What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051048 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5051048?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,682.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,667.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,437.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,414.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051048?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12729403-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051048 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5051048?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,682.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,667.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,437.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,414.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051048?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12729403-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Kopu Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5051048 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5051048 — net $5,872.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$1,414.09	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$1,437.50	Rubbish removal
Internal wall damage and painting	$2,682.95	Internal wall damage and painting
External damage and painting	$575.00	External damage and painting
Damage to doors	$1,667.50	Damage to doors
Carpet Cleaning: Damaged vanity	$575.00	Carpet Cleaning: Damaged vanity
Net award	$5,872.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,872.04

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5051048 — net $5,872.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$1,414.09	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$1,437.50	Rubbish removal
Internal wall damage and painting	$2,682.95	Internal wall damage and painting
External damage and painting	$575.00	External damage and painting
Damage to doors	$1,667.50	Damage to doors
Carpet Cleaning: Damaged vanity	$575.00	Carpet Cleaning: Damaged vanity
Net award	$5,872.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,872.04

Order

[The tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,872.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 8 April 2025 and 16 September 2025. Ms [The tenant/s] (the tenant) and Mr Fook Sung Wong as agent for Mr [The landlord/s] (the landlord) attended both hearings.
This matter concerns a tenancy that began in 2017. Mr Lin acquired the property in April 2021. The tenancy ended in January 2024. Rent was $730 per week and the bond was $2,480.
The tenant filed an application claiming that the landlord acted unlawfully in purporting to terminate the tenancy citing the for exemplary damages under section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the landlord wrongfully terminated the tenancy by issuing a 90-day notice for the purpose of sale, but failed to place the property on the market within the required statutory timeframe.
The landlord has filed a cross-application for a wide range of compensation following the end of the tenancy, including water rates, renovation costs, damage to the premises, cleaning, and rubbish removal.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, the onus of proof lies on the party bringing a claim. That means the applicant must prove their claim with evidence. The legal standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Put simply, this means the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is more likely than not (that is, more than a 50% chance) that what the applicant says happened is true.
The Tribunal does not decide cases on suspicion, feelings, or possibilities. It must look at the evidence as a whole – documents, photographs, inspection reports, text messages, invoices and the parties’ oral evidence – and decide whose version of events is more convincing and consistent. If the evidence is evenly balanced, the party who has the onus of proof will not succeed on that particular issue.
In this case, the tenant, as applicant on the main claim, carries the onus of proving that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 60AA RTA. The landlord, as applicant on the cross-application, carries the onus of proving each head of damage or cost claimed is more likely than not caused or contributed to by the tenant and is recoverable under the Act.
Against that background, I turn to the tenant’s claim and the landlord’s cross- application. The tenant’s claim
The landlord issued a 90-day notice requiring possession by 5 January 2024 on the basis that the property was to be sold.
The tenant claims that the landlord never publicly listed the property for sale within 90 days after termination, and instead re-tenanted the property shortly after she vacated. She says this demonstrates the landlord never intended to sell, and served the notice for an improper purpose.
The tenant says the notice had serious consequences including homelessness, financial hardship, emotional distress, disruption to children, increased costs, and loss of belongings.
She says the landlord and the property manager repeatedly acted unlawfully throughout the tenancy, including: • Attempting to terminate without grounds; • Filing a Tribunal application for rent arrears without evidence; • Attempting verbal termination; • Issuing a retaliatory notice during Tribunal proceedings in 2023; • Misleading the Tribunal.
The tenant says the property manager demonstrated poor knowledge of tenancy law and used the notice as a “weapon” to end the tenancy improperly after several tenancy disputes.
The tenant asks the Tribunal to find a breach of section 60AA, which prohibits landlords from giving a termination notice knowing they are not entitled to do so.
The landlord strongly disputes any improper motive. He says the decision to sell the property was genuine and arose from: • Ongoing rent arrears over several years; • Difficulty communicating with the tenant; • Concerns after the February 2023 inspection, where the tenant had allegedly allowed deterioration, damage, and mould; • Stress and frustration for the owner
The landlord states that the property was listed on 21 August 2023, but after the tenant vacated, the premises were found to be in poor condition. The owner withdrew the property from the market to carry out renovations before re-listing. The agent says this process took approximately six months and the intention remains to sell.
The landlord says the notice was issued lawfully and in accordance with section 51(2)(a). An agency agreement dated 21 August 2023 was produced in evidence. No sale documentation or current listing evidence was filed.
The Tribunal must determine whether the landlord acted unlawfully in terminating the tenancy on the grounds stated and whether compensation under section 60AA is justified.
Section 60AA prohibits landlords from giving notice to terminate if they know they are not entitled under the Act. At the time the notice was issued, the requirement under section 51(2)(a) was for the premises to be publicly marketed within 90 days of the termination date.
The tenant’s case rests on the allegation that the landlord used a false pretext to terminate the tenancy. However, the agency agreement supports the landlord’s assertion that the property was genuinely placed on the market prior to termination. The fact that a sale did not eventuate, or that the property was re-tenanted temporarily, does not alone establish that the original notice lacked foundation.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s explanation that the house required substantial work before listing. The owner’s request to withdraw the property from the market was reasonably connected to the property condition.
Importantly, even if the property was not listed within 90 days, the test under section 60AA is knowledge at the time the notice is issued, not the eventual outcome.
There is no evidence that the landlord knew the property would not be placed on the market within 90 days.
The landlord did intend to sell when the notice was issued, and took real steps toward that end, including entering into a formal listing agreement.
The Tribunal accepts that the sale was later paused due to the post-vacancy condition, which is not a breach of section 60AA.
The tenant’s broader concerns about the landlord’s historical conduct are noted but do not meet the threshold of proof for an unlawful act under section 60AA.
The Tribunal must assess the landlord’s intention at the time the notice was issued. On balance, I am satisfied that the landlord had a genuine intention to sell when the notice was issued. That intention may have been deferred due to the condition of the premises post-tenancy, which is not unusual.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim under section 60AA is not established. No exemplary damages are awarded. The landlord’s claims
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA.
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.
In terms of compensation, the Tribunal takes 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, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord claims unpaid water bills ($1,414.09) and renovation costs ($62,502.50) and refund of the bond.
The landlord says the tenant allowed the house to deteriorate, failed to ventilate, refused or delayed trades access, caused damage, and left the property in a poor condition requiring full renovation.
In response, the tenant says much of the damage existed at the start but was undocumented properly. The landlord conducted only three inspections in three years from 2021. Many issues she reported were never repaired professionally (e.g. sink, burst pipes, decking). The Goldstar report and quote are unreliable, overstated, and includes items unrelated to her actions or responsibility; She argued that the landlord is attempting to recover the entire renovation cost, not proven tenant damage.
The landlord relied heavily on a quote from Goldstar Construction Ltd, however, this lacked specificity. While photographs were provided for some items, the absence of clear baseline evidence (i.e. condition reports or photos from the start of the tenancy) weakened the landlord’s ability to establish causation or prove that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear.
Below is further reasoning for each claim category: a. Water rates ($1,414.09 awarded) The parties agreed to this sum in principle. The tenant sought a reduction due to a historic leak but provided insufficient evidence to support her view. The claim is allowed in full. b. Rubbish Removal ($2,550 – awarded $1,250) The landlord produced photographs of significant rubbish left at the premises. The tenant acknowledged some responsibility but argued part of the rubbish was preexisting or resulted from the landlord’s own renovation activities post-tenancy. Given the scale of rubbish and the tenant’s admission, it is fair to apportion 50% liability. The award of $1,250 reflects a balanced assessment of causation and contributory actions by the landlord. c. Sliding Doors and Broken Glass ($6,900 and $1,200 – dismissed) The tenant claimed the sliding doors were defective throughout the tenancy and that repeated requests for repair were either ignored or responded to with inadequate advice. This was denied by the landlord. Given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence, the Tribunal finds causation and liability were not proven, and the cost claims were excessive without itemised invoices. The Tribunal cannot hold the tenant liable for what may be latent or landlord-maintained defects. d. Deck Damage – Dismissed The deck was repeatedly noted as being in poor condition and subject to wear. The landlord acknowledged some repairs occurred during the tenancy. The evidence did not distinguish between old, repaired, or new damage. The tenant credibly asserted that any damage was due to age, not abuse or negligence. Given the conflicting views concerning new vs. existing damage, the Tribunal dismisses this claim. e. Indoor Wall Damage and Painting ($7,000 – awarded $2,333) The tenant accepted partial responsibility. There was no evidence that the house had been repainted since 2017. Paint work is generally considered to have an estimated life of 7–10 years in terms of the Inland Revenue Department depreciation guidelines. Awarding 1/3 of the claim is reasonable to reflect tenant liability, depreciation, and the lack of clear distinction between old and new damage. f. External Wall Damage and Paint ($1,550 – awarded $500) The tenant accepted possible responsibility for some external damage but was uncertain about others. The landlord’s evidence did not pinpoint the nature or timing of the damage. A partial award recognises this ambiguity and prevents overcompensation. g. Damage to Doors – ($1,450 – agreed) This claim was accepted by the tenant during the hearing, and the Tribunal accepts it as proven. h. Hole in Floor ($300 – dismissed) The tenant persuasively argued that the damage was caused by water leaks from a hot water cylinder replaced years earlier. The landlord did not provide evidence that the hole was newly caused during the relevant tenancy. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the claim has not been established and is therefore dismissed. i. Shower Box, Heater, Vanity Shower Box ($500): There were inconsistent accounts and no clear evidence of tenant-caused damage. Dismissed. Heater ($1,500): The landlord failed to prove that damage was due to the tenant rather than a faulty bulb or wear and tear. Dismissed. Vanity ($1,200 – awarded $500): The tenant accepted that two drawers were broken but disputed the amount. $500 is awarded as a fair and proportionate amount in the absence of detailed invoices or depreciation calculations. j. Smoke Alarms ($100 – dismissed) The 2021 inspection report did not confirm the presence of working smoke alarms, and the tenant claimed there were none throughout the tenancy. The onus is on the landlord to show compliance with the Regulations, which they failed to do. Claim dismissed. k. Kitchen Removal, Replacement, Appliances ($13,600 – dismissed) The tenant raised a credible argument that: •A leak had compromised kitchen cabinetry; •The appliances were aging; •The entire renovation was not attributable to tenant damage. The landlord failed to differentiate which parts of the kitchen damage were from tenant misuse versus general wear or water damage. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is compensable under the RTA framework. Claim dismissed. l. Carpet ($4,500 – dismissed) The landlord could not establish the carpet’s age. Given the high probability that the carpet had reached or exceeded its expected lifespan, no compensation is awarded. m. Curtains ($4,500 – dismissed) The tenant asserted that many of the curtains were her own. There were no records or photos of what curtains were present at the start of the tenancy. Even if there were, they would have likely reached or exceeded its expected life span and as such no compensation would be awarded. Claim dismissed. n. Wardrobe Damage ($2,000 – dismissed) There is no entry inspection report or photos showing the original condition. Landlord’s assertion alone is insufficient. Claim dismissed. o. Commercial Cleaning ($1,000 – dismissed) As several claims relating to replacements were dismissed, the associated post- renovation cleaning cannot be attributed to the tenant. Claim dismissed.
The costs awarded above include GST.
Given the outcome of several of the landlord’s claims, it is appropriate to offset valid landlord claims against the bond. Filing fee and suppression orders
As the tenant’s application is dismissed and the landlord’s application is partially successful, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Under section 95A, suppression of names may be granted to a successful party. In the circumstances, there are no grounds for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051048 — Property damage at 9 Kopu Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051048 — Property damage at 9 Kopu Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions