What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5196731 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (5066930-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5196731?

Cleaning: $205.00 awarded to landlord; External Cladding - Holes: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $24.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12055631-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5196731 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (5066930-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5196731?

Cleaning: $205.00 awarded to landlord; External Cladding - Holes: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $24.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12055631-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20A Rossmay Terrace, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5196731 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196731 — net $390.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$24.89	Water rates
Cleaning: oven	$205.00	Cleaning: oven
Repairs: external cladding - holes	$161.00	Repairs: external cladding - holes
Net award	$390.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$390.89

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196731 — net $390.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$24.89	Water rates
Cleaning: oven	$205.00	Cleaning: oven
Repairs: external cladding - holes	$161.00	Repairs: external cladding - holes
Net award	$390.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$390.89

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (5066930-005) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]: $390.89 [The tenant/s] and [The party]: $2,929.11
Apportionment of the bond is calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s claims for compensation for damage to carpet and interior walls are dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for reimbursement of a portion of rent paid on the basis the premises was an unlawful residential premises is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
On 12 March 2025, tenant filed a claim seeking refund of the bond.
On 24 June 2025, the landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation from the bond for cleaning and damage to the premises.
On 26 June 2025, the tenant emailed the registry seeking to add an additional claim that the premises was an unlawful residential premise.
On 1 July 2025, a hearing of all claims was conducted remotely. Burden and standard of proof
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.
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 fraction 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. Refund of the bond: is the landlord owed water rates?
The tenancy ended on 23 February 2025.
The landlord seeks compensation of $24.89 for unpaid water rates for water and wastewater consumed during the tenancy.
The tenant says the charge of $24.89 is part of a $35 fee charged to the landlord to conduct a final reading. The tenant says it is not a charge for water or wastewater they consumed and therefore they are not liable for it. The tenant did not produce any evidence in support of their submission there was a $35 fee for a final reading.
I am satisfied the outstanding $24.89 is for water and wastewater consumed during the tenancy.
The Watercare invoice dated 23/01/25, for water and wastewater consumed in the period 24/12/24 – 23/01/25, was for $65.86 (based on an estimated reading).
The Watercare invoice dated 26/03/25, for water and wastewater consumed in the period 23/01/25 – 21/02/25, records a payment of $30.86 was received toward the previous months bill, leaving $35.00 outstanding for that month.
The Watercare invoice dated 26/03/25 also records that, after an actual reading had been conducted on 21/02/25, $10.11 credit was applied to the account. The remaining unpaid water rates is therefore $24.89.
The amount ordered is proved. Refund of the bond: is the landlord entitled to compensation for cleaning?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) of the RTA.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that the oven was not cleaned. The landlord has filed four photographs taken on Monday 24/02/25, and an invoice dated 10/03/25 for $205 for a professional clean of the oven (only).
The tenant says they cleaned the oven (or had it cleaned) before they exited the premises. The tenant says the stains visible on the glass of the oven door are from stains inbetween glass. They say those stains could not be removed by their cleaner. The tenant did not produce any photographs to show the condition they left the oven in.
I am satisfied the photographs taken on Monday 24/02/25 show the oven was not left reasonably clean. The photos of the open door shows grease on the inside of the glass door. I do not accept they show stains between two (reasonably clean) glass panels. The photos also show the metal racks in the oven have grease and/or stains and food debris on the bottom tray of the oven.
The amount ordered is proved. Refund of the bond: is the landlord entitled to compensation for 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.
In the High Court, Justice Walker has referred to accidental damage and carelessness as follows: “accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence”. 1 In this way, His Honour linked accidental damage and carelessness. In Tekoa Trust v Stewart, 2 Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between those acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
Given this, “careless damage” in the RTA encompasses “accidental damage.” Damage: Exterior cladding
The landlord say the tenants attached netting to a beam which was fixed to the exterior weatherboards of the house, over the tenant’s herb garden. A photo taken during an inspection on 22/10/24 shows a white netting in place.
The landlord says when the tenants moved out, they removed the netting but did not remedy the holes in the exterior weatherboards. The landlord did not file any photographs to show the condition the weatherboards were left at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord filed an invoice dated 8/04/25 for $161 for labour in repairing (filling, sanding, priming and painting the area).
The tenant does not dispute they used screws to fix the small beam onto the exterior cladding of the house. They say, if they had had the opportunity, they would have returned to fill the holes. They say they had a short window of time to arrange to move out after a period overseas.
Given the tenants do not dispute causing the damage, I am satisfied damage to the exterior cladding by the herb garden occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and was intentionally caused by the tenant. A landlord is not obligated to ask a tenant to return to the premises after the tenancy has ended to remedy any defects. 1 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154. 2 Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage: Carpet
The landlord says in approximately October 2022, the tenants damaged the carpet in one of the bedrooms, causing a burn mark at the entry to the bedroom. The landlord says the parties agreed the carpet did not need to be fixed immediately, but that the tenant would remedy the damage before the end of the tenancy. The landlord says they agreed to share the costs 50:50.
A photo taken during an inspection on 20/11/24 shows a white area on the carpet said to be a burn mark the size of a small dinner plate.
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy, an attempted repair of the burn mark had been carried out, but it was not satisfactory. The landlord says the burned portion of the carpet had been cut out, and a portion of the carpet from the wardrobe in the same room had been cut to the same size and installed where the burn was. The landlord says the repair was already showing signs of wear and was lifting on one side. The landlord says the hole in the carpet in the wardrobe was not remedied. The landlord did not produce a photograph to show the condition of the relevant areas of carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says the carpet was installed in 2011, when the whole house was renovated.
The landlord seeks $650.88 in compensation, being half the quoted cost to replace carpet in that bedroom (including wardrobe). A quote dated 19/02/25 for $1,301.75 was filed in support.
The landlord says, in the end, they decided to re-carpet the whole house, with a higher quality carpet, but say the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the damage caused.
The tenant does not dispute causing the burn mark in the carpet of the bedrooms during the tenancy. The tenant says they got the same carpet company that provided the landlord with a quote to attend and carry out the repair. The tenant says the tradesperson cut a piece of the wardrobe carpet and inserting it where the burn was.
The tenants say, in any event, they lived in the property for 7 years and some wear and tear is to be expected. They say the burn damage was accidental, and the repair done was sufficient. The tenant did not produce a photograph to show the condition of the relevant area of carpet at the end of the tenancy.
Given the tenants do not dispute causing the damage, I am satisfied the burn to the carpet occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and was carelessly (or accidentally) caused by the tenant. The question I have to determine is whether the tenant should be liable for 50% of the quoted repair.
In considering the landlord’s claim, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
The IRD’s IR265 General depreciation rates states carpet installed in a residential rental property has an estimated useful life of 8 years. The carpet in this property was 14 years old at the end of the tenancy.
I note the quoted repair work was not carried out, instead the landlord elected to replace the carpet throughout the premises prior to sale. Given this, the landlord has not incurred the cost claimed.
While I am satisfied the damage was caused by the tenant, the landlord has not proved they incurred the cost claimed and should not be better off.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for damage to the carpet. Damage: Internal walls
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy there were over 70 holes in internal walls throughout the premises. The landlord says these appeared to be holes from where pictures were hung, nails were placed in the walls and other unknown damage.
The landlord filed photographs taken on 27 February 2025, taken by their painter/decorator. The landlord is unsure whether the white areas shown in the photographs depict areas the painter/decorator had filled, or whether some of the patches were done by the tenant.
The landlord did not produce photographs to show the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy. The landlord says the walls were painted in 2011, during renovations, and that the landlord lived in the home prior to this tenancy commencing in 2017. The landlord says the holes were not there at the start of the tenancy. The landlord says they would not make a claim for one or two picture hooks, but they say the holes left by the tenant were extensive.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 8/04/25 for $457.70 for interior hole repairs.
The tenant says they were given permission to hang up pictures during their 7- year tenancy and that is all they did. They say one photograph produced by the landlord which shows a nail in the wall was a nail left in place by the landlord at the start of the tenancy. They say it appeared to have been used to secure an insect spray. The tenants say they didn’t do any deliberate damage and they took down the picture hooks before they exited the property.
The landlord has not provided evidence to show the condition the walls were in at the start of the tenancy. Without that evidence, I am unable to assess whether all, or some, of the alleged damage was caused during the tenancy. Without that evidence, I am also unable to determine whether the alleged damage is more than fair wear and tear over a 7-year long tenancy.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for damage to internal walls. Refund of rent paid: is the tenant entitled to compensation for living in an unlawful residential premise?
At the outset of the hearing, the landlord took issue with the late filing of this additional claim by the tenant. The landlord was provided the opportunity to seek an adjournment to consider the new claim but elected to proceed with the hearing of all issues at the hearing.
I note that the additional claim by the tenant was filed on 26/06/25. The landlord’s cross-application was filed on 24/06/25, more than three months after the tenant filed their claim seeking refund of the bond on 12/03/25.
Section 78A of the RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”.
Unlawful residential premises is defined as: Residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but – (a) That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes which that person is granted occupation), and (b) Where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or s 66I(1)(c) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The public policy behind the introduction of s 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants.
In moving that the Bill relating to s 78A be read a first time in Parliament, the Hon Dr Nick Smith stated: 3 3 See also The Hon Phil Twyford: “This bill aims to strengthen the powers for prosecuting landlords who have rented out unsuitable accommodation, such as garages, warehouses, and industrial buildings. There was one very notable case—I think it was 61 Molesworth Street—where, at the time of the Wellington earthquakes, the ratbag owner of that building had rented out a lot of that commercial space to tenants. They were found to be living not only in kind of unsafe and unsuitable accommodation but— what the bill points out is that if people are not in premises that are consented There have been examples around the country of garages or other properties that are being rented out that do not go anywhere near meeting the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act but where there are limitations on our new compliance teams being able to enforce them because of that jurisdiction issue. My view is that the amendments in this bill that make it plain that the Tribunal has full jurisdiction over unlawful residential premises will strengthen the regulatory environment and ensure that those people who attempt to rent out such properties are held accountable.
The Tribunal has on many prior occasions considered whether or not premises are unlawful for the purposes of s 78A of the RTA, and three broad (though non-exhaustive) categories have been identified: 4 a. Unconsented premises. In other words, premises where there has been no building consent or resource consent for the premises at all. b. Premises where an abatement notice or dangerous and insanitary building notice has been issued by Council. c. Cases where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as a larger household unit have been converted for residential use and then rented out as a separate household unit, without Council consent as to the change of use.
In this case the tenant says after the tenancy ended they became aware the property did not have a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC). The tenant obtained a copy of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM report) dated 1/04/25 and says it lists changes to the laundry and bathroom as having a Code of Acceptance (COA) processing (but not granted) and that a CCC was not issued relating to the relocation of the dwelling to the site in 1998.
The tenant says the lack of compliance impacted their enjoyment of the premises in that they had issues with the extraction fan in the laundry/bathroom and lights were continually blowing. They say the ceiling collapsed over the dining table and that there were issues with the roof needing repair during the tenancy. for residential purposes, then landlords cannot be held to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.” 4 Tenant v Presland and Co Trustee Company [2021] NZTT 4290197 at [94].
The tenants say they paid to live in a property which should have had consent and say they suffered with mould issues in the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord says when they placed the property on the market for sale in 2025 they first became aware that consents for past work had not been granted. The landlord says they applied for retrospective consent and have been granted it.
During the hearing, the landlord filed evidence that the Council had granted the COA in relation to the changes to the laundry and bathroom (COA04242587). In respect of the outstanding CCC, the landlord said it related to work done prior to the landlord’s ownership. The outstanding issues related to an external downpipe and discharge of an external drain and did not involve issues with the interior of the property or roof.
The landlord says the outstanding compliance issues did not affect the livability of the property or its suitability as a rental.
I am not satisfied the 01/04/25 LIM report shows the premises could not be lawfully occupied for residential purposes. The LIM report shows that a CoA was processing, but not granted, during the tenancy. However, that does not in and of itself show the property was not suitable for residential purposes. The LIM report also shows a CCC had not been granted for work completed in 1998, however, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the lack of CCC was an issue of oversight, rather than an indication the premises was unfit for residential purposes.
I am not satisfied evidence that the premises had a CoA processing and had not obtained a CCC during the tenancy meant the property was an unlawful residential premise. There is no evidence to suggest the premises fell into any of the three categories of unlawful residential premises identified in Tenant v Presland and Co Trustee Company listed above at [38].
The tenant’s claim for reimbursement of a portion of rent paid on the basis the premises was an unlawful residential premises is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196731 — Cleanliness at 20A Rossmay Terrace, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196731 — Cleanliness at 20A Rossmay Terrace, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions