What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195174 about?

The tribunal order states: [2025]

How much money was awarded in case 5195174?

The reconciled net award was $3,400.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195174?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13999699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195174 about?

The tribunal order states: [2025]

How much money was awarded in case 5195174?

The reconciled net award was $3,400.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195174?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13999699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 The Drive, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195174 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

below give reasoning for this Corrigendum. They update paragraph 84 of the original Order. The rest of the reasons in the original Order remain undisturbed.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $12,385.96 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (5951363-003) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately. Description Disgorgement of profits Refusal to allow entry Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry Exemplary damages: Failure to provide insulation Statement Landlord $15,485.96 $750.00 Tenant $200.00 $250.00 Total award Net award $16,235.96 $15,785.96 $450.00 Bond Total payable by tenant to Landlord $3,400.00 $12,385.96 Reasons:

In his decision of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] v [The tenant/s] landlord/s] CIV-2025-090-001569 [2026] NZDC 7320, [62] his Honour Judge Sharp has asked the Tribunal to revisit the accounting process of its decision (NZTT5297564, NZTT 5195174) to determine what the actual profit in relation to the Airbnb matter was, and to allow this to go beyond simply deducting the cleaning expenses as was the methodology in Nice Place Property Management Limited v Geoff Paterson (“Nice Place”).

At [60] of his judgment, His Honour refers to two schedules of documents that Ms Kath produced at the Appeal which contained the costs in addition to those which had been taken into account. I am not sure exactly what these two schedules are.

For the Tribunal’s purpose in assessing what the actual profit in relation to the Airbnb matter was, Ms Kath has filed a bundle divided into six sections numbered 3, 5, 7 9, 11 and 99. This information is long-winded and not entirely helpful. It highlights a second problem with Ms Kath’s enterprise (beyond being operated without Ms Burkinshaw’s consent) that there appears to have been no proper accounting of it during the enterprise such as would satisfy Inland Revenue and provide assistance to the Tribunal.

Section 3, (pages 3-18) covers short term rent, and after adjustments the total for this is $18,229.88. This is the gross profit of Ms Kath’s Airbnb enterprise. This has not changed since the Tribunal’s original decision.

Section 5, (pages 19-28) covers rent paid by Ms Kath to Ms Burkinshaw. This rent was agreed by the parties at the time that it was clearly communicated to Ms Kath that she couldn’t engage in short term subletting of the premises.

Section 7, (pages 29 – 165) is titled Actual Costs Evidence. This includes a table of expenses, printed photographs of cleaning and food products and household items, power, water, telephone and television subscription bills for her tenancy with no separation for the commercial activity, and receipts from Bunnings and Briscoes for hardware and home living costs.

Section 9, (pages 166 – 223) is titled Furniture and Setup Costs. This includes promotional material and orders for microwave ovens, beds, linen, a router, a wi-fi system, a television, chairs, stools, a sideboard, kitchen items, laundry and personal care items.

Section 11, (pages 224 – 258) is titled Market-Based Comparisons and offers general information on costs of running short term rental accommodation.

Section 99, shows photographs of Ms Kath’s Airbnb.

Ms Burkinshaw responded to Ms Kath’s “accounting” information. She submits that Ms Kath’s claimed expenses should be rejected in whole for the following reasons: a. The expenses were incurred in furtherance of an unauthorised activity, b. Ms Kath’s information is insufficient to prove actual expenses incurred, c. Ms Kath has included personal and ordinary living expenses which are not deductible, d. Improvements and capital purchases are included, but should be excluded, and e. Expenses should be interpreted narrowly.

In my view, Ms Kath has filed a lot of information which tends to obfuscate rather than clarify what the real expenses of running her Airbnb enterprise were. However Ms Kath is under the same obligation as she was in the original hearing to provide information that is true and correct to the best of her knowledge. Whereas I do not accept that all of Ms Kath’s “expenses” can be deducted from her gross profit, I do accept that Ms Kath is not providing falsified information.

The Tribunal must draw a line and give reasons for what are legitimate expenses in running the Airbnb enterprise, and which are not.

The Tribunal is not required to follow any particular accounting practice. My approach follows the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, section 85 which states the following: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

I am therefore approaching this on the substantial merits and justice of the case as I determine them to be.

I determine expenses which may have provided a service to Ms Kath’s clients but also provided a substantial benefit to Ms Kath, should not be included in Ms Kath’s deductions. These are expenses that many people incur themselves, (hence Ms Kath providing them to her clients), and Ms Kath has not shown that she would not have incurred these expenses on her own account without operating an Airbnb enterprise.

These include expenses for phone, internet, Netflix or other streaming services. Nor do I consider it reasonable to deduct Ms Kath’s moving expenses or storage expenses after the end of her Airbnb enterprise. Ms Kath has also claimed expenses from Bunnings for cleaning, painting and gardening expenses. There is no evidence of what these items were used for or that Ms Burkinshaw agreed to any associated work being done. I am not persuaded that these expenses should be deducted from the disgorgement of profits to Ms Burkinshaw. The onus is on Ms Kath to show that they should be, and she has not done so.

Nor do I not consider it reasonable to include Ms Kath’s set up expenses in her deductions from her gross profit. I am referring here to capital expenditure for furniture, whiteware, cutlery, hi-fi equipment, crockery, kitchenware, electrical items and so on. This was not a legitimate commercial enterprise. Ms Kath retains the use of these items. No information has been given about Ms Kath meeting her tax obligations for this enterprise or depreciating these items legitimately. I am not persuaded there is any reason why these belongings should be deducted from the disgorgement of profits to Ms Burkinshaw.

Section 7, Actual Costs Evidence is most relevant. The total for consumables from the table in this section is $1,421.59. These costs go beyond cleaning products as in Nice Place, and include toiletries supplied to the clients, and light refreshment items common in Airbnb enterprises. I consider this reasonable.

Ms Kath has not provided receipts for all of these expenses, but she is not required to do so. I accept that on the balance of probabilities Ms Kath did incur these expenses.

I also consider it reasonable to deduct water and electricity costs. Ms Kath deducts 35%. I consider that excessive for part-time guests, and I have reduced it to 25%, which I still consider to be on the generous side. Ms Kath says electricity costs were $695.85 and 25% of that is $173.95. Water costs I have also reduced from 35% of Ms Kath’s total usage to 25%. The total is $193.54 and 25% of that is $48.38.

Consumables, water and power amount to $1,643.92. Deducted from Ms Kath’s Gross Profit of $18,229.88, Ms Kath’s net profit is therefore $16,585.96.

In my original Order I deducted $1,100.00 for cleaning costs. This total was not referred to in his Honour Judge Sharp’s decision. The total was not itemised, but I am prepared to give Ms Kath the benefit of the doubt here and allow the $1,100.00 to also be deducted from the gross profit as a contribution to her labour cleaning and maintaining the apartment. This reduces the total net profit to $15,485.96.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Reasons

below give reasoning for this Corrigendum. They update paragraph 84 of the original Order. The rest of the reasons in the original Order remain undisturbed.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $12,385.96 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Section 11, (pages 224 – 258) is titled Market-Based Comparisons and offers general information on costs of running short term rental accommodation.

Section 99, shows photographs of Ms Kath’s Airbnb.

The Tribunal must draw a line and give reasons for what are legitimate expenses in running the Airbnb enterprise, and which are not.

I am therefore approaching this on the substantial merits and justice of the case as I determine them to be.

Ms Kath has not provided receipts for all of these expenses, but she is not required to do so. I accept that on the balance of probabilities Ms Kath did incur these expenses.

Consumables, water and power amount to $1,643.92. Deducted from Ms Kath’s Gross Profit of $18,229.88, Ms Kath’s net profit is therefore $16,585.96.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195174 — Cleanliness at 23 The Drive, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195174 — Cleanliness at 23 The Drive, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.