What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211031 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 5211031?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,219.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,030.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Water: $15.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11904067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211031 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 5211031?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,219.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,030.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Water: $15.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11904067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 154 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211031 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211031 — net $614.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,030.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs	$1,219.00	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$333.50	Rubbish removal
Water	$15.22	Water
Net award	$614.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$614.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kane Gibbs must pay [The landlord/s] $557.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
22 Total award$2,674.72 Bond$2,060.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$614.72
The Bond Centre is to release the Bond to the Landlord.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 3 February 2025. The Landlord provided a Rent Summary dated 22 May 2025 which proves rent arrears of $1,030 at the end of the tenancy. I accept that evidence and the Landlord is entitled to recover that amount from the Tenant. Water rates
Under section 38(3) and (4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Water is supplied to the premises by Watercare and is charged on the basis of consumption. Invoices from Watercare supplied by the Landlord show that there are unpaid water charges of $15.22 directly attributable to the premises during the tenancy. The Tenant is liable for that amount. The damage to the wall and bathroom floor
The Landlord seeks to recover the following costs of repairing a hole in the lounge wall and damage to the bathroom flooring, as set out in an invoice dated 13 February 2025 from Selltech Ltd: a. $510 plus GST to repair the bathroom floor; and b. $550 plus GST to repair the hole in the lounge wall.
The Landlord has proven that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: a. The damage was not present when the tenancy started. The Landlord has provided an inspection report prepared on 13 December 2024 (the ingoing inspection report), just before the start of the tenancy. The photographs in that report show that the lounge wall and bathroom flooring were undamaged. b. The damage was caused during the tenancy. The Landlord has provided a “Residential Tenancy Exit Inspection Report” (the exit inspection report) from the end of the tenancy, which shows a large hole, at about knee height, in the lounge wall and damage to a section of the bathroom flooring. I am satisfied that this is not fair wear and tear.
To avoid liability, The tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The Tenant did not attend the hearing, so I have not heard his explanation. Given the size of the hole and its location, it is difficult to see how the damage could have been accidental. Instead, I consider it most likely that the hole was caused by careless conduct. The conduct may well have been deliberate, but I give the Tenant the benefit of the doubt on this point.
Likewise, given the amount of damage to the bathroom floor, which appears to have been caused by something scraping or scratching the floor, I find it most likely that the damage was at least careless, if not intentional. Again, I give the Tenant the benefit of the doubt in declining to find that the damage was deliberate.
Ultimately though, whether or not the damage was deliberate or careless does not affect the final outcome. That is because the Landlord does not have landlord’s insurance. As a result, section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA applies and the Tenant is liable for the repair cost up to a maximum of four weeks’ rent. The cost of repairing the hole in the wall and bathroom floor was less than four weeks’ rent. The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the total cost of the repair to the lounge wall and bathroom floor from the Tenant. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Landlord seeks to recover the cost of: a. Cleaning the premises. The 13 February 2025 tax invoice from Selltech Ltd includes a $537.63 charge for what Selltech Ltd described as a “basic move- out” clean; and b. Removing rubbish from the premises. On 26 February 2025, Selltech Ltd provided a quote of $333.50 to remove rubbish from the premises.
The RTA requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the Tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition,and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The premises were generally tidy at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection report shows that the premises were generally clean but worn, with marks on the walls, cupboards and drawers, worn or damaged skirting boards, damage to a bedroom wall and paint flaking and missing in places on windows sills.
The exit inspection report shows that, aside from the damage to the lounge wall and bathroom floor, the condition of the premises was generally consistent with the ingoing inspection report – other than the condition of the oven. The Tenant left the oven unclean, with the remains of a meal still sitting inside.
The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the reasonable cost of cleaning the oven, which I estimate at $50. It is not entitled to recover the other cleaning costs, as other than the oven, the premises were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition given the general condition of the premises. In that regard, I also note that Selltech Ltd referred to the cleaning it performed as a “basic move-out” clean.
Regarding the rubbish, the photographs in the exit inspection report show that the Tenant left behind a bed, a couch, numerous boxes, and several other items of abandoned belongings. I accept the Landlord’s submission that it has encouraged the Tenant to collect those items, but he has not.
The Landlord has provided a quote of $333.50 from Selltech Ltd to remove rubbish and abandoned belongings from the premises. That appears to be a reasonable estimate of the cost of removing the rubbish and the Landlord is entitled to recover that cost from the Tenant. Filing fee and name suppression
Because it has largely succeeded in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to name suppression and to recover the filing fee of $27 from the Tenant. Release of bond
The Landlord is entitled to receive the bond in part payment of the debt owed. I order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211031 — net $614.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,030.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs	$1,219.00	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$333.50	Rubbish removal
Water	$15.22	Water
Net award	$614.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$614.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kane Gibbs must pay [The landlord/s] $557.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
22 Total award$2,674.72 Bond$2,060.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$614.72
The Bond Centre is to release the Bond to the Landlord.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 3 February 2025. The Landlord provided a Rent Summary dated 22 May 2025 which proves rent arrears of $1,030 at the end of the tenancy. I accept that evidence and the Landlord is entitled to recover that amount from the Tenant. Water rates
Under section 38(3) and (4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Water is supplied to the premises by Watercare and is charged on the basis of consumption. Invoices from Watercare supplied by the Landlord show that there are unpaid water charges of $15.22 directly attributable to the premises during the tenancy. The Tenant is liable for that amount. The damage to the wall and bathroom floor
The Landlord seeks to recover the following costs of repairing a hole in the lounge wall and damage to the bathroom flooring, as set out in an invoice dated 13 February 2025 from Selltech Ltd: a. $510 plus GST to repair the bathroom floor; and b. $550 plus GST to repair the hole in the lounge wall.
The Landlord has proven that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: a. The damage was not present when the tenancy started. The Landlord has provided an inspection report prepared on 13 December 2024 (the ingoing inspection report), just before the start of the tenancy. The photographs in that report show that the lounge wall and bathroom flooring were undamaged. b. The damage was caused during the tenancy. The Landlord has provided a “Residential Tenancy Exit Inspection Report” (the exit inspection report) from the end of the tenancy, which shows a large hole, at about knee height, in the lounge wall and damage to a section of the bathroom flooring. I am satisfied that this is not fair wear and tear.
To avoid liability, The tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The Tenant did not attend the hearing, so I have not heard his explanation. Given the size of the hole and its location, it is difficult to see how the damage could have been accidental. Instead, I consider it most likely that the hole was caused by careless conduct. The conduct may well have been deliberate, but I give the Tenant the benefit of the doubt on this point.
Likewise, given the amount of damage to the bathroom floor, which appears to have been caused by something scraping or scratching the floor, I find it most likely that the damage was at least careless, if not intentional. Again, I give the Tenant the benefit of the doubt in declining to find that the damage was deliberate.
Ultimately though, whether or not the damage was deliberate or careless does not affect the final outcome. That is because the Landlord does not have landlord’s insurance. As a result, section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA applies and the Tenant is liable for the repair cost up to a maximum of four weeks’ rent. The cost of repairing the hole in the wall and bathroom floor was less than four weeks’ rent. The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the total cost of the repair to the lounge wall and bathroom floor from the Tenant. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Landlord seeks to recover the cost of: a. Cleaning the premises. The 13 February 2025 tax invoice from Selltech Ltd includes a $537.63 charge for what Selltech Ltd described as a “basic move- out” clean; and b. Removing rubbish from the premises. On 26 February 2025, Selltech Ltd provided a quote of $333.50 to remove rubbish from the premises.
The RTA requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the Tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition,and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The premises were generally tidy at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection report shows that the premises were generally clean but worn, with marks on the walls, cupboards and drawers, worn or damaged skirting boards, damage to a bedroom wall and paint flaking and missing in places on windows sills.
The exit inspection report shows that, aside from the damage to the lounge wall and bathroom floor, the condition of the premises was generally consistent with the ingoing inspection report – other than the condition of the oven. The Tenant left the oven unclean, with the remains of a meal still sitting inside.
The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the reasonable cost of cleaning the oven, which I estimate at $50. It is not entitled to recover the other cleaning costs, as other than the oven, the premises were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition given the general condition of the premises. In that regard, I also note that Selltech Ltd referred to the cleaning it performed as a “basic move-out” clean.
Regarding the rubbish, the photographs in the exit inspection report show that the Tenant left behind a bed, a couch, numerous boxes, and several other items of abandoned belongings. I accept the Landlord’s submission that it has encouraged the Tenant to collect those items, but he has not.
The Landlord has provided a quote of $333.50 from Selltech Ltd to remove rubbish and abandoned belongings from the premises. That appears to be a reasonable estimate of the cost of removing the rubbish and the Landlord is entitled to recover that cost from the Tenant. Filing fee and name suppression
Because it has largely succeeded in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to name suppression and to recover the filing fee of $27 from the Tenant. Release of bond
The Landlord is entitled to receive the bond in part payment of the debt owed. I order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211031 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 154 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211031 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 154 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

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