Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5431147 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 9, 6 Trent Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011
Published 11 May 2026 · Application 5431147
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,309.78
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$1,980.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,329.78
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Break lease fees | $981.78 | Break lease fees | |
| Repairs: Painting | $1,800.00 | Repairs: Painting | |
| Repairs: Carpet (insurance excess | $500.00 | Repairs: Carpet (insurance excess | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,329.78 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,329.78 |
Claims and awards for application 5431147 — net $1,329.78 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Break lease fees
- Amount
- $981.78
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Break lease fees
Repairs: Painting
- Amount
- $1,800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Carpet (insurance excess
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Carpet (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,329.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,329.78
Dismissed claims
- Cleaning — Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Karesha Walker must pay First National Lethbridge Property Management as the agent for Nishadh Shrestha - Jyasa Limited & Raisha Tuladhar $1,329.78 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-00034829) to First National Lethbridge Property Management as the agent For Nishadh Shrestha - Jyasa Limited & Raisha Tuladhar immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant disputes most of the claimed costs and provided submissions at the hearing.
- Evidence was also provided by the landlord, including the provision of some evidence after the hearing. I confirm that this has been received and considered, even if there is no direct reference to it. Civil burden of proof
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Is the tenant liable for break lease fees?
- The fixed term tenancy commenced on 20 December 2024 and was scheduled to end on 16 January 2026.
- The parties agreed to end the tenancy early and as a result, the landlord sought and provided an account of expense totalling $981.78 for break lease fees.
- The tenant knew that there would be break lease fees but considers that the amount being sought is too high and does not reflect actual losses.
- Section 44A of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) provides that where a landlord consents to a termination of the tenancy, it is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred in respect of that termination.
- On review of the expense account provided, I consider that the amount claimed and time attributed to each steps appears reasonable.
- The amount ordered is proved.
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) RTA.
- The landlord claims for additional cleaning that they say was required at the end of the tenancy to ensure the property met the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. The invoice notes that cleaning was carried out to the oven, rubbish bin, lounge sliding door, shower glass and wardrobe shelves and is for a total of $181.13.
- The tenant disputes the amount sought and says that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy.
- The landlord has provided photographs at the end of the tenancy; however, I consider that I do not have sufficient evidence to prove that it was more likely than not that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. None of the evidence provided sufficiently proves additional cleaning was required to meet the statutory standard.
- Accordingly, the claim for cleaning is dismissed.
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 landlord claims for wall repairs to four walls in the lounge, walls in the kitchen, bedrooms, hot water cylinder door and the bathroom ceiling. The invoice totals $2,277.00. The landlord says this was predominantly required due to the tenant patching and painting over areas of the wall(s) herself. The landlord has provided the ingoing inspection report (with no wall damage) and photographs at the end of the tenancy (showing locations of damage).
- The landlord also claims for an insurance excess amount of $500.00 relating to carpet replacement required due to damage caused the tenant.
- The tenant believes the painting amount being sought is excessive, and although she admits that she did patch or paint over the wall in some locations, she says that she was never given an opportunity to remedy the issue.
- On review of the evidence, I consider that it was more likely than not that some of the wall damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. Where the tenant had patched over the damage, this must be considered intentional and there is no requirement in the RTA that a tenant be allowed to return to remedy any damage.
- However, entire walls were painted, and some minor scuffing or marks would be expected at the end of a tenancy and so I must consider betterment. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations but should not be better off.
- Accordingly, I have reduced the amount awarded for the wall repairs to reflect betterment and award $1,800.00 towards the wall repairs.
- The carpet damage is clear in the photographs and was not directly disputed by the tenant and I have awarded the full amount of the claimed excess of $500.00.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall damage and carpet damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- Because First National Lethbridge Property Management as the agent or Nishadh Shrestha - Jyasa Limited & Raisha Tuladhar has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 11 May 2026
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), s44A, s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431147?
The tribunal order states: Karesha Walker must pay First National Lethbridge Property Management as
How much money was awarded in case 5431147?
Break Lease Fees: $981.78 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431147?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431147?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13546425-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.