Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5425308 — Cleanliness at 10 Valdale Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610
Published 10 April 2026 · Application 5425308
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Brennan
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,655.08
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,655.08
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated | $672.00 | Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated | |
| Repairs: Replace broken door | $217.01 | Repairs: Replace broken door | |
| Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes | $326.66 | Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes | |
| Rubbish removal | $2,642.40 | Rubbish removal | |
| Cleaning | $797.01 | Cleaning | |
| Net award | $4,655.08 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,655.08 |
Claims and awards for application 5425308 — net $4,655.08 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated
- Amount
- $672.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated
Repairs: Replace broken door
- Amount
- $217.01
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Replace broken door
Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes
- Amount
- $326.66
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $2,642.40
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Cleaning
- Amount
- $797.01
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Net award
Landlord $4,655.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,655.08
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Carla Renee Munu must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,655.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The exit phots create an immediate impression of abandonment. This was not the case. The large volume of items left, as well as the significant cleaning effort required, as shown in the exit photographs, support the large cost incurred by the landlord, and now sought as compensation.
- The total claimed for cleaning was $797.01 and this total is accepted as a valid cost to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required of the tenant at exit.
- The total claimed for rubbish removal was $2,642.40 and this total is accepted as consistent with the evidence of effort required.
- 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 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.
- 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. Door. An internal door had a hole and side damage with what appears a result of forced entry. The door was replaced at a cost of $217.01 and this is awarded. b. Walls. Three major holes, made by significant force that must be considered intentional, as well as three smaller ones, were repaired at a claimed cost of $326.66. The photographic evidence is conclusive on the need, and tenant liability. The costs are accepted and awarded as claimed. c. Carpet. The living room carpet was stained beyond repair or cleaning. It was replaced and the landlord sought the depreciated loss of $672.00. The carpet was new at or around the start of the tenancy and the depreciated applied is consistent with what the Tribunal would assess. This is awarded in full.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation as calculated by the landlord. 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.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425308?
The tribunal order states: Carla Renee Munu must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,655.08
How much money was awarded in case 5425308?
Cleaning: $797.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $326.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Door: $217.01 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreci…: $672.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,642.40 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425308?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425308?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.