Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5411891 — Cleanliness at 113 Farquhar Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602
Published 29 May 2026 · Application 5411891
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
T Harris
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,159.03
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $621.97
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $747.50 | Cleaning | |
| Repairs: painting | $115.00 | Repairs: painting | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Balance of Bond | $268.53 | Balance of Bond | |
| Total award | $890.50 | $268.53 | |
| Net award | $621.97 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $621.97 |
Claims and awards for application 5411891 — net $621.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $747.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Repairs: painting
- Amount
- $115.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of Bond
- Amount
- $268.53
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Balance of Bond
Total award
Landlord $890.50 · Tenant $268.53
Net award
Landlord $621.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $621.97
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- James Aukilani Paulo and Trinity Paulo must pay Spectre Property Management Services Limited as agent for Kang Seng Soon & Chooi Jin Tai $621.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The bond has already been refunded in full to the landlord and this was used to cover rent arrears and water rates which were not disputed by the tenant. This leaves a remaining balance of $287.50.
- The tenants did not dispute the cost claimed for cleaning and these are awarded as claimed.
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 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: A patch of paint on the dark blue wall in the master bedroom was worn.
- The tenant said that this damage is fair wear and tear, due to the low quality of the paint work and the general fading of the painted wall over time. The tenant said that they had informed the landlords of the fading paint and photographs were provided of the wall over time showing the paint in patches fading. The tenant was unable to provide copies of written communications letting the landlord know about their concerns with the painted wall. The tenant sad that they sat up in bed to watch movies and this was where the paint had deteriorated. This had not occurred on another wall when the bed had been orientated against it.
- The landlord said that they had not been told of the damage to the wall during the tenancy and discovered it when the tenancy ended. Four copies of house inspections conducted during the tenancy were provided, all showing the wall undamaged, but it is noted that in some photographs it was hard to see the area that was damaged.
- There was a claim that the wall had been painted at the start of the tenancy, but pre-inspection photographs show that the wall was already marked next to where the damaged occurred prior to this tenancy starting. The landlord could not provide a date when the painting of the room took place.
- The landlord claimed $287.50 for repainting the wall on the basis that it was more than fair wear and tear.
- I find that this is careless damage as it is more than fair wear and tear and there was no evidence provided about the standard or the painting or that the tenant let the landlord know about its decline in condition.
- The amount claimed is depreciated based on a 10 year lifespan for painted walls in a tenancy, and that it was not in new condition at the start of the current tenancy. This tenancy was for 4 years, and two years is added as an estimate of the length of the previous tenancy when the room was supposed to have been painted. This means the approximate age of the painted walls is 6 years, leaving 4 years. I find that the depreciated value of the repairs to be $115.00 and this is awarded.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- Because Spectre Property Management Services Limited As Agent For Kang Seng Soon & Chooi Jin Tai has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s29, s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s6
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5411891?
The tribunal order states: James Aukilani Paulo and Trinity Paulo must pay Spectre Property
How much money was awarded in case 5411891?
Cleaning: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $115.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411891?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411891?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13676503-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.