What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5129152?

The tribunal order states: Kenn Marey Soliguen Cabigayan and Steven Andrew Hunt to pay Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 5129152?

Cleaning: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $198.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $78.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $160.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129152?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11545377-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5129152?

The tribunal order states: Kenn Marey Soliguen Cabigayan and Steven Andrew Hunt to pay Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 5129152?

Cleaning: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $198.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $78.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $160.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129152?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11545377-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5A Satchell Place, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5129152 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129152 — net $727.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2024	$78.57	Rent arrears to 13 November 2024
Cleaning	$110.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$180.00	Repairs
Power to 13 November 2024	$198.83	Power to 13 November 2024
Water rates to 13 November 2024	$160.40	Water rates to 13 November 2024
Net award	$727.80
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$727.80

Order

Kenn Marey Soliguen Cabigayan and Steven Andrew Hunt to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited as agent for Hao Sun $727.80 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6441472-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited as agent for Hao Sun: $727.80 Kenn Marey Soliguen Cabigayan and Steven Andrew Hunt: $1,352.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a bond refund and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to provide sufficient notice prior to entry.
The landlord claims for rent arrears, utilities, cleaning, and vacated damages for wall repairs.

How much is owed for rent and utilities?

The tenancy ended on 13 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records showing that the remaining outstanding rent is one day, totalling $78.57.
The tenant disputes the rent records, and states that they should not have been invoiced for the final day of rent. I have reviewed the records and correspondence provided and am satisfied that based on the records provided, the amount of $78.57 is owed by the tenant.
The landlord has also provided water rates invoices and power bills which prove the amounts owing of $160.40 for water and $198.83 for power at the end of the tenancy. These both relate to amounts for final readings.
The amounts ordered are 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, and that were a few areas that required cleaning. Photographs have been provided together with an invoice for $220.80.
The tenant disputes that they did not leave the premises clean and tidy. They say that the property was thoroughly cleaned and that the photographs provided by the landlord are close ups, which show areas worse than they were.
On review of the photographs, I agree that the property was mostly left clean and tidy, however there were a few areas where further cleaning was justified. I have ordered that the tenants pay half of the cleaning invoice, being $110.00, to reflect the further required cleaning.
The amount ordered is 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 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 landlord claims that there was damage to the walls caused by 3M hooks and tape together with other marks and that they consider these marks went beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord has provided a pre-tenancy report that does show the property is very good condition prior to the tenancy commencing – however, it unfortunately does not appear to have any close-ups of the relevant walls. I cannot, however, see any marks on the walls in these photographs.
The tenants say that they did not stick anything to the walls and that any marks were already on the walls prior to the tenancy or were fair wear and tear and reflective of the tenancy term.
After consideration of the evidence, I consider that some of the marks were fair wear and tear. There are, however, some marks where it is more likely than not that these were caused carelessly by the tenant. As such, I have again awarded the landlord a reduced amount of $180.00, reflective of deductions for fair wear and tear.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Some marks to the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
The tenants claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 48(3) states that with prior tenant consent, the landlord can enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants.
On 4 October 2024 at around 11:44am the landlord phoned the tenants to advise that a property viewing for prospective tenants would be held at 1:00pm that same day, providing the tenants with around an hour’s notice. Correspondence has been provided supporting these facts.
The landlord does not dispute the facts, however, says they are not sure how this happened, and that they apologised for the short notice at the time when it was raised by the tenant.
The landlord did not give the required notice under the RTA. However, they did phone the tenants prior to the proposed viewing, and it appears that the tenant did give consent, or at the very least, the tenant did not withhold consent. I appreciate that it created a stressful situation for the tenant, having to quickly prepare the property and tidy personal items and that they wanted to assist the landlord in finding replacement tenants.
However, I am satisfied that as the tenants did give consent for the inspection, the landlords were entitled the enter the property for the purpose of showing it to prospective tenants.
The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 8 April 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129152 — net $727.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2024	$78.57	Rent arrears to 13 November 2024
Cleaning	$110.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$180.00	Repairs
Power to 13 November 2024	$198.83	Power to 13 November 2024
Water rates to 13 November 2024	$160.40	Water rates to 13 November 2024
Net award	$727.80
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$727.80

Order

Kenn Marey Soliguen Cabigayan and Steven Andrew Hunt to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited as agent for Hao Sun $727.80 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6441472-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited as agent for Hao Sun: $727.80 Kenn Marey Soliguen Cabigayan and Steven Andrew Hunt: $1,352.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a bond refund and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to provide sufficient notice prior to entry.
The landlord claims for rent arrears, utilities, cleaning, and vacated damages for wall repairs.

How much is owed for rent and utilities?

The tenancy ended on 13 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records showing that the remaining outstanding rent is one day, totalling $78.57.
The tenant disputes the rent records, and states that they should not have been invoiced for the final day of rent. I have reviewed the records and correspondence provided and am satisfied that based on the records provided, the amount of $78.57 is owed by the tenant.
The landlord has also provided water rates invoices and power bills which prove the amounts owing of $160.40 for water and $198.83 for power at the end of the tenancy. These both relate to amounts for final readings.
The amounts ordered are 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, and that were a few areas that required cleaning. Photographs have been provided together with an invoice for $220.80.
The tenant disputes that they did not leave the premises clean and tidy. They say that the property was thoroughly cleaned and that the photographs provided by the landlord are close ups, which show areas worse than they were.
On review of the photographs, I agree that the property was mostly left clean and tidy, however there were a few areas where further cleaning was justified. I have ordered that the tenants pay half of the cleaning invoice, being $110.00, to reflect the further required cleaning.
The amount ordered is 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 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 landlord claims that there was damage to the walls caused by 3M hooks and tape together with other marks and that they consider these marks went beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord has provided a pre-tenancy report that does show the property is very good condition prior to the tenancy commencing – however, it unfortunately does not appear to have any close-ups of the relevant walls. I cannot, however, see any marks on the walls in these photographs.
The tenants say that they did not stick anything to the walls and that any marks were already on the walls prior to the tenancy or were fair wear and tear and reflective of the tenancy term.
After consideration of the evidence, I consider that some of the marks were fair wear and tear. There are, however, some marks where it is more likely than not that these were caused carelessly by the tenant. As such, I have again awarded the landlord a reduced amount of $180.00, reflective of deductions for fair wear and tear.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Some marks to the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
The tenants claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 48(3) states that with prior tenant consent, the landlord can enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants.
On 4 October 2024 at around 11:44am the landlord phoned the tenants to advise that a property viewing for prospective tenants would be held at 1:00pm that same day, providing the tenants with around an hour’s notice. Correspondence has been provided supporting these facts.
The landlord does not dispute the facts, however, says they are not sure how this happened, and that they apologised for the short notice at the time when it was raised by the tenant.
The landlord did not give the required notice under the RTA. However, they did phone the tenants prior to the proposed viewing, and it appears that the tenant did give consent, or at the very least, the tenant did not withhold consent. I appreciate that it created a stressful situation for the tenant, having to quickly prepare the property and tidy personal items and that they wanted to assist the landlord in finding replacement tenants.
However, I am satisfied that as the tenants did give consent for the inspection, the landlords were entitled the enter the property for the purpose of showing it to prospective tenants.
The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 8 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129152 — Property damage at 5A Satchell Place, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129152 — Property damage at 5A Satchell Place, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and utilities?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and utilities?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions