What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5133370?

The tribunal order states: Juliana Mandap Delfin, John Kevin Delfin and Oleg Zaytsey to pay A1 Property

How much money was awarded in case 5133370?

Cleaning: $556.03 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Drain Cover: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5133370?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5133370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11784516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5133370?

The tribunal order states: Juliana Mandap Delfin, John Kevin Delfin and Oleg Zaytsey to pay A1 Property

How much money was awarded in case 5133370?

Cleaning: $556.03 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Drain Cover: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5133370?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5133370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11784516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Goulding Avenue, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5133370 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5133370 — net $755.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Drain cover	$172.50	Repairs: Drain cover
Cleaning	$556.03	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$755.53
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$755.53

Order

Juliana Mandap Delfin, John Kevin Delfin and Oleg Zaytsey to pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agents For Hocienda Holdings Ltd. $755.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (5983716-002) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agents For Hocienda Holdings Ltd.: $755.53 Juliana Mandap Delfin, John Kevin Delfin and Oleg Zaytsey: $894.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 30 April 2025. Only the tenant Juliana Delfin, attended for the tenants.
The tenancy commenced on 12 December 2014 and ended on 10 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “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 more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this case the landlord carries the burden of proof.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the premises at the end of the tenancy which included carpet stains. Clearly the tenants had done some cleaning, but the photos suggest that it was not sufficient to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said that despite their efforts to clean the stains they were not successful. The tenant accepted that some areas that had required cleaning had been missed. The landlord provided an invoice for $556.03.
The amount ordered is proven.

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of $1,800.00 exceeds the amounts claimed.
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 says that the alarm was damaged by the tenant’s son in 2017. The son had entered an incorrect code into the alarm system on numerous occasions which caused the alarm to lock. A contractor was called and the alarm system was “ powered down” for the rest of this long tenancy.
In December 2024, another contractor was called to look at the alarm. The narration to that contractor’s invoice states “ Visited site and existing alarm was shutdown. Powered up and tried to use, no go. Priced for replacement panel and key pad”.
The evidence provided was limited to two invoices from contractors many years apart. The content of the invoices was limited. I am not persuaded by the evidence proffered that it is more likely than not that the damage has been caused by the tenant. Given the time during which the system has not been operational, there a number of potential causes for the failure. The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The claim is dismissed.
An exterior drain cover was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord said that the damage had been caused by the tenant pouring hot oil and fat down the drain. The drain cover has melted and was unable to be repaired. The tenant denied having poured anything down the drain. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proven.
The claim for repairs to a switchboard was withdrawn.
As A1 Property Managers Limited As Agents For Hocienda Holdings Ltd. has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5133370 — net $755.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Drain cover	$172.50	Repairs: Drain cover
Cleaning	$556.03	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$755.53
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$755.53

Order

Juliana Mandap Delfin, John Kevin Delfin and Oleg Zaytsey to pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agents For Hocienda Holdings Ltd. $755.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (5983716-002) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agents For Hocienda Holdings Ltd.: $755.53 Juliana Mandap Delfin, John Kevin Delfin and Oleg Zaytsey: $894.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 30 April 2025. Only the tenant Juliana Delfin, attended for the tenants.
The tenancy commenced on 12 December 2014 and ended on 10 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “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 more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this case the landlord carries the burden of proof.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the premises at the end of the tenancy which included carpet stains. Clearly the tenants had done some cleaning, but the photos suggest that it was not sufficient to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said that despite their efforts to clean the stains they were not successful. The tenant accepted that some areas that had required cleaning had been missed. The landlord provided an invoice for $556.03.
The amount ordered is proven.

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of $1,800.00 exceeds the amounts claimed.
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 says that the alarm was damaged by the tenant’s son in 2017. The son had entered an incorrect code into the alarm system on numerous occasions which caused the alarm to lock. A contractor was called and the alarm system was “ powered down” for the rest of this long tenancy.
In December 2024, another contractor was called to look at the alarm. The narration to that contractor’s invoice states “ Visited site and existing alarm was shutdown. Powered up and tried to use, no go. Priced for replacement panel and key pad”.
The evidence provided was limited to two invoices from contractors many years apart. The content of the invoices was limited. I am not persuaded by the evidence proffered that it is more likely than not that the damage has been caused by the tenant. Given the time during which the system has not been operational, there a number of potential causes for the failure. The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The claim is dismissed.
An exterior drain cover was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord said that the damage had been caused by the tenant pouring hot oil and fat down the drain. The drain cover has melted and was unable to be repaired. The tenant denied having poured anything down the drain. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proven.
The claim for repairs to a switchboard was withdrawn.
As A1 Property Managers Limited As Agents For Hocienda Holdings Ltd. has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5133370 — Cleanliness at 22 Goulding Avenue, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5133370 — Cleanliness at 22 Goulding Avenue, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions