What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100272?

The tribunal order states: Leniza July erin Masters to pay TBT Property Management Limited $650.43

How much money was awarded in case 5100272?

Blocked Waste Disposal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $422.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $127.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100272?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11796760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100272?

The tribunal order states: Leniza July erin Masters to pay TBT Property Management Limited $650.43

How much money was awarded in case 5100272?

Blocked Waste Disposal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $422.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $127.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100272?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11796760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29E Watson Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100272 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100272 — net $2,960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$422.86	Rent arrears
Water rates	$127.57	Water rates
Blocked waste disposal	$100.00	Blocked waste disposal
Net award	$2,960.00
Bond	$2,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,960.00

Order

Leniza July erin Masters to pay TBT Property Management Limited $650.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 immediately apportioned as follows: TBT Property Management Limited: $650.43 Leniza July erin Masters: $2,309.57

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the tenant and landlord. The tenant seeks a return of her bond, whereas the landlord’s claim is for a number of charges at the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$422.86 Water rates$127.57 Blocked waste disposal$100.00 Total award$650.43 Bond$650.43$2,309.57
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 May 2022, and ended on 13 February 2024, so was a tenancy nearing two years duration. The premises were new when the tenancy commenced.
The tenancy ended by notice from the tenant.
At the end of the tenancy there is a dispute as to liability for various matters including rent, water and claimed damage to the premises.

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their only claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears. b. Water charges. c. Paint damages. d. Waste disposal replacement. e. Smoke alarm replacement.
While the landlord had filed more extensive claims with the Tribunal originally, the further claims have been withdrawn, it is only those five matters that the landlord is now seeking orders for.
The tenant confirmed that she is simply seeking to have her bond refunded.

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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Rent arrears

The landlord states the tenants vacated the premises on 13 February 2024, and at that time owed $422.86.
In response, the tenant states that she believes she was paying a higher amount, but following discussion at the hearing today, it appears those additional payments were water payments, which is a separate claim below.
The tenant also states that she moved out of the premises on the 10 th , but there was no communication from the landlord about returning the keys, so took the keys and dropped them off on 13 February 2025.
The landlord says that rent was charged to 13 February 2025 when possession of the premises were returned to the landlord. The landlord notes there was a drop box at their office for keys to be returned. Analysis
I begin by recording that the tenant has not identified any payments of rent she made which the landlord has not accounted for. Otherwise the landlord has produced a standard rent ledger, and I have no reason to consider the accounting of the rent is incorrect.
I agree that the rent ledger shows the rent arrears as of 13 February 2024 were $422.86.
While I accept the tenant moved out of the premises on 10 February 2024, the tenant accepts that she had the security devices like the keys, swipe card and remote, and those were not returned until 13 February 2024. For practical purposes I consider the tenant had possession of the premises until 13 February 2024, and she must therefore be liable for the payment of rent until possession was returned to the landlord.
While I accept the communication between the parties may have been lacking about the return of the keys, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not place any requirement on the landlord for arranging the keys to be returned, rather the obligation is on the tenant to return the keys.
I find the tenant is liable for rent arrears until 13 February 2024 to the sum of $422.86 and that is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Water charges
The landlord’s position is that the tenant owes the sum of $127.57 in water charges.
The tenant agrees she owes these charges. Analysis
The landlord claims $127.57 in water rates, and the tenant agrees that she owes that amount. So this claim is ordered by consent. Claim 3 – Paint damage
The landlord states this was a brand-new property, and this was the first tenancy. The landlord’s position is that the tenants have damaged the walls, and the landlord seeks compensation for the damage and pinholes on the walls. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,425.00 with reference to an invoice from Rap Maintenance Limited, which records that 14 walls needed plastering and painting.
In response, Ms Masters states that the amounts of the claimed are all different. Despite that, the tenant does not consider she should be liable for the charges to paint 14 walls, disputing that she caused damage to that extent. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
The premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy. I accept that the damage shown in the photographs at the end of the tenancy is very likely to have occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant accepts that is the case. Therefore the landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord must then establish that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and for the following reasons I find the landlord has not establied that situation.
I record at this time that the evidence does support multiple area of minor damage or marking on walls. The invoice from the painter indicates this is over 14 walls, and I accept that is probably the case.
Fair wear and tear is simply low level damage that occurs as a consequence of a person living in the dwelling. I note as an example, the Tribunals decision in Shama and Shama v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4294819 and 4293319. In that case, Adjudicator Henwood discussed the concept of fair wear and tear as follows: The tenant, in turn, claims that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: section 49A(2). Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
In this case, I consider the photographs represent the sort of low-level damage that would be unsurprising from a person or a family living in a tenancy. It is that sort of damage that the rent is intended to cover.
My impression is that the landlord was seeking to have the premises returned to a brand new state, as indicated in an email to the tenant from 15 February 2024 where the landlord advised: As the property was given in a brand new condition, we will have to send the tradesman to restore the property in the same condition.
That is not the standard the tenant needs to return the premises. The premises do not need to be returned in precisely the same state they were received (brand new), because that would cut across the expectation that fair wear and tear be excluded from the tenant’s liability.
Because I have found the damage to be fair wear and tear, then I would conclude the tenant is not liable for the remediation costs.
However even if I were wrong in that assessment, I would not of found the damage to be careless or intentional damage, such a finding would be necessary to make an order against the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Claim 4 – Replacement waste disposal unit
The landlord states that the waste disposal was blocked twice, and when the premises were returned to the landlord, it did not work.
The tenant agrees that there was a blockage on the waste disposal, stating that there have been multiple problems with this unit and so have the neighbours with their unit. The tenant agrees that normally if the unit is blocked they would just unblock it, but on this occasion, they did not unblock it.
The landlord states that the circuit was blown and that is why the unit was replaced. Analysis
Again, the first matter, to be considered as whether the damage occurred during the tenancy, and whether it was fair wear and tear.
In this case, it is difficult for me to answer either question, because there is no evidence available from a suitably qualified person, confirming that the waste disposal unit was damaged. The only evidence available is the oral evidence from the property manager, that the circuit for the waste disposal was blown. But without properly knowing what was in fact, wrong with the waste disposal unit, I am not able to reach any conclusion as to whether the unit required replacement because it was damaged by the tenant, or because there was a fault with the unit.
This claim cannot succeed because the landlord has not established those first two matters.
However, the tenant has agreed that when the premises were returned to the landlord, the waste disposal unit was blocked, and that normally they would have unblocked it, but they did not on this occasion. It is reasonable that the tenant contribute towards the plumbing costs, to take into account any work necessary to remedy the blocked unit. In the absence of more specific charging from the plumber, I consider an award of $100 would be a reasonable contribution on the basis of the blockage. Claim 5 – Smoke alarm replacement.
The landlord states that the tenants had taken down the smoke alarms, and when the premises were returned, one of the smoke alarms was missing.
However, following the discussion at the hearing, the landlord accepted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a missing smoke alarm, so this claim was withdrawn.

BOND

The only claim from the tenant related to the bond, and as I explained at the hearing, the bond gets released based on the outcome from the landlords claims. Otherwise the parties agree that the bond held in the Bond Centre was $2960.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100272 — net $2,960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$422.86	Rent arrears
Water rates	$127.57	Water rates
Blocked waste disposal	$100.00	Blocked waste disposal
Net award	$2,960.00
Bond	$2,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,960.00

Order

Leniza July erin Masters to pay TBT Property Management Limited $650.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 immediately apportioned as follows: TBT Property Management Limited: $650.43 Leniza July erin Masters: $2,309.57

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the tenant and landlord. The tenant seeks a return of her bond, whereas the landlord’s claim is for a number of charges at the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$422.86 Water rates$127.57 Blocked waste disposal$100.00 Total award$650.43 Bond$650.43$2,309.57
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 May 2022, and ended on 13 February 2024, so was a tenancy nearing two years duration. The premises were new when the tenancy commenced.
The tenancy ended by notice from the tenant.
At the end of the tenancy there is a dispute as to liability for various matters including rent, water and claimed damage to the premises.

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their only claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears. b. Water charges. c. Paint damages. d. Waste disposal replacement. e. Smoke alarm replacement.
While the landlord had filed more extensive claims with the Tribunal originally, the further claims have been withdrawn, it is only those five matters that the landlord is now seeking orders for.
The tenant confirmed that she is simply seeking to have her bond refunded.

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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Rent arrears

The landlord states the tenants vacated the premises on 13 February 2024, and at that time owed $422.86.
In response, the tenant states that she believes she was paying a higher amount, but following discussion at the hearing today, it appears those additional payments were water payments, which is a separate claim below.
The tenant also states that she moved out of the premises on the 10 th , but there was no communication from the landlord about returning the keys, so took the keys and dropped them off on 13 February 2025.
The landlord says that rent was charged to 13 February 2025 when possession of the premises were returned to the landlord. The landlord notes there was a drop box at their office for keys to be returned. Analysis
I begin by recording that the tenant has not identified any payments of rent she made which the landlord has not accounted for. Otherwise the landlord has produced a standard rent ledger, and I have no reason to consider the accounting of the rent is incorrect.
I agree that the rent ledger shows the rent arrears as of 13 February 2024 were $422.86.
While I accept the tenant moved out of the premises on 10 February 2024, the tenant accepts that she had the security devices like the keys, swipe card and remote, and those were not returned until 13 February 2024. For practical purposes I consider the tenant had possession of the premises until 13 February 2024, and she must therefore be liable for the payment of rent until possession was returned to the landlord.
While I accept the communication between the parties may have been lacking about the return of the keys, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not place any requirement on the landlord for arranging the keys to be returned, rather the obligation is on the tenant to return the keys.
I find the tenant is liable for rent arrears until 13 February 2024 to the sum of $422.86 and that is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Water charges
The landlord’s position is that the tenant owes the sum of $127.57 in water charges.
The tenant agrees she owes these charges. Analysis
The landlord claims $127.57 in water rates, and the tenant agrees that she owes that amount. So this claim is ordered by consent. Claim 3 – Paint damage
The landlord states this was a brand-new property, and this was the first tenancy. The landlord’s position is that the tenants have damaged the walls, and the landlord seeks compensation for the damage and pinholes on the walls. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,425.00 with reference to an invoice from Rap Maintenance Limited, which records that 14 walls needed plastering and painting.
In response, Ms Masters states that the amounts of the claimed are all different. Despite that, the tenant does not consider she should be liable for the charges to paint 14 walls, disputing that she caused damage to that extent. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
The premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy. I accept that the damage shown in the photographs at the end of the tenancy is very likely to have occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant accepts that is the case. Therefore the landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord must then establish that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and for the following reasons I find the landlord has not establied that situation.
I record at this time that the evidence does support multiple area of minor damage or marking on walls. The invoice from the painter indicates this is over 14 walls, and I accept that is probably the case.
Fair wear and tear is simply low level damage that occurs as a consequence of a person living in the dwelling. I note as an example, the Tribunals decision in Shama and Shama v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4294819 and 4293319. In that case, Adjudicator Henwood discussed the concept of fair wear and tear as follows: The tenant, in turn, claims that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: section 49A(2). Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
In this case, I consider the photographs represent the sort of low-level damage that would be unsurprising from a person or a family living in a tenancy. It is that sort of damage that the rent is intended to cover.
My impression is that the landlord was seeking to have the premises returned to a brand new state, as indicated in an email to the tenant from 15 February 2024 where the landlord advised: As the property was given in a brand new condition, we will have to send the tradesman to restore the property in the same condition.
That is not the standard the tenant needs to return the premises. The premises do not need to be returned in precisely the same state they were received (brand new), because that would cut across the expectation that fair wear and tear be excluded from the tenant’s liability.
Because I have found the damage to be fair wear and tear, then I would conclude the tenant is not liable for the remediation costs.
However even if I were wrong in that assessment, I would not of found the damage to be careless or intentional damage, such a finding would be necessary to make an order against the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Claim 4 – Replacement waste disposal unit
The landlord states that the waste disposal was blocked twice, and when the premises were returned to the landlord, it did not work.
The tenant agrees that there was a blockage on the waste disposal, stating that there have been multiple problems with this unit and so have the neighbours with their unit. The tenant agrees that normally if the unit is blocked they would just unblock it, but on this occasion, they did not unblock it.
The landlord states that the circuit was blown and that is why the unit was replaced. Analysis
Again, the first matter, to be considered as whether the damage occurred during the tenancy, and whether it was fair wear and tear.
In this case, it is difficult for me to answer either question, because there is no evidence available from a suitably qualified person, confirming that the waste disposal unit was damaged. The only evidence available is the oral evidence from the property manager, that the circuit for the waste disposal was blown. But without properly knowing what was in fact, wrong with the waste disposal unit, I am not able to reach any conclusion as to whether the unit required replacement because it was damaged by the tenant, or because there was a fault with the unit.
This claim cannot succeed because the landlord has not established those first two matters.
However, the tenant has agreed that when the premises were returned to the landlord, the waste disposal unit was blocked, and that normally they would have unblocked it, but they did not on this occasion. It is reasonable that the tenant contribute towards the plumbing costs, to take into account any work necessary to remedy the blocked unit. In the absence of more specific charging from the plumber, I consider an award of $100 would be a reasonable contribution on the basis of the blockage. Claim 5 – Smoke alarm replacement.
The landlord states that the tenants had taken down the smoke alarms, and when the premises were returned, one of the smoke alarms was missing.
However, following the discussion at the hearing, the landlord accepted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a missing smoke alarm, so this claim was withdrawn.

BOND

The only claim from the tenant related to the bond, and as I explained at the hearing, the bond gets released based on the outcome from the landlords claims. Otherwise the parties agree that the bond held in the Bond Centre was $2960.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100272 — Rent arrears at 29E Watson Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100272 — Rent arrears at 29E Watson Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions