What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208513 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 5208513?

Plug: $8.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208513?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12653380-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208513 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 5208513?

Plug: $8.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208513?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12653380-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room Suite 909, 76 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208513 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208513 — net $8.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Plug	$8.00	Plug
Net award	$8.00
Bond	$1,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Excella Property Rentals Limited As An Agent For New Futura Trustee Limited $8.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for replacement flooring and repair of the waste disposal unit are not proven and therefore dismissed.
The tenant’s claims for interest on the bond and the landlord’s conduct following the end of the tenancy are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Excella Property Rentals Limited As An Agent For New Futura Trustee Limited: $8.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,712.00

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing.
The Tribunal was assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant rented a one-bedroom apartment from the landlord. During the tenancy [the property manager] was the property manager. The tenancy ended on the 31 January this year.
The tenant filed her application first on the 11 March 2025. She was seeking a full refund of the bond, compensation for her bond being withheld from her, and an apology from the landlord for the landlord’s conduct towards her after the tenancy ended.
The landlord filed a cross application on the 25 March for the cost of replacement flooring in the bedroom, replacement plug in the bathroom and repair costs for the waste disposal unit.
Both parties claim the filing fee as well. The landlord’s claim for damage.
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. The carpet in the bedroom.
The landlord is claiming that the tenant damaged the carpet to the extent that the carpet needed replacement. The landlord replaced the carpet with flooring as it was a cheaper option. The landlord claims $700 being the total costs of the replacement flooring.
Nearing the end of the tenancy the landlord sent the tenant a vacate pack which stated that the carpet was to be shampooed and recommended two cleaners – the tenant engaged one of the cleaners listed, [the cleaner].
The tenant paid the cleaner who was supposed to undertake the cleaning on the 31 January, the last day of the tenancy. The cleaning fee charged included a carpet shampoo.
On the 2 February the landlord had a text conversation with the cleaner ([the cleaner]), that text exchange shows that the property manger asked the cleaner if he had done a carpet shampoo at the premises. He confirmed that he had not.
On the 3 February the landlord carried out the vacate inspection. The property manager says that she found three areas of staining in the bedroom, two small 2 cm brownish stains in front of the wardrobe and a small dirty area where the bedroom carpet meets the lounge floor. The landlord had photographs of these stains.
On the 4 February the landlord sent a message to [the cleaner] saying: “Can you shampoo the carpet with strong chemicals again?”
The stains were not removed by further cleaning, and in fact it appears from the photographs taken on the 8 February that the attempts by [the cleaner] to remove the stain, made the problem much worse as it discoloured a larger area of the carpet.
The landlord says that the carpet needed to be replaced before new tenants moved in on the 12 February and so the owner chose to replace the flooring.
The tenant says that in a video of the property taken at 10pm on the 30 January the stains are not visible. She does not accept that she caused the brown stains. She says that even if the Tribunal finds that she did cause the small brown stains, that it was the landlord’s direction to [the cleaner] to use strong chemicals to remove the stains that damaged the carpet. The tenant says that the two small brown stains did not warrant replacing the carpet. The tenant also says that the costs of replacement requested by the landlord do not take into account the age of the carpet, depreciation and betterment.
The landlord says that the carpet was in excellent condition despite its age of 7 years, and that the landlord provides instructions to all tenants on how to care for carpets including that any stains are attended to by stain removal within 24 hours of the staining. The landlord says that [the cleaner] was the tenant’s cleaner and that if he damaged the carpet then he did so as the tenant’s cleaner and the tenant is liable.
The landlord submits that the carpet needed replacement to ensure that the apartment was ‘attractive’ for incoming tenants. The landlord says that the carpet was a good quality carpet and should be expected to have lasted 15-20 years.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is likely that there were two small brown stains in the carpet near the wardrobe at the end of the tenancy. I say this because in the tenant’s video and pictures there is a small area of discolouration where the landlord says one of the stains it, and the other area is not visible in the video.
The landlord provided ingoing inspection report and photographs and there is no staining in the ingoing report.
However, I am not satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the costs of replacing the flooring for the following reasons: a. I do not accept that the two small stains present in the property on the 3 February inspection warranted total floor replacement. b. I consider that the landlord would not have been able to rent out the apartment with these two small stains. They are small and do not detract from the overall condition of the property. c. It was the landlord who instructed [the cleaner] to reclean the carpets on the 4 February with ‘strong chemicals’. Therefore, I consider that [the cleaner] was acting as the landlord’s contractor at that time. As the damage occurred after the landlord instructed [the cleaner] to undertake the stain removal, then I consider that it is [the cleaner] that is liable to the landlord for the damage not the tenant. The tenant did not tell [the cleaner] to carry out further stain removal, and the tenant did not pay [the cleaner] for this work either. d. The carpets are 7 years old; this is two years older than the depreciable lifespan in the IRD depreciation rates for Residential Tenancies. 1 In other words, the carpet had ‘outlived’ its lifespan and would have been due for replacement in the near future. e. There is no pattern of staining, that would indicate intentionality or reckless disregard.
The landlord’s claim for replacement flooring is dismissed as not proven. The waste disposal unit.
The landlord says that when conducting an ingoing inspection for the new tenants on the 8 February she noticed that the waste disposal unit was making a loud and unusual noise. She suspected that there was something in the system. A maintenance person came to clean the system, and the maintenance person found a length of string with hairs in it.
The tenant says that she did not put the string in the waste disposal, she does not use string and does not know how it would have got there. The tenant says she rarely used the waste disposal unit but that it was working at the end of the tenancy, and she noticed no noise. She said that [the cleaner] did not report any issues to her after doing the cleaning.
I am not satisfied that the tenant put the string in the waste disposal unit, because the problem was not detected until the 8 February. The landlord did an exit inspection on the 3 February and did not notice any problem. Between the 3 February and the 8 February there was further cleaning carried out at the property and it possible that the string was put into the drain during that time. 1 Historical Depreciation rates for assets acquired before 1 April 2025 , IR267 2010 [49]
The landlord’s claim for the repair of the waste disposal unit is not proven and therefore dismissed. The plug.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy there was a plug missing from the bathroom sink. The tenant accepts that she may have taken the plug and therefore the cost of the plug is awarded to the landlord. The bond.
As the landlord has only proven the claim in respect of the plug, then that amount is to be deducted from the bond and the remainder of the bond returned to the tenant.
There is no ability in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for the Tribunal to award interest on the bond. When either party files an application to the Tribunal after the tenancy has ended this puts the bond in dispute. I appreciate that the tenant has waited a considerable amount of time for her bond, but that is simply a consequence of the matter awaiting hearing.
The tenant also asked the landlord to apologise for the way the tenant was treated after the tenancy ended. The Tribunal cannot require a party to make an apology to the other, and also cannot deal with the behaviour of one party to the other after the tenancy ends. Name suppression and filing fee.
Both parties requested the filing fee- as both have been somewhat successful and unsuccessful I do not grant either of them the filing fee.
The landlord and the tenant both requested name suppression. S95A RTA requires me to suppress the name of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in a claim. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful because she has successful defended the majority of the landlord’s claims and she has been successful in her claim for the bond.
I do not consider that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful, although they have only in part been successful and therefore I do not grant name suppression. The public interest knowing the names of landlord’s who bring unsuccessful claims to the tribunal outweighs the private interests of the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208513 — net $8.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Plug	$8.00	Plug
Net award	$8.00
Bond	$1,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Excella Property Rentals Limited As An Agent For New Futura Trustee Limited $8.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for replacement flooring and repair of the waste disposal unit are not proven and therefore dismissed.
The tenant’s claims for interest on the bond and the landlord’s conduct following the end of the tenancy are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Excella Property Rentals Limited As An Agent For New Futura Trustee Limited: $8.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,712.00

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing.
The Tribunal was assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant rented a one-bedroom apartment from the landlord. During the tenancy [the property manager] was the property manager. The tenancy ended on the 31 January this year.
The tenant filed her application first on the 11 March 2025. She was seeking a full refund of the bond, compensation for her bond being withheld from her, and an apology from the landlord for the landlord’s conduct towards her after the tenancy ended.
The landlord filed a cross application on the 25 March for the cost of replacement flooring in the bedroom, replacement plug in the bathroom and repair costs for the waste disposal unit.
Both parties claim the filing fee as well. The landlord’s claim for damage.
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. The carpet in the bedroom.
The landlord is claiming that the tenant damaged the carpet to the extent that the carpet needed replacement. The landlord replaced the carpet with flooring as it was a cheaper option. The landlord claims $700 being the total costs of the replacement flooring.
Nearing the end of the tenancy the landlord sent the tenant a vacate pack which stated that the carpet was to be shampooed and recommended two cleaners – the tenant engaged one of the cleaners listed, [the cleaner].
The tenant paid the cleaner who was supposed to undertake the cleaning on the 31 January, the last day of the tenancy. The cleaning fee charged included a carpet shampoo.
On the 2 February the landlord had a text conversation with the cleaner ([the cleaner]), that text exchange shows that the property manger asked the cleaner if he had done a carpet shampoo at the premises. He confirmed that he had not.
On the 3 February the landlord carried out the vacate inspection. The property manager says that she found three areas of staining in the bedroom, two small 2 cm brownish stains in front of the wardrobe and a small dirty area where the bedroom carpet meets the lounge floor. The landlord had photographs of these stains.
On the 4 February the landlord sent a message to [the cleaner] saying: “Can you shampoo the carpet with strong chemicals again?”
The stains were not removed by further cleaning, and in fact it appears from the photographs taken on the 8 February that the attempts by [the cleaner] to remove the stain, made the problem much worse as it discoloured a larger area of the carpet.
The landlord says that the carpet needed to be replaced before new tenants moved in on the 12 February and so the owner chose to replace the flooring.
The tenant says that in a video of the property taken at 10pm on the 30 January the stains are not visible. She does not accept that she caused the brown stains. She says that even if the Tribunal finds that she did cause the small brown stains, that it was the landlord’s direction to [the cleaner] to use strong chemicals to remove the stains that damaged the carpet. The tenant says that the two small brown stains did not warrant replacing the carpet. The tenant also says that the costs of replacement requested by the landlord do not take into account the age of the carpet, depreciation and betterment.
The landlord says that the carpet was in excellent condition despite its age of 7 years, and that the landlord provides instructions to all tenants on how to care for carpets including that any stains are attended to by stain removal within 24 hours of the staining. The landlord says that [the cleaner] was the tenant’s cleaner and that if he damaged the carpet then he did so as the tenant’s cleaner and the tenant is liable.
The landlord submits that the carpet needed replacement to ensure that the apartment was ‘attractive’ for incoming tenants. The landlord says that the carpet was a good quality carpet and should be expected to have lasted 15-20 years.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is likely that there were two small brown stains in the carpet near the wardrobe at the end of the tenancy. I say this because in the tenant’s video and pictures there is a small area of discolouration where the landlord says one of the stains it, and the other area is not visible in the video.
The landlord provided ingoing inspection report and photographs and there is no staining in the ingoing report.
However, I am not satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the costs of replacing the flooring for the following reasons: a. I do not accept that the two small stains present in the property on the 3 February inspection warranted total floor replacement. b. I consider that the landlord would not have been able to rent out the apartment with these two small stains. They are small and do not detract from the overall condition of the property. c. It was the landlord who instructed [the cleaner] to reclean the carpets on the 4 February with ‘strong chemicals’. Therefore, I consider that [the cleaner] was acting as the landlord’s contractor at that time. As the damage occurred after the landlord instructed [the cleaner] to undertake the stain removal, then I consider that it is [the cleaner] that is liable to the landlord for the damage not the tenant. The tenant did not tell [the cleaner] to carry out further stain removal, and the tenant did not pay [the cleaner] for this work either. d. The carpets are 7 years old; this is two years older than the depreciable lifespan in the IRD depreciation rates for Residential Tenancies. 1 In other words, the carpet had ‘outlived’ its lifespan and would have been due for replacement in the near future. e. There is no pattern of staining, that would indicate intentionality or reckless disregard.
The landlord’s claim for replacement flooring is dismissed as not proven. The waste disposal unit.
The landlord says that when conducting an ingoing inspection for the new tenants on the 8 February she noticed that the waste disposal unit was making a loud and unusual noise. She suspected that there was something in the system. A maintenance person came to clean the system, and the maintenance person found a length of string with hairs in it.
The tenant says that she did not put the string in the waste disposal, she does not use string and does not know how it would have got there. The tenant says she rarely used the waste disposal unit but that it was working at the end of the tenancy, and she noticed no noise. She said that [the cleaner] did not report any issues to her after doing the cleaning.
I am not satisfied that the tenant put the string in the waste disposal unit, because the problem was not detected until the 8 February. The landlord did an exit inspection on the 3 February and did not notice any problem. Between the 3 February and the 8 February there was further cleaning carried out at the property and it possible that the string was put into the drain during that time. 1 Historical Depreciation rates for assets acquired before 1 April 2025 , IR267 2010 [49]
The landlord’s claim for the repair of the waste disposal unit is not proven and therefore dismissed. The plug.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy there was a plug missing from the bathroom sink. The tenant accepts that she may have taken the plug and therefore the cost of the plug is awarded to the landlord. The bond.
As the landlord has only proven the claim in respect of the plug, then that amount is to be deducted from the bond and the remainder of the bond returned to the tenant.
There is no ability in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for the Tribunal to award interest on the bond. When either party files an application to the Tribunal after the tenancy has ended this puts the bond in dispute. I appreciate that the tenant has waited a considerable amount of time for her bond, but that is simply a consequence of the matter awaiting hearing.
The tenant also asked the landlord to apologise for the way the tenant was treated after the tenancy ended. The Tribunal cannot require a party to make an apology to the other, and also cannot deal with the behaviour of one party to the other after the tenancy ends. Name suppression and filing fee.
Both parties requested the filing fee- as both have been somewhat successful and unsuccessful I do not grant either of them the filing fee.
The landlord and the tenant both requested name suppression. S95A RTA requires me to suppress the name of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in a claim. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful because she has successful defended the majority of the landlord’s claims and she has been successful in her claim for the bond.
I do not consider that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful, although they have only in part been successful and therefore I do not grant name suppression. The public interest knowing the names of landlord’s who bring unsuccessful claims to the tribunal outweighs the private interests of the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208513 — Tenancy dispute at Room Suite 909, 76 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208513 — Tenancy dispute at Room Suite 909, 76 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions