Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5112588 — Rent arrears
Decided 17 Jun 2025 · Published 17 Jun 2025 · Application 5112588
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Stacey Leonie Taurua must pay [The landlord/s] $4,708.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing on 17 June 2025. The landlord had the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter throughout the hearing.
- The matter had been adjourned part-heard. The first hearing was held on 27 February 2025. Following the first hearing, I made an interim order that the tenant pay the landlord rent arrears and unpaid water rates. Those interim orders are included in this final order. My reasons for the interim orders are set out in my order and directions dated 27 February 2025.
- The hearing on 27 February 2025 was adjourned at the landlord’s request, so that further evidence could be filed in support of the claims for: a. Illegal rubbish dumping during tenancy: $115.00; b. Replacement of garage door motor: $690.00; c. Replacement heat pump remote: $59.00; d. Replacement batteries for digital smartlock: $6.99; e. Plastering and painting: $500.00; f. Cleaning: $350.00; and g. Rubbish removal: $992.00. Burden and standard of proof
- 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.
- 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 fraction 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.
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.
- 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 landlord confirmed they did have insurance for tenant damage. An insurance claim for the damaged garage door motor was declined due to it being made out of time. The landlord said they did not make an insurance claim for the other items of damage as they do not exceed the excess of $400. The landlord noted each of the holes in the walls were considered a separate claim, therefore even though the total claimed for plastering and painting is $500, there were several holes which the insurers would consider separate claims.
- Each of the landlord’s claims for damage is considered below. Replacement of garage door motor
- The landlord says during the tenancy, the tenants converted the garage into a bedroom, and in doing so, hung items in the garage which broke a part of the garage door motor which is secured to the garage ceiling. The landlord says they became aware it was broken in September 2023, when a repair person attended to replace the garage door which had been damaged by the tenant. The repair person said a part had broken off the motor, and although he attempted to fix the motor, ultimately the repair person recommended the entire motor needed replacement in order to be workable.
- The landlord produced a photograph taken on 20 September 2023, shortly after the landlord was alerted by the repair person that a part had broken off the motor. There is no visible damage to the motor shown. The landlord also produced an inspection report dated 4 March 2023. The landlord says at the time of that routine inspection, approximately 3 months into the tenancy, the garage door motor was working. The photos from that routine inspection show the garage was being used as a bedroom or living space.
- The landlord has produced an invoice dated 5 March 2024 as evidence that the cost of replacing the garage door motor was $600+GST (total $690).
- The landlord says they made a claim under insurance but were declined on the basis the claim was made out of time.
- The amount ordered is proved. I accept that the landlord’s delay in making the insurance claim was because the damage was not brought to the landlord’s attention until it was discovered by the repair person in September 2023. Plastering and painting
- 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 of the RTA.
- The landlord says the tenant damaged the walls and doors throughout the property, which required plastering and painting.
- The landlord says the property was brand new and the tenants were the first to live in the property. An entry inspection dated 11 January 2023 shows the property was in as-new condition, and the walls and doors did not have holes.
- An exit inspection dated 5 November 2024 shows there was damage to the walls and doors throughout the premises at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant caused damage to the walls and doors.
- The landlord produced an invoice for $500 dated 6 November 2024 from a tradesperson. The landlord says they paid the tradesperson cash to complete the work.
- I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the landlord incurred the cost as claimed. The amount ordered is proved.
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) of the RTA. Replacement chattel: heat pump remote
- The landlord says during the tenancy, the landlord installed a heat pump. The landlord did not have a record of when the heat pump was installed. Although the landlord says the heatpump was installed with a remote, the tenancy agreement does not list the heatpump remote as a chattel, nor was any other record produced recording it as a chattel.
- The landlord produced a screenshot of a similar heatpump remote on sale at Harvey Norman for $59.00. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show the landlord has purchased a replacement heatpump remote.
- I am not satisfied the landlord has proved a heatpump remote was supplied as a chattel, nor that the landlord has incurred the claimed loss to replace it.
- The claim for replacement of the heat pump remote is dismissed. Replacement chattel: batteries for digital smartlock
- The landlord says that when the tenant exited the property, the digital smartlock on the front door was missing its batteries.
- The batteries for the digital smartlock are not listed as chattels in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not produce any evidence to show the batteries were present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord referred to the exit report which records the batteries were missing on 5 November 2024.
- The landlord produced a screenshot of a 4-pack of AA batteries on sale at Woolworths for $6.99 in support of the claim for that amount.
- I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the digital smartlock on the front door had batteries supplied at the start of the tenancy, nor that the landlord has incurred the claimed loss to replace them.
- The claim for replacement batteries for the digital smartlock is dismissed. Cleaning
- The landlord produced the exit inspection report dated 5 November 2024. I am satisfied the exit inspection shows the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The landlord produced a receipt dated 5 November 2024 from a cleaner who charged $350 to clean the three bedroom, two-and-a-half bathroom house. The landlord produced a bank transaction record to show payment was made to the cleaner on 12 November 2024.
- I am satisfied the cost charged by the cleaner is reasonable to bring the premises to a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” standard. I am also satisfied it is more likely than not that the landlord incurred the cost as claimed.
- The amount ordered is proved. Illegal rubbish dumping during tenancy
- The landlord produced a photograph taken on 9 February 2024 of rubbish dumped at the kerb of Korokio Lane. The landlord says the Council issued the Body Corporate with a notice to say a penalty of $2,000 would be imposed if the rubbish was not removed. The landlord says she conducted investigations and identified that the rubbish came from the tenant, and one other household.
- The landlord says she spoke to the tenant, who verbally agreed to reimburse the landlord for the cost of removing the dumped rubbish. The landlord says a tradesperson was engaged to remove the rubbish for $600 + GST. The landlord then on-charged the tenant $200+GST, being the amount considered appropriate for their contribution to the dumped rubbish.
- The landlord produced an invoice from the property management company to the tenant for $200+GST ($230.00).
- While the landlord did not produce written evidence that the tenant accepted responsibility for the dumped rubbish, I note that the tenant did not attend the hearing and therefore has not challenged the landlord’s evidence. Given that, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the tenant dumped the rubbish during the tenancy, and that the landlord is therefore entitled to reimbursement of the cost incurred.
- The landlord stated the claim for $115 was an error, and that the correct amount sough is $230.00.
- The amount ordered is proved. Rubbish removal
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenant did not remove all rubbish. I am satisfied the exit inspection dated 5 November 2024 shows the tenant did not remove all rubbish when they exited the premises.
- The landlord produced a receipt dated 4 November 2024 from a tradesperson charging 5 hours work, by 2 people, to remove the rubbish left at the premises.
- I am satisfied the cost charged by the tradesperson is reasonable given the amount of rubbish and personal items left by the tenant. I am also satisfied it is more likely than not that the landlord incurred the cost as claimed.
- The amount ordered is proved. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
- As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was substantially successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.