What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065388 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 5065388?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,172.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,316.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11883246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065388 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 5065388?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,172.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,316.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11883246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065388 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065388 — net $3,821.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 September 2024	$5,172.86	Rent arrears to 4 September 2024
Water rates to 30 June 2022	$1,316.49	Water rates to 30 June 2022
Carpet cleaning	$380.00	Carpet cleaning
Repairs - damage to vanity (estimated	$75.00	Repairs - damage to vanity (estimated
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	successful party the Landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00. M Allan 22 May 2025
Net award	$3,821.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,821.35

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,150.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Abdirazak Yusuf and Anab Awab must pay [The landlord/s] $3,821.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was set down following a case conference held on 4 February 2025 where directions were made for the filing of additional evidence.
[Trustee 1] and [Trustee 2] appeared on behalf of all three trustees. They confirmed that they had authority from [Trustee 3].
Abdirazak Yusuf appeared on behalf of the tenants. He confirmed that he had authority to represent Anab Awab.
For ease of reference I refer to the parties as “the Landlord” and “the Tenants”.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the party bringing the claim bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
This is the Landlord’s claim and so the Landlord bears the onus to prove their claim.
Claims must be proved with evidence, for example oral evidence given at the hearing, photos, invoices, text messages and emails.
If I do not find a claim proven it does not necessarily mean that the party bringing the claim is wrong. It simply means that there was not enough evidence to find the claim proven.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent

The tenancy began on 18 June 2021. The Landlord produced a rent summary showing total arrears to 6 September 2024 in the amount of $5,457.15.
The Tenants disputed the rent summary. Mr Yusuf said that he and his mother had made numerous additional payments towards rent to catch up on arrears as they occurred during the tenancy.
The Tenants did not file evidence of any additional payments made but at the hearing I allowed Mr Yusuf to go through his bank statements on his phone and identify any additional payments made. As he read out the date and amount of the payments I checked these additional payments against the Landlord’s rent summary. I am satisfied that all of the additional payments made by the Tenants have been included in the Landlord’s rent summary and that the rent summary is accurate.
The Tenants also disputed that the tenancy ended on 6 September 2024. Mr Yusuf said that they moved out earlier than that, likely either 27 or 28 August 2024. He produced a copy of a new tenancy agreement commencing on 30 August 2024.
The Landlord said that they did a final inspection with Mr Yusuf present on 4 September 2024 and produced a copy of the final inspection report confirming the parties that were present. However they said that the Tenants left several vehicles behind and so they were not able to properly access the property until 6 September 2024.
At the hearing I asked the parties how the tenancy had ended, in an attempt to establish and end date based on the notice given. However the parties did not agree on how the tenancy ended. The Tenants said that he was told that the Landlord needed the property as a family member was moving up from Wellington. The Landlord said that the Tenants had given notice but could not say when.
The only other evidence regarding the timing of the end of the tenancy was a text message from the Landlord to the Tenants which stated “ – regarding the tenancy end date: 6 th September 2024”. However this was sent on 8 September 2024, after the tenancy had ended, and the Tenants did not respond.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I find that the tenancy ended on 4 September 2024. That was the date that the parties met and inspected the property. I was not provided with any evidence that vehicles were present at the property after that date preventing access, and so I find that the tenancy ended on that date. I accept that the Tenants have entered into another tenancy agreement but it is not uncommon for tenancies to overlap slightly.
I have therefore deducted two days rent ($314.29) from the amount claimed by the Landlord, and order payment of rent arrears in the amount of $5,172.86. Water
The Landlord claimed for water arrears as follows: a. 18 June 2021 – 30 April 2022: $1,036.93 b. 1 June 2022 – 30 June 2022 - $451.84 c. 1 July 2022 to end of tenancy - $547.10.
The Landlord provided a copy of Watercare invoices for the period from 18 June 2021 to 30 April 2022 together with a covering invoice for that entire period setting out the amounts claimed from the Tenants (deducting the fixed charges).
The Landlord also provided a copy of the Watercare invoice for the period 1 June 2022 to 30 June 2022 together with a covering invoice for the amounts claimed from the Tenants (deducing the fixed charges).
The Landlord did not provide any Watercare invoices from 1 July 2022 to the end of the tenancy but provided a debt collection letter from Watercare dated 11 September 2024 claiming an overdue amount owing of $425.15 and a receipt from Watercare dated 16 September 2024 for payment of $547.10.
At the hearing it was very difficult to understand what the arrangement was between the parties for the payment of water. It does not appear that the Landlord regularly sent invoices to the Tenants. They said that they did not send Watercare invoices directly to the Tenants as they paid the invoices themselves and then sought to recover the amounts from the Tenants.
The Tenants disagreed and produced bank statements showing numerous direct payments to Watercare throughout the tenancy.
I have reviewed the invoices from 18 June to 30 June 2022. The combined total for that period is $1,488.77. The Tenants’ bank accounts for that period show payments of $172.28 made direct to Watercare. I therefore order payment of the balance, being $1,316.49.
The Tenant claimed that there was a leak during this period but there was no evidence of a leak being notified to the landlord which would have enabled the Landlord to seek a water rebate.
The Landlord did not provide evidence of any amounts owing from 1 July 2022 to the end of the tenancy. The Tenants made numerous direct payments to Watercare after this date. Without a ledger showing all payments made and received the Landlord has not proved that any amount remains outstanding.
The Landlord sought to rely on the receipt from the Landlord showing the final amount paid by them to Watercare but I am not satisfied that the Landlord has proved that the tenants are responsible for this amount because no invoices were provided.

Did the Tenants 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 Landlord said that the Tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord sought the following amounts: a. $1,020.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal; b. $380.00 for carpet cleaning; and c. $408.25 for pest control.
The Landlord produced photos of a variety of carpet stains and photos of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The Tenants accepted that there had been some carpet staining.
I find the claim in respect of carpet cleaning proved. The photos show a variety of stains that would have required extensive cleaning. The amount claimed is reasonable. This claim is proved and I order compensation payable to the Landlord in the amount of $380.00.
The Landlord said that the property was not left clean generally. However the only photos produced were of an area of skirting that needed to be wiped down but this was very minor. No photos were provided of any other area and there were no photos showing rubbish. The exit inspection report referred to the oven being dirty but the Tenants said that he did not agree and was not given any input into the preparation of the exit inspection report.
The Landlord has not proved that the Tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy (beyond the carpet cleaning required) and that they left behind rubbish. This claim is dismissed.
The Landlord said that there were cockroaches at the property as the Tenants did not leave it clean and sought compensation for pest control. The Tenants said that there were cockroaches right from the start of the tenancy but the landlord did nothing about them.
Pest issues are not uncommon. Unless the landlord is able to prove that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement in some way that has led to pests, such as leaving food out of leaving rubbish uncovered, pest control is usually the responsibility of the landlord.
The only evidence of the condition of the property produced was a routine inspection report produced by the Tenant from an inspection performed on 30 October 2023. This report includes photos, all of which show the property to be in a clean and tidy condition.
I do not consider that the Landlord has not proved that the Tenants caused there to be cockroaches. This claim is not proved and is dismissed.

Are the Tenants 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.
The Landlord had filed a claim seeking $16,482.00 from the Tenants for various damage. This landlord has now filed an insurance claim and is awaiting a cash settlement (less excess amounts). The landlord said that after receiving the cash settlement (less excess amounts) they are out of pocket in the amount of $820.49 and that they seek this sum from the Tenants.
The Landlord claimed damage for a variety of items including patching, repairing and painting walls, installing removed closet doors, replacing toilet holder, new mirror, replacement of three vanity units including taps, replacing three heated towel rails fixing up the staircase hand-rail and replacing a damaged garage door.
The Landlord provided very few photos to prove their claim. They provided a photo of a garage door that shows some damage along the lower area, a split in what appears to be a door frame and a damaged vanity drawer.
However a landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy. The photo of the garage door from the start of the tenancy was only of a very small section that remains undamaged in the photos from the end of the tenancy. There is a photo of one bathroom vanity but the Tenants dispute that it is of the same vanity that is damaged. There is a photo of a wall but no photo of the door frame showing no damage.
The Tenants disputed all of the damage except the one vanity drawer. The landlord has not proven the balance of damage claimed as they have not proven the damage, or where damage is proven, that it was caused during the tenancy.
In the circumstances I award compensation to the Landlord for the vanity drawer. The Landlord has replaced the entire vanity and so I can only estimate the amount the amount of compensation for the drawer, which I consider is likely to be in the amount of $75.00 based on the quotes for the entire vanity given by the Landlord’s contractor and taking into account depreciation, as the landlord now has a new vanity. Filing fee and name suppression
I consider that the Landlord has been the successful party overall. They are therefore entitled to, and have requested, an order for name suppression.
As the substantially successful party the Landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065388 — net $3,821.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 September 2024	$5,172.86	Rent arrears to 4 September 2024
Water rates to 30 June 2022	$1,316.49	Water rates to 30 June 2022
Carpet cleaning	$380.00	Carpet cleaning
Repairs - damage to vanity (estimated	$75.00	Repairs - damage to vanity (estimated
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	successful party the Landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00. M Allan 22 May 2025
Net award	$3,821.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,821.35

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,150.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Abdirazak Yusuf and Anab Awab must pay [The landlord/s] $3,821.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was set down following a case conference held on 4 February 2025 where directions were made for the filing of additional evidence.
[Trustee 1] and [Trustee 2] appeared on behalf of all three trustees. They confirmed that they had authority from [Trustee 3].
Abdirazak Yusuf appeared on behalf of the tenants. He confirmed that he had authority to represent Anab Awab.
For ease of reference I refer to the parties as “the Landlord” and “the Tenants”.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the party bringing the claim bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
This is the Landlord’s claim and so the Landlord bears the onus to prove their claim.
Claims must be proved with evidence, for example oral evidence given at the hearing, photos, invoices, text messages and emails.
If I do not find a claim proven it does not necessarily mean that the party bringing the claim is wrong. It simply means that there was not enough evidence to find the claim proven.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent

The tenancy began on 18 June 2021. The Landlord produced a rent summary showing total arrears to 6 September 2024 in the amount of $5,457.15.
The Tenants disputed the rent summary. Mr Yusuf said that he and his mother had made numerous additional payments towards rent to catch up on arrears as they occurred during the tenancy.
The Tenants did not file evidence of any additional payments made but at the hearing I allowed Mr Yusuf to go through his bank statements on his phone and identify any additional payments made. As he read out the date and amount of the payments I checked these additional payments against the Landlord’s rent summary. I am satisfied that all of the additional payments made by the Tenants have been included in the Landlord’s rent summary and that the rent summary is accurate.
The Tenants also disputed that the tenancy ended on 6 September 2024. Mr Yusuf said that they moved out earlier than that, likely either 27 or 28 August 2024. He produced a copy of a new tenancy agreement commencing on 30 August 2024.
The Landlord said that they did a final inspection with Mr Yusuf present on 4 September 2024 and produced a copy of the final inspection report confirming the parties that were present. However they said that the Tenants left several vehicles behind and so they were not able to properly access the property until 6 September 2024.
At the hearing I asked the parties how the tenancy had ended, in an attempt to establish and end date based on the notice given. However the parties did not agree on how the tenancy ended. The Tenants said that he was told that the Landlord needed the property as a family member was moving up from Wellington. The Landlord said that the Tenants had given notice but could not say when.
The only other evidence regarding the timing of the end of the tenancy was a text message from the Landlord to the Tenants which stated “ – regarding the tenancy end date: 6 th September 2024”. However this was sent on 8 September 2024, after the tenancy had ended, and the Tenants did not respond.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I find that the tenancy ended on 4 September 2024. That was the date that the parties met and inspected the property. I was not provided with any evidence that vehicles were present at the property after that date preventing access, and so I find that the tenancy ended on that date. I accept that the Tenants have entered into another tenancy agreement but it is not uncommon for tenancies to overlap slightly.
I have therefore deducted two days rent ($314.29) from the amount claimed by the Landlord, and order payment of rent arrears in the amount of $5,172.86. Water
The Landlord claimed for water arrears as follows: a. 18 June 2021 – 30 April 2022: $1,036.93 b. 1 June 2022 – 30 June 2022 - $451.84 c. 1 July 2022 to end of tenancy - $547.10.
The Landlord provided a copy of Watercare invoices for the period from 18 June 2021 to 30 April 2022 together with a covering invoice for that entire period setting out the amounts claimed from the Tenants (deducting the fixed charges).
The Landlord also provided a copy of the Watercare invoice for the period 1 June 2022 to 30 June 2022 together with a covering invoice for the amounts claimed from the Tenants (deducing the fixed charges).
The Landlord did not provide any Watercare invoices from 1 July 2022 to the end of the tenancy but provided a debt collection letter from Watercare dated 11 September 2024 claiming an overdue amount owing of $425.15 and a receipt from Watercare dated 16 September 2024 for payment of $547.10.
At the hearing it was very difficult to understand what the arrangement was between the parties for the payment of water. It does not appear that the Landlord regularly sent invoices to the Tenants. They said that they did not send Watercare invoices directly to the Tenants as they paid the invoices themselves and then sought to recover the amounts from the Tenants.
The Tenants disagreed and produced bank statements showing numerous direct payments to Watercare throughout the tenancy.
I have reviewed the invoices from 18 June to 30 June 2022. The combined total for that period is $1,488.77. The Tenants’ bank accounts for that period show payments of $172.28 made direct to Watercare. I therefore order payment of the balance, being $1,316.49.
The Tenant claimed that there was a leak during this period but there was no evidence of a leak being notified to the landlord which would have enabled the Landlord to seek a water rebate.
The Landlord did not provide evidence of any amounts owing from 1 July 2022 to the end of the tenancy. The Tenants made numerous direct payments to Watercare after this date. Without a ledger showing all payments made and received the Landlord has not proved that any amount remains outstanding.
The Landlord sought to rely on the receipt from the Landlord showing the final amount paid by them to Watercare but I am not satisfied that the Landlord has proved that the tenants are responsible for this amount because no invoices were provided.

Did the Tenants 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 Landlord said that the Tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord sought the following amounts: a. $1,020.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal; b. $380.00 for carpet cleaning; and c. $408.25 for pest control.
The Landlord produced photos of a variety of carpet stains and photos of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The Tenants accepted that there had been some carpet staining.
I find the claim in respect of carpet cleaning proved. The photos show a variety of stains that would have required extensive cleaning. The amount claimed is reasonable. This claim is proved and I order compensation payable to the Landlord in the amount of $380.00.
The Landlord said that the property was not left clean generally. However the only photos produced were of an area of skirting that needed to be wiped down but this was very minor. No photos were provided of any other area and there were no photos showing rubbish. The exit inspection report referred to the oven being dirty but the Tenants said that he did not agree and was not given any input into the preparation of the exit inspection report.
The Landlord has not proved that the Tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy (beyond the carpet cleaning required) and that they left behind rubbish. This claim is dismissed.
The Landlord said that there were cockroaches at the property as the Tenants did not leave it clean and sought compensation for pest control. The Tenants said that there were cockroaches right from the start of the tenancy but the landlord did nothing about them.
Pest issues are not uncommon. Unless the landlord is able to prove that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement in some way that has led to pests, such as leaving food out of leaving rubbish uncovered, pest control is usually the responsibility of the landlord.
The only evidence of the condition of the property produced was a routine inspection report produced by the Tenant from an inspection performed on 30 October 2023. This report includes photos, all of which show the property to be in a clean and tidy condition.
I do not consider that the Landlord has not proved that the Tenants caused there to be cockroaches. This claim is not proved and is dismissed.

Are the Tenants 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.
The Landlord had filed a claim seeking $16,482.00 from the Tenants for various damage. This landlord has now filed an insurance claim and is awaiting a cash settlement (less excess amounts). The landlord said that after receiving the cash settlement (less excess amounts) they are out of pocket in the amount of $820.49 and that they seek this sum from the Tenants.
The Landlord claimed damage for a variety of items including patching, repairing and painting walls, installing removed closet doors, replacing toilet holder, new mirror, replacement of three vanity units including taps, replacing three heated towel rails fixing up the staircase hand-rail and replacing a damaged garage door.
The Landlord provided very few photos to prove their claim. They provided a photo of a garage door that shows some damage along the lower area, a split in what appears to be a door frame and a damaged vanity drawer.
However a landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy. The photo of the garage door from the start of the tenancy was only of a very small section that remains undamaged in the photos from the end of the tenancy. There is a photo of one bathroom vanity but the Tenants dispute that it is of the same vanity that is damaged. There is a photo of a wall but no photo of the door frame showing no damage.
The Tenants disputed all of the damage except the one vanity drawer. The landlord has not proven the balance of damage claimed as they have not proven the damage, or where damage is proven, that it was caused during the tenancy.
In the circumstances I award compensation to the Landlord for the vanity drawer. The Landlord has replaced the entire vanity and so I can only estimate the amount the amount of compensation for the drawer, which I consider is likely to be in the amount of $75.00 based on the quotes for the entire vanity given by the Landlord’s contractor and taking into account depreciation, as the landlord now has a new vanity. Filing fee and name suppression
I consider that the Landlord has been the successful party overall. They are therefore entitled to, and have requested, an order for name suppression.
As the substantially successful party the Landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065388 — Rent arrears at 28 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065388 — Rent arrears at 28 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the Tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the Tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the Tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the Tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions