What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5024991 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5024991?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024991?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11565996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5024991 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5024991?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024991?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11565996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Gibbons Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5024991 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

26 Gibbons Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5024991 — 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 5024991 — net $1,034.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$207.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and rubbish removal	$350.00	Lawns and rubbish removal
Repairs: walls	$350.00	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,034.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,034.00

Claims and awards for application 5024991 — net $1,034.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and rubbish removal

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and rubbish removal

Repairs: walls

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: walls

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
This order replaces the previous order dated 12 March 2025, which is not enforceable.
Mareta Vekene must pay [The landlord/s] $1,034.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 March 2025.
On 12 March 2025, I issued an order requiring the tenant to pay the landlord a total of $827.00 immediately. Due to an administrative error, I did not include the cost to replace the keys and locks in the table of the order, which meant it was short by $207.00.
I apologise to the parties for this error and any resulting inconvenience.
The purpose of this order is to recall, amend and reissue the original order dated 12 March 2025 so as to require the tenant to pay the landlord the correct amount, which is $1,034.00. In all other respects, the terms of the order dated 12 March 2025 remain the same.
The landlord claims the tenant breached their obligations at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. KEY & LOCK REPLACEMENT
At the end of a tenancy, a tenant must return to the landlord all keys and security devices provided by the landlord. See section 40(e)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This tenancy ended on 18 September 2024 by order of the Tribunal.
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims they left the keys under a pot plant following a phone conversation with the landlord. The landlord denies there was ever any phone conversation with the tenant about the keys.
The landlord submitted an email chain between themselves and the tenant. It reads as follows: 04/09/2024 Hi Mareta, You called and advised that you will return the keys today at office but have not handed the keys back yet. Please advise what is happening the rent arrears are accumulating daily. 09/09/2024 Hi,

Is there any update when you are returning the keys?

The tenant accepts that they did not reply to these emails.
The landlord had the keys and locks changed around 1 October 2024 and submitted an invoice for $180.00 + GST ($207.00 total).
I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
I am not convinced that there was a phone conversation between the landlord and tenant where the tenant advised the landlord that they left the keys under a pot plant. The landlord denies ever having this phone conversation and no additional evidence was offered in support of it having occurred. In contrast, the landlord has submitted copies of two unanswered emails to the tenant enquiring about the keys.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $207.00 to replace the keys and locks is granted in full. CLEANING & RUBBISH REMOVAL
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(e)(ii) and (iii) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish.
The tenant accepts that the lawns required a mow at the end of the tenancy, which they did not do. Otherwise, the tenant claims they left the premises clean and tidy, and removed all rubbish.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show that some miscellaneous household items and personal belongings were left at the property, including items under the kitchen sink, a pair of shoes, a helmet and baby swing/bouncer. A large bag of garden waste was also left at the property.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show that some bedrooms do not appear to have been vacuumed. There are small amounts of rubbish on the floor. Similarly, the laundry floor does not appear to have been vacuumed. The kitchen cupboards, drawers and oven are also dirty.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $391.00 for cleaning. This invoice refers to “deep cleaning.” Whist I accept that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, I do not consider that a deep clean was required to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Most areas of the house appear to have been tidied and cleaned, with the exception of the areas referred to in paragraph [20] above.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for cleaning. The average hourly rate is $50.00 per hour. On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I consider that no longer than two hours would have been required to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for an adjusted amount of $100.00.
The landlord submitted an invoice for rubbish removal and lawn mowing for $350.00. Their claim for compensation for this amount is granted in full.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, lawn mowing and rubbish removal is granted for a total of $450.00.

DAMAGE

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.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the walls and an internal door frame.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Walls
The landlord claims the tenant painted some of the walls in a different coloured paint. The landlord also claims the tenant put up decal stickers on the walls, which have peeled paint when removed. Further, the landlord claims the tenant is responsible for multiple marks and scratches to the walls.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $414.00 to repair the walls.
The tenant claims that the marks on the walls were already present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that they painted some of the walls inside the house, but claims they did this to make the property look better. The tenant accepts that they put up decal stickers without permission of the landlord.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs submitted are not comprehensive enough to properly assess whether the marks, scratches and holes claimed by the landlord were present at the beginning of the tenancy or not. The landlord did not submit a pre-inspection report, which usually records any pre-existing damage in writing.
This tenancy was one year and three months long. Therefore, I consider an allowance needs to be made for fair wear and tear when considering the presence of marks and scratches to the walls.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord and evidence given by both parties at the hearing, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Painting of walls in a different colour by the tenant; and b. Placing decal stickers on the walls without permission, which has caused paint to remove when taken down.
I do not consider the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for the small holes in the wall, which look to have been caused by screws or nails.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the walls is granted for an adjusted amount of $350.00 to reflect the damage proven.
The amount ordered is proved. Internal door frame
The landlord claims an internal door frame was cracked and damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted a photograph of the damage and invoice to repair for $450.00 + GST ($517.50).
The tenant claims the door was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant previously raised a number of maintenance issues with this property in a previous hearing with the Tribunal. The landlord claims the broken doorframe was not raised by the tenant. The landlord claims if the doorframe was broken at the beginning of the tenancy, it would have been raised by the tenant at the previous hearing.
I have considered the order of the Tribunal for the previous hearing. The internal doorframe is not noted as a maintenance issue raised by the tenant.
The tenant claims they did not raise the broken doorframe at the previous hearing, because it was minor. The tenant claims they raised the issue verbally with the property manager at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord denies that the internal door frame was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord bares the onus of proving that the internal doorframe was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy and was damaged during this tenancy. I do not consider they have done this to the required standard, on the balance of probabilities.
The pre-inspection photographs are not comprehensive. I am unable to determine whether the internal doorframe was damaged or not from the pre- inspection photographs.
The landlord did not submit a pre-inspection report noting any pre-existing damage in writing.
In all of the circumstances, I am unsure whether the internal doorframe was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy or not.
The landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 5024991 — net $1,034.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$207.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and rubbish removal	$350.00	Lawns and rubbish removal
Repairs: walls	$350.00	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,034.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,034.00

Claims and awards for application 5024991 — net $1,034.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and rubbish removal

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and rubbish removal

Repairs: walls

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: walls

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
This order replaces the previous order dated 12 March 2025, which is not enforceable.
Mareta Vekene must pay [The landlord/s] $1,034.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 March 2025.
On 12 March 2025, I issued an order requiring the tenant to pay the landlord a total of $827.00 immediately. Due to an administrative error, I did not include the cost to replace the keys and locks in the table of the order, which meant it was short by $207.00.
I apologise to the parties for this error and any resulting inconvenience.
The purpose of this order is to recall, amend and reissue the original order dated 12 March 2025 so as to require the tenant to pay the landlord the correct amount, which is $1,034.00. In all other respects, the terms of the order dated 12 March 2025 remain the same.
The landlord claims the tenant breached their obligations at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. KEY & LOCK REPLACEMENT
At the end of a tenancy, a tenant must return to the landlord all keys and security devices provided by the landlord. See section 40(e)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This tenancy ended on 18 September 2024 by order of the Tribunal.
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims they left the keys under a pot plant following a phone conversation with the landlord. The landlord denies there was ever any phone conversation with the tenant about the keys.
The landlord submitted an email chain between themselves and the tenant. It reads as follows: 04/09/2024 Hi Mareta, You called and advised that you will return the keys today at office but have not handed the keys back yet. Please advise what is happening the rent arrears are accumulating daily. 09/09/2024 Hi,

Is there any update when you are returning the keys?

The tenant accepts that they did not reply to these emails.
The landlord had the keys and locks changed around 1 October 2024 and submitted an invoice for $180.00 + GST ($207.00 total).
I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
I am not convinced that there was a phone conversation between the landlord and tenant where the tenant advised the landlord that they left the keys under a pot plant. The landlord denies ever having this phone conversation and no additional evidence was offered in support of it having occurred. In contrast, the landlord has submitted copies of two unanswered emails to the tenant enquiring about the keys.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $207.00 to replace the keys and locks is granted in full. CLEANING & RUBBISH REMOVAL
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(e)(ii) and (iii) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish.
The tenant accepts that the lawns required a mow at the end of the tenancy, which they did not do. Otherwise, the tenant claims they left the premises clean and tidy, and removed all rubbish.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show that some miscellaneous household items and personal belongings were left at the property, including items under the kitchen sink, a pair of shoes, a helmet and baby swing/bouncer. A large bag of garden waste was also left at the property.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show that some bedrooms do not appear to have been vacuumed. There are small amounts of rubbish on the floor. Similarly, the laundry floor does not appear to have been vacuumed. The kitchen cupboards, drawers and oven are also dirty.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $391.00 for cleaning. This invoice refers to “deep cleaning.” Whist I accept that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, I do not consider that a deep clean was required to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Most areas of the house appear to have been tidied and cleaned, with the exception of the areas referred to in paragraph [20] above.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for cleaning. The average hourly rate is $50.00 per hour. On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I consider that no longer than two hours would have been required to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for an adjusted amount of $100.00.
The landlord submitted an invoice for rubbish removal and lawn mowing for $350.00. Their claim for compensation for this amount is granted in full.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, lawn mowing and rubbish removal is granted for a total of $450.00.

DAMAGE

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.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the walls and an internal door frame.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Walls
The landlord claims the tenant painted some of the walls in a different coloured paint. The landlord also claims the tenant put up decal stickers on the walls, which have peeled paint when removed. Further, the landlord claims the tenant is responsible for multiple marks and scratches to the walls.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $414.00 to repair the walls.
The tenant claims that the marks on the walls were already present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that they painted some of the walls inside the house, but claims they did this to make the property look better. The tenant accepts that they put up decal stickers without permission of the landlord.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs submitted are not comprehensive enough to properly assess whether the marks, scratches and holes claimed by the landlord were present at the beginning of the tenancy or not. The landlord did not submit a pre-inspection report, which usually records any pre-existing damage in writing.
This tenancy was one year and three months long. Therefore, I consider an allowance needs to be made for fair wear and tear when considering the presence of marks and scratches to the walls.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord and evidence given by both parties at the hearing, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Painting of walls in a different colour by the tenant; and b. Placing decal stickers on the walls without permission, which has caused paint to remove when taken down.
I do not consider the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for the small holes in the wall, which look to have been caused by screws or nails.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the walls is granted for an adjusted amount of $350.00 to reflect the damage proven.
The amount ordered is proved. Internal door frame
The landlord claims an internal door frame was cracked and damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted a photograph of the damage and invoice to repair for $450.00 + GST ($517.50).
The tenant claims the door was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant previously raised a number of maintenance issues with this property in a previous hearing with the Tribunal. The landlord claims the broken doorframe was not raised by the tenant. The landlord claims if the doorframe was broken at the beginning of the tenancy, it would have been raised by the tenant at the previous hearing.
I have considered the order of the Tribunal for the previous hearing. The internal doorframe is not noted as a maintenance issue raised by the tenant.
The tenant claims they did not raise the broken doorframe at the previous hearing, because it was minor. The tenant claims they raised the issue verbally with the property manager at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord denies that the internal door frame was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord bares the onus of proving that the internal doorframe was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy and was damaged during this tenancy. I do not consider they have done this to the required standard, on the balance of probabilities.
The pre-inspection photographs are not comprehensive. I am unable to determine whether the internal doorframe was damaged or not from the pre- inspection photographs.
The landlord did not submit a pre-inspection report noting any pre-existing damage in writing.
In all of the circumstances, I am unsure whether the internal doorframe was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy or not.
The landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024991 — Property damage at 26 Gibbons Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024991 — Property damage at 26 Gibbons Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there any update when you are returning the keys?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there any update when you are returning the keys?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions