What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185672 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 5185672?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11658071-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185672 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 5185672?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11658071-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185672 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185672 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185672 — net $1,489.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door repair cost	$1,012.00	Door repair cost
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,489.00
Bond	$2,910.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,489.00

Claims and awards for application 5185672 — net $1,489.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Door repair cost

Amount: $1,012.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repair cost

Cleaning

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,489.00

Bond

Landlord $2,910.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,489.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Caroline Hiligutu to pay [The landlord/s] $1,489.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,910.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,489.00 Caroline Hiligutu: $1,421.00
The tenant’s application against the landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

DescriptionLandlordTenant Door repair cost$1,012.00 Cleaning$450.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,489.00 Bond$1,489.00$1,421.00

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2021, initially as a fixed-term tenancy.
The sole tenant is Caroline Hiligutu, and the landlord [The landlord/s] by way of an agent [The property manager/s].
The tenancy ended by notice from the tenant on 29 December 2024.
It appears that things did not go well between the parties at the end of the tenancy, with conflict over various matters.
The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking her bond to be refunded.
The parties proceeded to a mediation on 27 February 2025. The mediator, records that it was agreed that $60 from the bond would be released to the landlord for lawnmowing costs, but the balance of the bond being $2910 would remain in the Bond Centre pending an order from the Tribunal around the remaining claims from both parties.
On 7 March 2025 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal against the tenant.
A hearing was scheduled for the Tribunal in the [Event location suppressed] today.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that their claims relate to damage to a door jamb at a cost of $1,012.00 and cleaning of $450.00. I will discuss these further below.

TENANTS CLAIMS

The tenants claim relates to vehicle damage from the driveway.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 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 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.

ANALYSIS

As set out above, there are claims from both the landlord and tenant, I will consider both in turn.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Damage to door jamb

The landlord claims for damage to an interior sliding door jamb. The landlord states that a portion of the side of the jamb has broken off which the landlord believes is from the door being closed improperly. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
In this case I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I also accept that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. That means it is for the tenant to now prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and I find she has not done that.
The landlord has produced an invoice showing the repair cost was $1,012.00.
I find this claim has been established, and is ordered in full. Claim 2
The landlord claims cleaning costs, and refers to an invoice from ‘[cleaners]’ to the sum of $450.00. The landlord’s position is that the premises were not returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I can see there is a sharp disagreement between the parties as to whether the premises were returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The photographs the landlord has provided support the landlord’s position that the premises were not reasonably clean. When I consider those photographs, I conclude the premises were not returned reasonably clean.
The landlord has claimed $450.00 for cleaning costs which are modest for commercial cleaning, and that charge is consistent with the work that would have been needed to return the premises to a state of being reasonably clean. This claim is ordered in full.

TENANTS CLAIM

The usual approach when a tenant or landlord does not appear at the hearing of their application, is that the application is dismissed, and that must be the case here.
I note for completeness that the tenant’s claim was in relation to repairs to her vehicle, which she says resulted from damage from a poorly maintained driveway. The tenant’s photographs show that the driveway is cracked, and in generally poor condition.
Based on the evidence which is available on the file, I cannot see that the tenant could have succeeded with the claim. While the vehicle invoices are provided for work she has undertaken to her car, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified expert linking the damage that was repaired, to the driveway.
In any event, the tenant’s application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and as the landlord has been entirely successful in its claim, landlord name suppression is granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185672 — net $1,489.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door repair cost	$1,012.00	Door repair cost
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,489.00
Bond	$2,910.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,489.00

Claims and awards for application 5185672 — net $1,489.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Door repair cost

Amount: $1,012.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repair cost

Cleaning

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,489.00

Bond

Landlord $2,910.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,489.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Caroline Hiligutu to pay [The landlord/s] $1,489.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,910.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,489.00 Caroline Hiligutu: $1,421.00
The tenant’s application against the landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

DescriptionLandlordTenant Door repair cost$1,012.00 Cleaning$450.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,489.00 Bond$1,489.00$1,421.00

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2021, initially as a fixed-term tenancy.
The sole tenant is Caroline Hiligutu, and the landlord [The landlord/s] by way of an agent [The property manager/s].
The tenancy ended by notice from the tenant on 29 December 2024.
It appears that things did not go well between the parties at the end of the tenancy, with conflict over various matters.
The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking her bond to be refunded.
The parties proceeded to a mediation on 27 February 2025. The mediator, records that it was agreed that $60 from the bond would be released to the landlord for lawnmowing costs, but the balance of the bond being $2910 would remain in the Bond Centre pending an order from the Tribunal around the remaining claims from both parties.
On 7 March 2025 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal against the tenant.
A hearing was scheduled for the Tribunal in the [Event location suppressed] today.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that their claims relate to damage to a door jamb at a cost of $1,012.00 and cleaning of $450.00. I will discuss these further below.

TENANTS CLAIMS

The tenants claim relates to vehicle damage from the driveway.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 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 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.

ANALYSIS

As set out above, there are claims from both the landlord and tenant, I will consider both in turn.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Damage to door jamb

The landlord claims for damage to an interior sliding door jamb. The landlord states that a portion of the side of the jamb has broken off which the landlord believes is from the door being closed improperly. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
In this case I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I also accept that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. That means it is for the tenant to now prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and I find she has not done that.
The landlord has produced an invoice showing the repair cost was $1,012.00.
I find this claim has been established, and is ordered in full. Claim 2
The landlord claims cleaning costs, and refers to an invoice from ‘[cleaners]’ to the sum of $450.00. The landlord’s position is that the premises were not returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I can see there is a sharp disagreement between the parties as to whether the premises were returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The photographs the landlord has provided support the landlord’s position that the premises were not reasonably clean. When I consider those photographs, I conclude the premises were not returned reasonably clean.
The landlord has claimed $450.00 for cleaning costs which are modest for commercial cleaning, and that charge is consistent with the work that would have been needed to return the premises to a state of being reasonably clean. This claim is ordered in full.

TENANTS CLAIM

The usual approach when a tenant or landlord does not appear at the hearing of their application, is that the application is dismissed, and that must be the case here.
I note for completeness that the tenant’s claim was in relation to repairs to her vehicle, which she says resulted from damage from a poorly maintained driveway. The tenant’s photographs show that the driveway is cracked, and in generally poor condition.
Based on the evidence which is available on the file, I cannot see that the tenant could have succeeded with the claim. While the vehicle invoices are provided for work she has undertaken to her car, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified expert linking the damage that was repaired, to the driveway.
In any event, the tenant’s application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and as the landlord has been entirely successful in its claim, landlord name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185672 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185672 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIM

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIM

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions