What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103903 about?

The tribunal order states: David Huff to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster,

How much money was awarded in case 5103903?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $84.50 awarded to landlord; Chipped Tile: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103903?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103903?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11960313-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103903 about?

The tribunal order states: David Huff to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster,

How much money was awarded in case 5103903?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $84.50 awarded to landlord; Chipped Tile: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103903?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103903?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11960313-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 524 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103903 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103903 — net $675.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Wall damaged by a bin	$115.00	Repairs: Wall damaged by a bin
Repairs: Chipped tile	$150.00	Repairs: Chipped tile
Light bulbs/batteries	$84.50	Light bulbs/batteries
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$92.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$675.50
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$675.50

David Huff to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster, Sue $675.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6420132-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster, Sue: $675.50 David Huff: $1,724.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A prior case conference took place on 26 March 2025. Both were conducted remotely via video/tele conference.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

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.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant contracted a cleaner at a cost of $300.00. The landlord believed further cleaning was required to get the premises to a reasonable condition.

A series of photos, inspection reports and invoices supported the claims for further cleaning ($207.00) and rubbish removal ($92.00). Having considered the evidence and submissions, I find both claims to have been evidenced and they are awarded in full. The issue of the performance of the tenant’s cleaner is one for him to take up with them.

The landlord had to replace four light bulbs at a cost of $84.50. The tenant accepted this cost.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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. The insurance excess here was $400.00 but no insurance claims have been lodged.

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. In such a case, if applicable, the maximum liability per instance would be $2,600.00.

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: a. Wall damage from a bin. This claim for $115.00 was accepted by the tenant. b. A tile was chipped and repaired at a cost of $150.00. This claim was also accepted by the tenant. c. The landlord sought $2,2012.50 for an estimated cost to use a fire restoration chemical method to remove a “smoky” appearance on a number of walls in some rooms. It was described as soot by the landlord. d. A related, second claim for $3,162,50 based on an estimate for repainting all of the above areas.

I discuss the last two claims together given their relationship.

At the end of the tenancy a number of walls had a streaky or smoky/soot (smudged) appearance. These had not been noted previously during routine inspection, indicating, if caused by tenant actions it was near the end of the tenancy.

The cleaners noted the “black marks” which they spot tested and considered soot – either from overcooking and a lack of ventilation, or burning incense sticks. The appearance was noted in the lounge/hallway and two bedrooms. In my viewing the nature of the markings are not consistent throughout.

The two costings used in the claims were provided at that time by the same cleaner. It noted that the repainting may not be required as the wall cleaning may remedy the problem.

The tenancy ended in October 2024. Since that time, no actual deep cleaning or repainting has been conducted. A new tenancy commenced shortly afterwards and the walls are considered to be in a similar state (or successfully cleaned without the extensive effort proposed).

It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.

In this instance, I remain unconvinced as to the cause of the wall condition. The cleaners provided two possibilities, but each would be reasonable expected to leave a more conclusive legacy, assisting in a more affirmative stance.

I have also considered that if it was caused late in the tenancy (the tenancy duration was over three years) it may be considered a single event and the lack of any insurance assessment seems remiss, given the modest excess stated in the tenancy agreement.

I am not convinced the damage cause has been proven as a tenant responsibility. Even if it was, the next challenge for the landlord is to establish the basis for the claimed loss of over $5,000.00 when no actual costs have been incurred and a new tenancy appears to have been operating since, with no rent discount for any diminished conditions of some walls.

I dismiss the claims relating to any black marks on the walls. The cause, damage, and loss have not been evidenced to the required standard. Filing fee

Because Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster, Sue has substantially succeeded with the bulk of the claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. The tenant accepted a number of claims at the hearing but previously had disputed these and requested the full return of the bond. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. While I returned the filing fee to the landlord in recognition of the claims successfully prosecuted by the landlord, I have a different view regarding suppression. The two largest claims were lodged without a clear evidential basis and the lack of success of these claims, and the approach of the landlord leads me to conclude that landlord suppression here should not be granted. No suppression order is made.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103903 — net $675.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Wall damaged by a bin	$115.00	Repairs: Wall damaged by a bin
Repairs: Chipped tile	$150.00	Repairs: Chipped tile
Light bulbs/batteries	$84.50	Light bulbs/batteries
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$92.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$675.50
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$675.50

David Huff to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster, Sue $675.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6420132-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Foster, Sue: $675.50 David Huff: $1,724.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A prior case conference took place on 26 March 2025. Both were conducted remotely via video/tele conference.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant contracted a cleaner at a cost of $300.00. The landlord believed further cleaning was required to get the premises to a reasonable condition.

The landlord had to replace four light bulbs at a cost of $84.50. The tenant accepted this cost.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I discuss the last two claims together given their relationship.

The two costings used in the claims were provided at that time by the same cleaner. It noted that the repainting may not be required as the wall cleaning may remedy the problem.

I dismiss the claims relating to any black marks on the walls. The cause, damage, and loss have not been evidenced to the required standard. Filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103903 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 524 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103903 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 524 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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