What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5166575?

The tribunal order states: Janelle Sayers must pay Teresa Maria Connell and Nick Connell $3,002.75

How much money was awarded in case 5166575?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $22.87 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $675.00 awarded to landlord; To 3 X Doors: $1,116.86 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Cabinet: $1,769.05 awarded to landlord; To Lawn: $307.05 awarded to landlord; To Outside Light: $11.92 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $273.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166575?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12217521-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5166575?

The tribunal order states: Janelle Sayers must pay Teresa Maria Connell and Nick Connell $3,002.75

How much money was awarded in case 5166575?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $22.87 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $675.00 awarded to landlord; To 3 X Doors: $1,116.86 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Cabinet: $1,769.05 awarded to landlord; To Lawn: $307.05 awarded to landlord; To Outside Light: $11.92 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $273.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166575?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12217521-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Iris Street, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5166575 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166575 — net $3,002.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2025	$675.00	Rent arrears to 13 May 2025
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$273.00	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs	$22.87	Light bulbs
Repairs: to lawn	$307.05	Repairs: to lawn
Repairs: to 3 x doors	$1,116.86	Repairs: to 3 x doors
Repairs: to kitchen cabinet	$1,769.05	Repairs: to kitchen cabinet
Repairs: to outside light	$11.92	Repairs: to outside light
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,002.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,002.75

Order

Janelle Sayers must pay Teresa Maria Connell and Nick Connell $3,002.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6168192-002) to Teresa Maria Connell and Nick Connell immediately.
The landlord’s application for recovery of the eviction fee is dismissed.

Reasons

The first hearing for this matter took place on 27 March 2025 at North Shore District Court. Ms Connell attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant also attended the hearing.
On 07 April 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord at 11.59pm on 11 April 2025. The tenant was ordering to pay the landlord $229.87 from the bond for rent arrears. The parties were advised that the hearing was adjourned to hear the landlord’s claims for compensation for damages to the premises.
The second hearing for this matter took place on 31 July 2025 at North Shore District Court. Ms Connell attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The purpose of the second hearing was to hear the landlord’s claims for compensation, further rent arrears, the eviction filing fee and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

How much is owed for rent?

At the hearing, the landlord advised that the tenant did not vacate the premises until she was evicted on 13 May 2025. The landlord has provided a rent ledger showing the sum owing as at 13 May 2025. This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
At the hearing, the landlord provided a number of photographs on her iPad showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming for $720.00 being 24 hours cleaning at $30 per hour which she says she did with another person. From the photographic evidence, I accept that this amount of cleaning was required. I award $600 being 24 hours cleaning at $25.00 per hour (including GST).
The landlord has provided photographs showing that a significant amount of rubbish was left at the premises by the tenant. The landlord has also provided the invoices for work to remove the rubbish. This claim is proved and I award $273.00 (including GST).
I am satisfied that the tenant did not replace light bulbs inside. This claim is proved and I award $22.87 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the lawn; damage to 3 doors; damage to the kitchen cabinetry under; damage to the floors; and damage to an outside lightbulb.
Damage to the lawn: a. The photographs provided by the landlord show that a swimming pool was dug into the garden. I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage or that the damage was caused intentionally. The landlord has provided invoices for fixing the damage to the lawn. I am satisfied that the sums claimed are reasonable. b. The sums claimed are proved and proved and I award $307.05 (including GST).
Damage to the doors: a. The landlord has provided photographs taken before the tenancy which show the premises to be in a good condition. The landlord has also provided photographs taken from an inspection in February which show holes in three of the doors. I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage or that it was caused intentionally. The landlord has provided invoices for replacing the doors. I am satisfied that the sums claimed are reasonable. b. The sums claimed are proved and I award $1,116.86 (including GST).
Damage to the kitchen cabinetry: a. The landlord says that the waste disposal stopped working and that instead of telling the landlord, the tenant continued to put waste through it. This resulted in significant damage to the cabinetry under the sink. b. I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage or that it was caused intentionally. The landlord has provided invoices for these repairs. I am satisfied that the sums claimed to repair this damage is reasonable. c. The sums claimed are proved and I award $1,769.05 (including GST).
Flood damage: a. The landlord is claiming for the insurance excess of $550.00 damage to the floors which was caused by a flood. The matter was discussed briefly at the first hearing. The landlord says that the flood was most likely caused by the tenant’s operation of the washing machine. The tenant says there was a flood but denies it was caused by her operation of the washing machine and says it was caused by the hot water cylinder. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. If the tenant had attended this hearing, I would have had further questions for her regarding this claim. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This claim is proved, and I award the insurance excess of $550.00 (including GST).

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the eviction warrant fee?

The landlord seeks the sum paid for the bailiff to enforce an earlier possession order made by the Tribunal (the eviction warrant fee).
This is a cost which attaches to the original order, and it is inappropriate to add it to this order.
Ordering it may result in double recovery because usually this would be added to the sum collected on the original order by Collections.
The landlord may investigate this with Collections. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166575 — net $3,002.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2025	$675.00	Rent arrears to 13 May 2025
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$273.00	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs	$22.87	Light bulbs
Repairs: to lawn	$307.05	Repairs: to lawn
Repairs: to 3 x doors	$1,116.86	Repairs: to 3 x doors
Repairs: to kitchen cabinet	$1,769.05	Repairs: to kitchen cabinet
Repairs: to outside light	$11.92	Repairs: to outside light
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,002.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,002.75

Order

Janelle Sayers must pay Teresa Maria Connell and Nick Connell $3,002.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6168192-002) to Teresa Maria Connell and Nick Connell immediately.
The landlord’s application for recovery of the eviction fee is dismissed.

Reasons

The first hearing for this matter took place on 27 March 2025 at North Shore District Court. Ms Connell attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant also attended the hearing.
On 07 April 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord at 11.59pm on 11 April 2025. The tenant was ordering to pay the landlord $229.87 from the bond for rent arrears. The parties were advised that the hearing was adjourned to hear the landlord’s claims for compensation for damages to the premises.
The second hearing for this matter took place on 31 July 2025 at North Shore District Court. Ms Connell attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The purpose of the second hearing was to hear the landlord’s claims for compensation, further rent arrears, the eviction filing fee and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

How much is owed for rent?

At the hearing, the landlord advised that the tenant did not vacate the premises until she was evicted on 13 May 2025. The landlord has provided a rent ledger showing the sum owing as at 13 May 2025. This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
At the hearing, the landlord provided a number of photographs on her iPad showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming for $720.00 being 24 hours cleaning at $30 per hour which she says she did with another person. From the photographic evidence, I accept that this amount of cleaning was required. I award $600 being 24 hours cleaning at $25.00 per hour (including GST).
The landlord has provided photographs showing that a significant amount of rubbish was left at the premises by the tenant. The landlord has also provided the invoices for work to remove the rubbish. This claim is proved and I award $273.00 (including GST).
I am satisfied that the tenant did not replace light bulbs inside. This claim is proved and I award $22.87 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the lawn; damage to 3 doors; damage to the kitchen cabinetry under; damage to the floors; and damage to an outside lightbulb.
Damage to the lawn: a. The photographs provided by the landlord show that a swimming pool was dug into the garden. I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage or that the damage was caused intentionally. The landlord has provided invoices for fixing the damage to the lawn. I am satisfied that the sums claimed are reasonable. b. The sums claimed are proved and proved and I award $307.05 (including GST).
Damage to the doors: a. The landlord has provided photographs taken before the tenancy which show the premises to be in a good condition. The landlord has also provided photographs taken from an inspection in February which show holes in three of the doors. I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage or that it was caused intentionally. The landlord has provided invoices for replacing the doors. I am satisfied that the sums claimed are reasonable. b. The sums claimed are proved and I award $1,116.86 (including GST).
Damage to the kitchen cabinetry: a. The landlord says that the waste disposal stopped working and that instead of telling the landlord, the tenant continued to put waste through it. This resulted in significant damage to the cabinetry under the sink. b. I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage or that it was caused intentionally. The landlord has provided invoices for these repairs. I am satisfied that the sums claimed to repair this damage is reasonable. c. The sums claimed are proved and I award $1,769.05 (including GST).
Flood damage: a. The landlord is claiming for the insurance excess of $550.00 damage to the floors which was caused by a flood. The matter was discussed briefly at the first hearing. The landlord says that the flood was most likely caused by the tenant’s operation of the washing machine. The tenant says there was a flood but denies it was caused by her operation of the washing machine and says it was caused by the hot water cylinder. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. If the tenant had attended this hearing, I would have had further questions for her regarding this claim. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This claim is proved, and I award the insurance excess of $550.00 (including GST).

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the eviction warrant fee?

The landlord seeks the sum paid for the bailiff to enforce an earlier possession order made by the Tribunal (the eviction warrant fee).
This is a cost which attaches to the original order, and it is inappropriate to add it to this order.
Ordering it may result in double recovery because usually this would be added to the sum collected on the original order by Collections.
The landlord may investigate this with Collections. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166575 — Property damage at 4 Iris Street, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166575 — Property damage at 4 Iris Street, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

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?

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the eviction warrant fee?

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?

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the eviction warrant fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions