What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065468 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 5065468?

Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $285.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Wall: $125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12922356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065468 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 5065468?

Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $285.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Wall: $125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12922356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

59 Rakich Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065468 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

59 Rakich Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065468 — Cleanliness | 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 5065468 — net $933.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$131.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$195.00	Cleaning
Cleaning blinds	$170.00	Cleaning blinds
Pest control	$285.00	Pest control
Repairs: Garage wall	$125.00	Repairs: Garage wall
Net award	$933.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.00

Claims and awards for application 5065468 — net $933.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $131.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $195.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Cleaning blinds

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning blinds

Pest control

Amount: $285.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control

Repairs: Garage wall

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Elyse Niyonzima, Cecile Niyoyitungira and Simplisse Mugisha must pay [The landlord/s] $933.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Lock/key replacement$131.00 Cleaning$195.00 Cleaning blinds$170.00 Pest control$285.00 Repairs: Garage wall$125.00 Total award$933.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$933.00
I dismiss other claims made by the landlord for rent arrears and compensation as set out below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy that was due to terminate on 14 June 2025. The landlord has communicated with the tenants regarding extending the fixed term tenancy for a further year.
On 6 May 2025, the tenants claim to have advised the landlord that they intended to move and not renew the fixed term tenancy. They gave 28 days’ notice, which would have meant a final tenancy date of 3 June 2025. However, the tenants left the property on 14 June 2025 to live with family.
Prior to this there has been discussions between the parties about the actual end date of the tenancy. Neither party accepts the view of the other party as to the actual end date. The tenants say they were paid up until 27 June 2025 due to the one weeks rent paid in advance. The landlord claimed the end date was 27 July 2025 and seeks $2464.29 in rent arrears.
When there are clear disputes on the evidence presented, I must give consideration to relevant legal considerations. Relevant legal considerations:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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...
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.
Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. However, there is no agreement as to the end date, nor supporting evidence provided by either party that satisfies me of the landlord claim.
Therefore, I must dismiss the landlords claim for the rent arrears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in some areas.
The tenant did not return all the keys.
There was a cockroach infestation at the end of the tenancy.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: -A power adapter for Chorus Wi-Fi Cleaning:
The landlord provided photos and an exit inspection report after the end of the tenancy. The photos and report showed that the shower cubicle was dirty and stained. Furthermore, that the blinds had stains on them.
The landlord provided an invoice for $195.00 for the cost of cleaning the shower and $170.00 for the cleaning of the blinds.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the cleaning costs. Cockroach infestation:
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of the cockroach infestation, photos of the bugs and an exit inspection report stating the infestation. The tenants accept there were cockroaches in the property but say this was because of the landlord banana tree in the garden and the requirement to place coffee dregs around the trees. This attracted the cockroaches according to the tenants.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the cockroach infestation. There was no record of the infestation at the start of the tenancy nor complaints from the tenants at the start of the tenancy about an infestation. The first report of the infestation was when the landlord advised the tenants to clean up the infestation after he had conducted an inspection of the property. Keys:
The landlord seeks the cost of $131.00 for key replacement. The tenants say they did not get all the keys at the start of the tenancy, despite the keys being noted on the entry inspection report and tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement stated that the landlord provided 5 keys for the downstairs doors and 3 keys for the upstairs rooms.
The tenants do not dispute that all the keys were not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the key replacement. Chorus power adaptor:
The tenants accepted that they took the power adaptor for the Chorus Wi-Fi by mistake at the end of the tenancy. The parties agreed during the hearing that the tenants were to return the power adaptor on 22 November 2025 to 176 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South, by placing it in the letter box.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damage to the garage wall -Cleaning and repainting the windowsills and bathroom ceiling and the hot water cupboard.
The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $125.00 the cost of repairing the damage to the garage wall. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for damage to the garage wall. However, the mark in the hot water cupboard is not damage. The windowsills and ceiling damage are not supported by evidence provided by the landlord. The windowsills look the same as at the start of the tenancy.
The damage to ceiling and windowsills is fair wear and tear, and the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
For completeness I am satisfied that the garage wall is damage that the tenants should be responsible for, but not the windowsills nor ceiling. Filing Fee/ Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for suppression of his name and details and as he has been partially successful, I am granting suppression.

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 5065468 — net $933.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$131.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$195.00	Cleaning
Cleaning blinds	$170.00	Cleaning blinds
Pest control	$285.00	Pest control
Repairs: Garage wall	$125.00	Repairs: Garage wall
Net award	$933.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.00

Claims and awards for application 5065468 — net $933.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $131.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $195.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Cleaning blinds

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning blinds

Pest control

Amount: $285.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control

Repairs: Garage wall

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Elyse Niyonzima, Cecile Niyoyitungira and Simplisse Mugisha must pay [The landlord/s] $933.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Lock/key replacement$131.00 Cleaning$195.00 Cleaning blinds$170.00 Pest control$285.00 Repairs: Garage wall$125.00 Total award$933.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$933.00
I dismiss other claims made by the landlord for rent arrears and compensation as set out below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy that was due to terminate on 14 June 2025. The landlord has communicated with the tenants regarding extending the fixed term tenancy for a further year.
On 6 May 2025, the tenants claim to have advised the landlord that they intended to move and not renew the fixed term tenancy. They gave 28 days’ notice, which would have meant a final tenancy date of 3 June 2025. However, the tenants left the property on 14 June 2025 to live with family.
Prior to this there has been discussions between the parties about the actual end date of the tenancy. Neither party accepts the view of the other party as to the actual end date. The tenants say they were paid up until 27 June 2025 due to the one weeks rent paid in advance. The landlord claimed the end date was 27 July 2025 and seeks $2464.29 in rent arrears.
When there are clear disputes on the evidence presented, I must give consideration to relevant legal considerations. Relevant legal considerations:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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...
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.
Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. However, there is no agreement as to the end date, nor supporting evidence provided by either party that satisfies me of the landlord claim.
Therefore, I must dismiss the landlords claim for the rent arrears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in some areas.
The tenant did not return all the keys.
There was a cockroach infestation at the end of the tenancy.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: -A power adapter for Chorus Wi-Fi Cleaning:
The landlord provided photos and an exit inspection report after the end of the tenancy. The photos and report showed that the shower cubicle was dirty and stained. Furthermore, that the blinds had stains on them.
The landlord provided an invoice for $195.00 for the cost of cleaning the shower and $170.00 for the cleaning of the blinds.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the cleaning costs. Cockroach infestation:
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of the cockroach infestation, photos of the bugs and an exit inspection report stating the infestation. The tenants accept there were cockroaches in the property but say this was because of the landlord banana tree in the garden and the requirement to place coffee dregs around the trees. This attracted the cockroaches according to the tenants.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the cockroach infestation. There was no record of the infestation at the start of the tenancy nor complaints from the tenants at the start of the tenancy about an infestation. The first report of the infestation was when the landlord advised the tenants to clean up the infestation after he had conducted an inspection of the property. Keys:
The landlord seeks the cost of $131.00 for key replacement. The tenants say they did not get all the keys at the start of the tenancy, despite the keys being noted on the entry inspection report and tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement stated that the landlord provided 5 keys for the downstairs doors and 3 keys for the upstairs rooms.
The tenants do not dispute that all the keys were not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the key replacement. Chorus power adaptor:
The tenants accepted that they took the power adaptor for the Chorus Wi-Fi by mistake at the end of the tenancy. The parties agreed during the hearing that the tenants were to return the power adaptor on 22 November 2025 to 176 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South, by placing it in the letter box.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damage to the garage wall -Cleaning and repainting the windowsills and bathroom ceiling and the hot water cupboard.
The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $125.00 the cost of repairing the damage to the garage wall. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for damage to the garage wall. However, the mark in the hot water cupboard is not damage. The windowsills and ceiling damage are not supported by evidence provided by the landlord. The windowsills look the same as at the start of the tenancy.
The damage to ceiling and windowsills is fair wear and tear, and the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
For completeness I am satisfied that the garage wall is damage that the tenants should be responsible for, but not the windowsills nor ceiling. Filing Fee/ Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for suppression of his name and details and as he has been partially successful, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065468 — Cleanliness at 59 Rakich Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065468 — Cleanliness at 59 Rakich Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant 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?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions