7,939.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,939.61

Claims and awards for application 5405042 — net $7,939.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: Door replacement x2

Amount: $431.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Door replacement x2

Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer

Amount: $271.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Replace cabinet handles and cabinet drawer

Repairs: Wall repairs

Amount: $1,216.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall repairs

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

Amount: $747.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror replacement

Amount: $190.79
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Margaret Paetaha Carswell must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $7,939.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $222.00 (3032405-011) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant did not join the hearing via the video or telephone link as instructed in the notice of hearing. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for vacated compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 16 October 2018 and ended on or about 23 October 2025. The landlord undertook an exit inspection on 22 October 2025.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided comprehensive entry and exit inspection photographs. The photographic evidence is compelling and clearly shows that the tenant left the premises in a disgraceful state at the end of the tenancy. There was significant rubbish left behind and the premises required extensive cleaning. I have also sighted the landlord’s expense schedule confirming the amounts claimed.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Door replacement x2 • Cabinet handles and cabinet drawer replacement • Wall repairs • Carpet replacement (depreciated) • Bathroom mirror replacement
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused significant damage to the premises during the tenancy.
Comprehensive photographic evidence was provided by the landlord in support of their claims confirming significant and extensive damage throughout the premises. The bathroom mirror had been removed from the bathroom wall. There was graffiti throughout the property, both inside and out. I have also sighted the landlord’s expense schedule filed in support of the amounts claimed which are reasonable in all the circumstances.
Having sighted the evidence provided I am entirely satisfied that the damage is intentional.
The claims are established, and the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in respect of the carpet. 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405042 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 45 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405042 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 45 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, 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

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