What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153114 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 5153114?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12093684-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153114 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 5153114?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12093684-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 De Luen Avenue, Tindalls Beach, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153114 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sharyn Cranston must pay [The landlord/s] $915.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the continuation hearing. Shalvin Ram, the partner of the tenant, continued in the role of representative as Sharyn remains unwell. The landlord accepted his continued involvement in this capacity.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond was released to the landlord by a prior adjourning order.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
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.”
While the section above has direct application to the landlord application here, there is a tenant counterclaim currently under processing. The tenant should equally note the evidential burden as applicable at any future hearing.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. A query regarding an initial cash payment was raised by Shalvin and adequately addressed by the landlords. The rent summary as submitted is considered accurate and the rent arrears of $3,642.85 awarded.

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 tenants had a pet dog (without permission). The exit meeting was interrupted as the tenant left to locate missing keys. An email from the landlord afterwards confirmed their view of issues that was summarised as: •The keys for the ranch slider lock in the lounge are missing •The keys for the deadbolt in the top of the ranchslider are missing •The dishwasher is not working. We are unable to turn it on. We have not been alerted to this. •The top kitchen drawer next to the pantry has been tampered with and it is now not working properly •The hallway door is damaged and has been taped up •The upstairs bedroom door had the strike plate in the frame broken, the bolt removed and the panel damaged •The timber decks have been damaged by water blasting even though we specifically asked you not to do this. •There is rubbish on the roof •There is evidence of dog hair and dander in the house even though no pets were permitted and you continued to have a dog on the premises . The carpet requires steam cleaning •In general the floors are sticky and overall cleanliness isn't great
Not all issues raised at that time have been carried into the application.
The tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean. The landlord hired a rug doctor and cleaning fluid and cleaned the carpets. There was limited photographic evidence of the extent of any legacy adverse impact from the dog. Two photos show hair while another showed what was said to be dog poo – albeit that was on a hard surface and not carpet.
Having reviewed the invoices and photos, and considered the respective submissions, I am satisfied the landlord incurred further cost in cleaning the carpet. I am not convinced the evidence supports the extent of cleaning carried out and I make a partial award of $90.00 – based on 50% the $76.34 hire/fluid cost and approximately $50.00 for labour (total rounded to $90.00).
The tenant did not return the keys. The keys for the ranch slider were not returned. The tenant was aware of the missing keys but they were not returned prior to the landlord engaging a contractor to install a replacement lock. Shalvin said at the hearing that he still had the keys but was unsure what to do with them. It is the responsibility of the tenant to return all keys at the end of the tenancy (see section 40(1)(e )(iv) RTA). This was not done and the landlord incurred a cost to secure the premises. An invoice of $35.93 for a replacement lock was provided. I have not awarded any labour as the task was performed as part of a larger exercise by the contractor and labour costs will have been minimal. I have also considered the landlord saying in the exit email “We ask you to not return to the property for any reason.” in determining what costs should follow.
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.
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.
Two door latches were missing at the end of the tenancy. A broken strike plate was also claimed. Photos evidence the damage. Receipts for replacement latches were provided; confusingly more than one, two days apart. I have accepted the costs for two latches and allowed for the strike plate replacement. The total award of $120.00 combines the hardware cost and reasonable landlord labour for the reinstalling.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Other items itemised in several lengthy receipts were highlighted but I have not been presented with clear linkage of such costs to any proven need to repair due to tenant liability. No other receipted costs are awarded.
I have dismissed the claim regarding the deck cleaning after water blasting. While the finish was unseemly, there is evidence in the photos of prior organic growth on the timber and in the absence of prior landlord attention to removing it, the cleaning will likely have improved the surface grip for foot traffic. The landlord said he verbally had told the tenant not to waterblast the deck. I considered this but conclude the subsequent cleaning cost and effort of the landlord would have been required regardless.
I dismiss the claim for the upper crack in the hallway door. This was discussed at length during the hearing I am not persuaded it can be proven as careless or intentional damage by the tenant. The cost therefore remains with the landlord. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153114 — Rent arrears at 46 De Luen Avenue, Tindalls Beach, Whangaparaoa 0930

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153114 — Rent arrears at 46 De Luen Avenue, Tindalls Beach, Whangaparaoa 0930

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?

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?