What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137352 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5137352?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,338.57 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Hob Switch: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137352?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11817073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137352 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5137352?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,338.57 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Hob Switch: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137352?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11817073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5137352 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137352 — net $2,035.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 Feb 2025	$3,338.57	Rent arrears to 10 Feb 2025
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen hob switch	$50.00	Repairs: Kitchen hob switch
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,035.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,035.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Raima Monica Golf and Mereraina Kelly Timoti must pay [The landlord/s] $2,035.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
On 23 January 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee.
After the tenancy came to an end on 7 February 2025, the landlord amended their claim to seek further orders for compensation for damage and cleaning, and refund of the bond.
I am satisfied the tenant was put on notice that the landlord’s claim was amended to include the additional claims. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2021, on a 12 month fixed-term. The tenancy then rolled over into a periodic tenancy.
On 8 February 2025, the landlord went to the premises and say they found the premises had been abandoned by the tenant.
The landlord took back possession of the premises and they do not seek an order for termination or possession.
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 10 February 2025, being the end of the week when they found the premises empty of the tenant’s belongings. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

While the tenants did not give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, the landlord accepts the tenancy ended on 10 February 2025.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove that as at 10 February 2025, the tenant owed $3,338.57 in rent.
I make an order for rent arrears accordingly.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced photos taken on 8 February 2025 which show the property was not reasonably clean. The surfaces in the kitchen were dirty, as was the inside of the kitchen drawers. Food was left in the fridge.
The landlord provided an invoice from a cleaner who attended on 8 February 2025 and completed a “deep clean” at a cost of $402.50. At the hearing, the landlord accepted that a professional cleaner’s “deep clean” would have brought the property to a higher standard than “reasonably clean”, which is the standard the tenant is required to leave the premises.
I consider an award of $200.00 in compensation for failing to leave the premises reasonably clean is appropriate and make the order accordingly.
The landlord had sought an order for payment of water rates, however, at the hearing the landlord abandoned that claim.
Accordingly, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for water rates.

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.
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 stated the owner of the property does not have insurance for tenant damage. The landlord was unable to say how old the property and its fixtures are but agreed the property was not brand new when the tenancy began in May 2021. The landlord accepts some of the compensation sought in the application is more fairly characterised as fair wear and tear, or matters that are otherwise solely the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
At the hearing, the landlord sought compensation for the following damage they say the tenant caused during the tenancy: a. Replacement of missing switch on kitchen element, $185.00; b. Replacement of broken tap in kitchen, $175.00; c. Contribution to cost of repairing kitchen drawers, $80.00; d. Contribution to cost of replacing 5 vertical blinds in lounge, $80.00 - $100.00;
The total compensation sought for damage caused by the tenant was therefore $520.00.
The landlord says the repairs have not been completed. A quote from a contractor dated 17 February 2025 was produced, totalling $3,950.25.
The landlord produced an entry inspection report dated 31 May 2021 and an exit inspection report dated 10 February 2025. Both reports contained photographs. Some additional photographs of the alleged damage were handed up. The landlord said those photos were taken 8 February 2025.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant caused damage to the kitchen hob switch, in that the switch was missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that is more than fair wear and tear. However, the entry inspection photographs show the kitchen hob was not new at the start of the tenancy and the hob showed signs of wear from regular use. The landlord was unable to say how old the kitchen hob was.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the approximate age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider compensation of $50.00 towards the cost of replacing the missing kitchen hob switch is appropriate. I make the order accordingly.
As for the other amounts sought in compensation for damage, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the damage was not fair wear and tear. The photographs in the entry inspection report show the kitchen tap, kitchen drawers and shower rail were not in new or like-new condition at the start of the tenancy. The vertical blinds in the lounge also appear to show some age. The damage that is said to have been caused to each item is in the nature that is to be expected when fittings of a certain age are regularly used by tenants. I note that this tenant occupied the premises for just less than four years, and some wear and tear is therefore to be expected.
I dismiss the landlord’s claims for compensation for damage to the kitchen tap, kitchen drawers, shower rail and vertical blinds. 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 landlord’s application was substantially successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137352 — net $2,035.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 Feb 2025	$3,338.57	Rent arrears to 10 Feb 2025
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen hob switch	$50.00	Repairs: Kitchen hob switch
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,035.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,035.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Raima Monica Golf and Mereraina Kelly Timoti must pay [The landlord/s] $2,035.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
On 23 January 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee.
After the tenancy came to an end on 7 February 2025, the landlord amended their claim to seek further orders for compensation for damage and cleaning, and refund of the bond.
I am satisfied the tenant was put on notice that the landlord’s claim was amended to include the additional claims. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2021, on a 12 month fixed-term. The tenancy then rolled over into a periodic tenancy.
On 8 February 2025, the landlord went to the premises and say they found the premises had been abandoned by the tenant.
The landlord took back possession of the premises and they do not seek an order for termination or possession.
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 10 February 2025, being the end of the week when they found the premises empty of the tenant’s belongings. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

While the tenants did not give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, the landlord accepts the tenancy ended on 10 February 2025.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove that as at 10 February 2025, the tenant owed $3,338.57 in rent.
I make an order for rent arrears accordingly.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced photos taken on 8 February 2025 which show the property was not reasonably clean. The surfaces in the kitchen were dirty, as was the inside of the kitchen drawers. Food was left in the fridge.
The landlord provided an invoice from a cleaner who attended on 8 February 2025 and completed a “deep clean” at a cost of $402.50. At the hearing, the landlord accepted that a professional cleaner’s “deep clean” would have brought the property to a higher standard than “reasonably clean”, which is the standard the tenant is required to leave the premises.
I consider an award of $200.00 in compensation for failing to leave the premises reasonably clean is appropriate and make the order accordingly.
The landlord had sought an order for payment of water rates, however, at the hearing the landlord abandoned that claim.
Accordingly, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for water rates.

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.
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 stated the owner of the property does not have insurance for tenant damage. The landlord was unable to say how old the property and its fixtures are but agreed the property was not brand new when the tenancy began in May 2021. The landlord accepts some of the compensation sought in the application is more fairly characterised as fair wear and tear, or matters that are otherwise solely the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
At the hearing, the landlord sought compensation for the following damage they say the tenant caused during the tenancy: a. Replacement of missing switch on kitchen element, $185.00; b. Replacement of broken tap in kitchen, $175.00; c. Contribution to cost of repairing kitchen drawers, $80.00; d. Contribution to cost of replacing 5 vertical blinds in lounge, $80.00 - $100.00;
The total compensation sought for damage caused by the tenant was therefore $520.00.
The landlord says the repairs have not been completed. A quote from a contractor dated 17 February 2025 was produced, totalling $3,950.25.
The landlord produced an entry inspection report dated 31 May 2021 and an exit inspection report dated 10 February 2025. Both reports contained photographs. Some additional photographs of the alleged damage were handed up. The landlord said those photos were taken 8 February 2025.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant caused damage to the kitchen hob switch, in that the switch was missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that is more than fair wear and tear. However, the entry inspection photographs show the kitchen hob was not new at the start of the tenancy and the hob showed signs of wear from regular use. The landlord was unable to say how old the kitchen hob was.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the approximate age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider compensation of $50.00 towards the cost of replacing the missing kitchen hob switch is appropriate. I make the order accordingly.
As for the other amounts sought in compensation for damage, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the damage was not fair wear and tear. The photographs in the entry inspection report show the kitchen tap, kitchen drawers and shower rail were not in new or like-new condition at the start of the tenancy. The vertical blinds in the lounge also appear to show some age. The damage that is said to have been caused to each item is in the nature that is to be expected when fittings of a certain age are regularly used by tenants. I note that this tenant occupied the premises for just less than four years, and some wear and tear is therefore to be expected.
I dismiss the landlord’s claims for compensation for damage to the kitchen tap, kitchen drawers, shower rail and vertical blinds. 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 landlord’s application was substantially successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137352 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137352 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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