What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5188442 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited as Agent for Kai Yee

How much money was awarded in case 5188442?

Cleaning: $336.37 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cooktop: $515.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Door BC Admin Fee: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Excess: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5188422 D…: $3,283.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $582.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $431.43 awarded to landlord; Stove Knob: $85.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188442?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188442?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12426134-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5188442 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited as Agent for Kai Yee

How much money was awarded in case 5188442?

Cleaning: $336.37 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cooktop: $515.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Door BC Admin Fee: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Excess: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5188422 D…: $3,283.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $582.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $431.43 awarded to landlord; Stove Knob: $85.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188442?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188442?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12426134-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 8, 269 Rosedale Road, Albany, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5188442 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188442 — net $2,948.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears at 16 August 2025	$431.43		Rent arrears at 16 August 2025
Previous order application 5188422 dated 09/07/2025	$3,283.00		Previous order application 5188422 dated 09/07/2025
Cooktop	$515.00		Cooktop
Garage door excess	$400.00		Garage door excess
Garage door BC admin fee	$115.00		Garage door BC admin fee
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Carpet repair/ replacement	$582.00		Carpet repair/ replacement
Carpet cleaning	$336.37		Carpet cleaning
Stove knob	$85.99		Stove knob
Exemplary damages: fasil to lodge bond		$450.00	fasil to lodge bond
Total award	$6,198.79	$450.00
Net award	$2,948.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,948.79

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited as Agent for Kai Yee Siu $2,948.79 immediately, calculated as shown below.
This Order incorporates and supersedes the Tribunal’s order of 9 July 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
On 17 September 2025, the tenant contacted the registry to say that she could not attend the hearing in person and asked to attend remotely.
A direction was made that: “Please advise the parties that Ms Algar may appear by teleconference. She will be phoned on the day of the hearing and must confirm to the registry the number she is to be called on. Both parties must ensure that any evidence to be relied on at the hearing is provided to the Tribunal and to the other party by e- mail before the hearing.”
Ms Algar confirmed the number to call her on. She was phoned twice on that number. Both calls went to answerphone.
At my request, the registrar then e-mailed Ms Algar to say that the Tribunal had not been able to contact her and that she should confirm to the registrar by e- mail when she could be phoned to attend the hearing.
The hearing began and was concluded without hearing from Ms Algar. The evidence provided by the tenant was taken into account in considering the landlord’s claims.
Apart from the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, Ms Algar’s claims could not be considered in her absence and are dismissed.
The claim that the bond was not lodged is independently proved and the evidence the Tribunal needs to consider in deciding whether exemplary damages should be awarded is largely within the landlords’ knowledge.

How much is owed for rent?

A Tribunal order dated 9 July 2025 (“July Order”) ended the tenancy on 16 August 2025. It found that $2,295.00 was owed to 8 July 2025.
The tenant has paid rent when due since then.
Because the July Order was made part way through a rent week, there is a final part week to pay. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The amount payable under the July Order has not been paid and is incorporated into this Order. Landlord Claims
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has provided exit inspection photographs and photographs from inspections during the tenancy.
The photographs show that the carpets were damaged and badly stained. The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet cleaners advised that carpet in one of the bedrooms was not able to be cleaned and needed to be replaced. Repair to some carpet was required where it appears to have been scratched by cat(s). The other carpets needed to be cleaned.
The amounts paid by the landlord for that work is proved by the invoices provided.
Depreciation and improvement value for the carpet replacement is allowed for.
Exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy in a number of respects.
The landlord obtained a quote for cleaning the premises at a cost of $1,090.00. The landlord decided that was too much and did the cleaning work herself, with help, which she says took more than 2 days.
That being so, the amount of the landlord’s loss is not proved by the quote provided. The landlord is entitled to compensation for having to do cleaning work which the tenant ought to have done.
Taking into account the condition of the premises as shown by the exit photographs and also taking into account that the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not immediately ready for a new tenancy, I estimate 10 hours @$35.00 per hour with an allowance for travel and material costs as fair compensation for the landlord having to bring the premises to reasonably clean and tidy condition.

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. Garage Door
The July Order noted that “The tenant acknowledges having accidentally backed into the garage door by reversing when the door was not sufficiently open.”
The tenant should therefore compensate the landlord for the resulting loss within the above limits.
The Body Corporate was able to bring an insurance claim to cover the repair cost. The landlord’s loss is the amount the claim excess ($400.00) and administration fee ($115.00) passed on to the landlord by the Body Corporte. Those sums are proved by the correspondence provided. Cooktop
The photographs provided by the landlord prove that the cooktop was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
It is for the tenant to bring evidence to prove that the damage did not occur carelessly. That evidence has not been provided and the tenant should compensate the landlord for the los caused.
The landlord ws able to get another matching cooktop from another unit and have it installed. The total cost was $599.00.
The cooktop is a chattel owned by the Body Corporate.
The evidence shows, on balance that the Body Corporate could have been approached to make an insurance claim for the loss, in which case the cost to the landlord would have been the same as for the garage door claim. The tenant’s liability is limited to that amount. Stove knob and rack screw
During the final inspection the landlord found that a knob on the stove was broken and held together with tape. A fixing nut on the inside of the oven holding the rack, was missing. Those items were replaced at a cost of $100.98, $85.99 for the knob and $14.99 for the nut.
I find it more likely than not that the oven knob wa not broken by normal wear and tear. It seems fair to infer that if the knob had broken through no fault of the tenant, she would have asked for it to be replaced rather than patching it. The other knob(s) did not suffer the same damage.
There is no evidence to suggest that the fixing nut came off other than through normal use. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The June Order directed that: “The landlord must determine whether the tenant’s bond has been lodged with the Bond Centre. If not, the bond must immediately be lodged. If so, the landlord is asked to provide proof of lodgement, with the bond number.”
The bond had not been lodged. It was lodged on 21 August 2025. The landlord has committed un unlawful act. It was committed intentionally (ie. not accidentally or through factors outside the landlord’s control)
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The owner says that failure to lodge the bond was an administrative oversight. She says her previous property manager was responsible for lodging the bond and she assumed it was done.
I accept that there was no intent to disadvantage the tenant but not lodging her bond and it has now been lodged as directed. There is no evidence of the oversight having previously been brought to the landlord’s attention
Lodging a tenant’s bond is however a fundamental obligation that the public interest requires landlords to be diligent about.
I find it just to make a modest award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach.
Because both parties have had claims upheld, no order is made in respect of te filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188442 — net $2,948.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears at 16 August 2025	$431.43		Rent arrears at 16 August 2025
Previous order application 5188422 dated 09/07/2025	$3,283.00		Previous order application 5188422 dated 09/07/2025
Cooktop	$515.00		Cooktop
Garage door excess	$400.00		Garage door excess
Garage door BC admin fee	$115.00		Garage door BC admin fee
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Carpet repair/ replacement	$582.00		Carpet repair/ replacement
Carpet cleaning	$336.37		Carpet cleaning
Stove knob	$85.99		Stove knob
Exemplary damages: fasil to lodge bond		$450.00	fasil to lodge bond
Total award	$6,198.79	$450.00
Net award	$2,948.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,948.79

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited as Agent for Kai Yee Siu $2,948.79 immediately, calculated as shown below.
This Order incorporates and supersedes the Tribunal’s order of 9 July 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
On 17 September 2025, the tenant contacted the registry to say that she could not attend the hearing in person and asked to attend remotely.
A direction was made that: “Please advise the parties that Ms Algar may appear by teleconference. She will be phoned on the day of the hearing and must confirm to the registry the number she is to be called on. Both parties must ensure that any evidence to be relied on at the hearing is provided to the Tribunal and to the other party by e- mail before the hearing.”
Ms Algar confirmed the number to call her on. She was phoned twice on that number. Both calls went to answerphone.
At my request, the registrar then e-mailed Ms Algar to say that the Tribunal had not been able to contact her and that she should confirm to the registrar by e- mail when she could be phoned to attend the hearing.
The hearing began and was concluded without hearing from Ms Algar. The evidence provided by the tenant was taken into account in considering the landlord’s claims.
Apart from the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, Ms Algar’s claims could not be considered in her absence and are dismissed.
The claim that the bond was not lodged is independently proved and the evidence the Tribunal needs to consider in deciding whether exemplary damages should be awarded is largely within the landlords’ knowledge.

How much is owed for rent?

A Tribunal order dated 9 July 2025 (“July Order”) ended the tenancy on 16 August 2025. It found that $2,295.00 was owed to 8 July 2025.
The tenant has paid rent when due since then.
Because the July Order was made part way through a rent week, there is a final part week to pay. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The amount payable under the July Order has not been paid and is incorporated into this Order. Landlord Claims
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has provided exit inspection photographs and photographs from inspections during the tenancy.
The photographs show that the carpets were damaged and badly stained. The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet cleaners advised that carpet in one of the bedrooms was not able to be cleaned and needed to be replaced. Repair to some carpet was required where it appears to have been scratched by cat(s). The other carpets needed to be cleaned.
The amounts paid by the landlord for that work is proved by the invoices provided.
Depreciation and improvement value for the carpet replacement is allowed for.
Exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy in a number of respects.
The landlord obtained a quote for cleaning the premises at a cost of $1,090.00. The landlord decided that was too much and did the cleaning work herself, with help, which she says took more than 2 days.
That being so, the amount of the landlord’s loss is not proved by the quote provided. The landlord is entitled to compensation for having to do cleaning work which the tenant ought to have done.
Taking into account the condition of the premises as shown by the exit photographs and also taking into account that the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not immediately ready for a new tenancy, I estimate 10 hours @$35.00 per hour with an allowance for travel and material costs as fair compensation for the landlord having to bring the premises to reasonably clean and tidy condition.

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. Garage Door
The July Order noted that “The tenant acknowledges having accidentally backed into the garage door by reversing when the door was not sufficiently open.”
The tenant should therefore compensate the landlord for the resulting loss within the above limits.
The Body Corporate was able to bring an insurance claim to cover the repair cost. The landlord’s loss is the amount the claim excess ($400.00) and administration fee ($115.00) passed on to the landlord by the Body Corporte. Those sums are proved by the correspondence provided. Cooktop
The photographs provided by the landlord prove that the cooktop was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
It is for the tenant to bring evidence to prove that the damage did not occur carelessly. That evidence has not been provided and the tenant should compensate the landlord for the los caused.
The landlord ws able to get another matching cooktop from another unit and have it installed. The total cost was $599.00.
The cooktop is a chattel owned by the Body Corporate.
The evidence shows, on balance that the Body Corporate could have been approached to make an insurance claim for the loss, in which case the cost to the landlord would have been the same as for the garage door claim. The tenant’s liability is limited to that amount. Stove knob and rack screw
During the final inspection the landlord found that a knob on the stove was broken and held together with tape. A fixing nut on the inside of the oven holding the rack, was missing. Those items were replaced at a cost of $100.98, $85.99 for the knob and $14.99 for the nut.
I find it more likely than not that the oven knob wa not broken by normal wear and tear. It seems fair to infer that if the knob had broken through no fault of the tenant, she would have asked for it to be replaced rather than patching it. The other knob(s) did not suffer the same damage.
There is no evidence to suggest that the fixing nut came off other than through normal use. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The June Order directed that: “The landlord must determine whether the tenant’s bond has been lodged with the Bond Centre. If not, the bond must immediately be lodged. If so, the landlord is asked to provide proof of lodgement, with the bond number.”
The bond had not been lodged. It was lodged on 21 August 2025. The landlord has committed un unlawful act. It was committed intentionally (ie. not accidentally or through factors outside the landlord’s control)
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The owner says that failure to lodge the bond was an administrative oversight. She says her previous property manager was responsible for lodging the bond and she assumed it was done.
I accept that there was no intent to disadvantage the tenant but not lodging her bond and it has now been lodged as directed. There is no evidence of the oversight having previously been brought to the landlord’s attention
Lodging a tenant’s bond is however a fundamental obligation that the public interest requires landlords to be diligent about.
I find it just to make a modest award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach.
Because both parties have had claims upheld, no order is made in respect of te filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5188442 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 8, 269 Rosedale Road, Albany,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5188442 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 8, 269 Rosedale Road, Albany,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions