What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191931 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party], and [The party] must

How much money was awarded in case 5191931?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,108.58 awarded to landlord; Replacing Two Doors (2/3rds Of: $611.51 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,091.83 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $971.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191931?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12641795-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191931 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party], [The party], and [The party] must

How much money was awarded in case 5191931?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,108.58 awarded to landlord; Replacing Two Doors (2/3rds Of: $611.51 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,091.83 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $971.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191931?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12641795-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Grenadine Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191931 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191931. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 March 2025	$2,108.58	Rent arrears to 25 March 2025
Water rates to 25 March 2025	$971.04	Water rates to 25 March 2025
Rubbish removal at 75 percent	$1,091.83	Rubbish removal at 75 percent
Replacing two doors (2/3rds of	$611.51	Replacing two doors (2/3rds of
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

[The party], [The party], and [The party] must pay Wiki Property Management Limited as agent for the owner $4,809.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims are allowed as set out in this order and its

Reasons

. All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 25 March 2025$2,108.58 Water rates to 25 March 2025$971.04 Rubbish removal at 75 percent$1,091.83 Replacing two doors (2/3rds of $917.27)$611.51 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,809.96

Reasons:

Jane Zhou attended the hearing for the landlord.
[The party] attended for himself.
The other tenant and the guarantor did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord claimed for rent until 25 April 2025 based on Mr Dzendrowski’s email that had a typo referring to “25 April 2025” as being the end of the tenancy. However, Mr Dzendrowski had given notice of termination in an earlier email. The later email’s date was in error and did not seek to revoke the earlier notice. The landlord was on hand on 25 March and promptly took possession of the premises.
The tenancy ended on 25 March 2025. The landlord provided rent and water records which proved the amounts owing to the end of the tenancy on that date.

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

The landlord claims for the cost of disposing of items the tenants left behind. 1
Mr Dzendrowski submitted that about half of the items that were disposed of were already at the premises prior to the tenancy beginning. Also, he maintained that there was a broken fridge and microwave already at the premises when the tenancy began that he had to dispose of at a cost of about $200.00.
The landlord’s entry photographs do not show much property in the premises before the tenancy began. One of the photographs shows a few items such as a discarded chair and a bed base but Ms Zhou says those items were not removed so the costs claimed do not include them. However, the landlord’s photographs number only 20. It is quite possible that there was other property at the premises prior to the tenancy beginning that was not photographed.
Having regard to Mr Dzendrowski’s evidence and Ms Zhou’s evidence including the photographs, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that 75 per cent of the property that was disposed of was his. Therefore, I order that the respondents compensate the landlord for 75 percent of the landlord’s rubbish removal costs.

Did the tenants return the keys?

The landlord claims the tenants did not return the keys. 2 It claims for the cost of replacing the keys and the locks. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e). 2 Ibid.
Ms Zhou says the keys that Mr Dzendrowski left keys that did not work. Nor did the landlord trust Mr Dzendrowski whom the landlord believed still had the keys.
Mr Dzendrowski was adamant he returned all of the keys he was given.
The landlord did not photograph the keys that it gave Mr Dzendrowski at the beginning of the tenancy. I cannot compare what keys the landlord gave Mr Dzendrowski to those that he returned. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dzendrowski failed to return the keys.
This claim is dismissed.

Are the respondents liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenants are liable for damaging a kitchen skirting board, two internal doors, and three internal sliding doors.
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. 3
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. 4
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. 5
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. 6
The landlord claims $747.50 for damage to kitchen skirting boards. However, the photographs show only that one section of skirting board is out of place. The tenant says the kitchen skirting boards were in poor condition. The apparent damage looks minor. It is hard to see that it would cost the amount claimed to fix it. It appears that the landlord is claiming for replacing all of the skirting boards rather than just repairing the small section that needs attention. I am not satisfied the landlord simply repaired the skirting board. If it had, the invoice would have been a fraction of what is claimed. This part of the claim is dismissed.
I am satisfied that two internal doors were damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I order the respondents to reimburse the landlord for the cost, which I set at two-thirds of the amount referred to in the contractor, Yuan Wang’s, invoice because the invoice includes replacing a door that was damaged prior to the tenancy beginning. 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA s See section 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541
The landlord’s insurance excess was $500.00 per event, so naturally it did not claim insurance.
The landlord claimed for replacing three sliding doors. The photographs indicate the sliding doors are old. There is no apparent damage beyond ordinary fair wear and tear. Ms Zhou says the doors no longer slide and are off their rails. Mr Dzendrowski says the doors did not function properly due to their age and denies damaging them.
I am not satisfied that the sliding doors’ damage is more than fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in the proceedings. I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 7

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191931. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 March 2025	$2,108.58	Rent arrears to 25 March 2025
Water rates to 25 March 2025	$971.04	Water rates to 25 March 2025
Rubbish removal at 75 percent	$1,091.83	Rubbish removal at 75 percent
Replacing two doors (2/3rds of	$611.51	Replacing two doors (2/3rds of
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

[The party], [The party], and [The party] must pay Wiki Property Management Limited as agent for the owner $4,809.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims are allowed as set out in this order and its

Reasons

Reasons:

Jane Zhou attended the hearing for the landlord.
[The party] attended for himself.
The other tenant and the guarantor did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord claimed for rent until 25 April 2025 based on Mr Dzendrowski’s email that had a typo referring to “25 April 2025” as being the end of the tenancy. However, Mr Dzendrowski had given notice of termination in an earlier email. The later email’s date was in error and did not seek to revoke the earlier notice. The landlord was on hand on 25 March and promptly took possession of the premises.
The tenancy ended on 25 March 2025. The landlord provided rent and water records which proved the amounts owing to the end of the tenancy on that date.

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

The landlord claims for the cost of disposing of items the tenants left behind. 1
Mr Dzendrowski submitted that about half of the items that were disposed of were already at the premises prior to the tenancy beginning. Also, he maintained that there was a broken fridge and microwave already at the premises when the tenancy began that he had to dispose of at a cost of about $200.00.
The landlord’s entry photographs do not show much property in the premises before the tenancy began. One of the photographs shows a few items such as a discarded chair and a bed base but Ms Zhou says those items were not removed so the costs claimed do not include them. However, the landlord’s photographs number only 20. It is quite possible that there was other property at the premises prior to the tenancy beginning that was not photographed.
Having regard to Mr Dzendrowski’s evidence and Ms Zhou’s evidence including the photographs, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that 75 per cent of the property that was disposed of was his. Therefore, I order that the respondents compensate the landlord for 75 percent of the landlord’s rubbish removal costs.

Did the tenants return the keys?

The landlord claims the tenants did not return the keys. 2 It claims for the cost of replacing the keys and the locks. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e). 2 Ibid.
Ms Zhou says the keys that Mr Dzendrowski left keys that did not work. Nor did the landlord trust Mr Dzendrowski whom the landlord believed still had the keys.
Mr Dzendrowski was adamant he returned all of the keys he was given.
The landlord did not photograph the keys that it gave Mr Dzendrowski at the beginning of the tenancy. I cannot compare what keys the landlord gave Mr Dzendrowski to those that he returned. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dzendrowski failed to return the keys.
This claim is dismissed.

Are the respondents liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenants are liable for damaging a kitchen skirting board, two internal doors, and three internal sliding doors.
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. 3
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. 4
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. 5
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. 6
The landlord claims $747.50 for damage to kitchen skirting boards. However, the photographs show only that one section of skirting board is out of place. The tenant says the kitchen skirting boards were in poor condition. The apparent damage looks minor. It is hard to see that it would cost the amount claimed to fix it. It appears that the landlord is claiming for replacing all of the skirting boards rather than just repairing the small section that needs attention. I am not satisfied the landlord simply repaired the skirting board. If it had, the invoice would have been a fraction of what is claimed. This part of the claim is dismissed.
I am satisfied that two internal doors were damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I order the respondents to reimburse the landlord for the cost, which I set at two-thirds of the amount referred to in the contractor, Yuan Wang’s, invoice because the invoice includes replacing a door that was damaged prior to the tenancy beginning. 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA s See section 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541
The landlord’s insurance excess was $500.00 per event, so naturally it did not claim insurance.
The landlord claimed for replacing three sliding doors. The photographs indicate the sliding doors are old. There is no apparent damage beyond ordinary fair wear and tear. Ms Zhou says the doors no longer slide and are off their rails. Mr Dzendrowski says the doors did not function properly due to their age and denies damaging them.
I am not satisfied that the sliding doors’ damage is more than fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in the proceedings. I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191931 — Rent arrears at 8 Grenadine Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191931 — Rent arrears at 8 Grenadine Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the tenants return the keys?

Are the respondents liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the tenants return the keys?

Are the respondents liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions