What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5216432?

The tribunal order states: SAMREEN YOUSUF to pay 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5216432?

Compensation: Fence: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Benchtop: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Benchtop Materials: $364.20 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $300.00 awarded to landlord; General Materials: $165.80 awarded to landlord; Painting Materials: $201.35 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $70.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216432?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12206334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5216432?

The tribunal order states: SAMREEN YOUSUF to pay 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5216432?

Compensation: Fence: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Benchtop: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Benchtop Materials: $364.20 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $300.00 awarded to landlord; General Materials: $165.80 awarded to landlord; Painting Materials: $201.35 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $70.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216432?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12206334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Childers Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5216432 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216432 — net $605.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Flooring	$300.00		Repairs: Flooring
Repairs: Painting materials	$201.35		Repairs: Painting materials
Repairs: Benchtop	$414.00		Repairs: Benchtop
Repairs: Benchtop materials	$364.20		andlord also seeks compensation for materials required for the repair totalling $364.20.
Repairs: General materials	$165.80		Repairs: General materials
Rubbish removal: Flexi bin	$70.00		pair which have not been approved by the Tribunal. The tenant is ordered to pay $70.00.
Compensation: Fence		$160.00	landlord is ordered to pay $20.00 per week for the period of 8 weeks ,totalling $160.00. Stove Top
General damages		$1,000.00	General damages
Total award	$1,765.35	$1,160.00
Net award	$605.35
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$605.35

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216432 — net $605.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Flooring	$300.00		Repairs: Flooring
Repairs: Painting materials	$201.35		Repairs: Painting materials
Repairs: Benchtop	$414.00		Repairs: Benchtop
Repairs: Benchtop materials	$364.20		andlord also seeks compensation for materials required for the repair totalling $364.20.
Repairs: General materials	$165.80		Repairs: General materials
Rubbish removal: Flexi bin	$70.00		pair which have not been approved by the Tribunal. The tenant is ordered to pay $70.00.
Compensation: Fence		$160.00	landlord is ordered to pay $20.00 per week for the period of 8 weeks ,totalling $160.00. Stove Top
General damages		$1,000.00	General damages
Total award	$1,765.35	$1,160.00
Net award	$605.35
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$605.35

Order

SAMREEN YOUSUF to pay 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For Pravin And Rajneeta Chand $605.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (3284009-006) immediately apportioned as follows: 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For Pravin And Rajneeta Chand: $605.35 SAMREEN YOUSUF: $1,294.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 21 July 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 23 December 2018 and ended on 26 October 2024.
The landlord seeks compensation for; • Garden work. • Flooring replacement. • Painting • Damaged bench top. • Materials for the repair work. • Hire of a flexi- bin.
The tenant seeks compensation for ; • Failure to maintain the fence. • Failure to maintain the stove top. • Failure to provide premises in a clean condition. • Pest control. • Heating which does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. • Release of the bond. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this case, the burden of proof is on the respective parties to prove their claims.
The parties must each prove their claim on what is called the “balance of probabilities.” The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
In the decision that follows, I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord’s claims
This is a three bedroom house (“the premises”).The current property managers took over management of the premises in 2021. The premises were repainted at the commencement of the tenancy. The carpet was at least 2 years old at the start of the tenancy, but the landlord described it as being in good condition. The vinyl flooring was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The kitchen was dated but in good condition. The exterior fencing required work. Garden
A tenant is required to leave the gardens in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of an inspection report and photos of the premises taken at the commencement of the tenancy in 2018. The report and photos indicate that the lawns and gardens were tidy.
The landlord provided photos of the premises taken three days after the end of the tenancy. In the spring grass grows quickly. The photos suggest that the tenant had mown the lawns just prior to the end of the tenancy. The gardens had not been left reasonably tidy. The landlord provided an invoice for gardening of $350.00. Having viewed the photos, I consider that a reasonable charge to bring the gardens to a reasonably tidy standard would be $250.00. The tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet
The landlord provided photos of the carpet showing a burn mark. The mark occurred during the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the carpet replacement and vinyl planking of $4,048.00.The landlord accepts that depreciation and betterment would need to be taken into account in any claim and seeks compensation of $1,012.00, being one quarter of the replacement cost.
The landlord had made a claim under an insurance policy. An email from the landlord’s insurer dated 20 November 2024 state; “I have reviewed the provided inspection report from pre- tenancy dated 18 December 2018 and unfortunately, I cannot accept the replacement of the carpets, the existing carpets were very worn and not in good condition before these tenants moved in. In the latest inspection report dated 19 June 2024 it only mentions were and tear to the carpets in the bedrooms, not stains or marks and there are no photos of the marks, it does not mention the marks on the carpet in the lounge however this carpet was damaged already due to being torn”.(sic)
The letter from the insurer indicates that the carpet was not in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The condition and age of the carpet and its depreciated value is such that I do not consider that compensation for carpet replacement is warranted. Some damage has occurred to the planking. The planking was new at the commencement of the tenancy. As best as I am able to on the limited evidence made available, I consider that compensation for that damage is warranted, but is the costs for repair is limited to $300.00. I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Painting
The interior of the premises had been recently painted at the commencement of the tenancy. Despite this, the pre tenancy inspection report refers to there being “normal wear and tear marks” on most walls.
The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show some adhesive transfers on the wall. The paint was lifted when the adhesives were removed. The tenant said that the “fresh” damage to the walls was commensurate with the normal wear and tear during a tenancy of nearly 6 years. With the exception of the repairs required to remove the adhesive stickers, I consider that the balance of the marks to the walls to be fair wear and tear.
It is difficult to access the compensation that should be paid to the landlord for the work to repair the sticker removal damage. The owner has completed the work himself. He has not charged or provided an invoice for his labour. The owner has provided extensive receipts for the materials used during the work. Those materials amount to $201.35. I consider that compensation of $201.35 is a reasonable amount for completion of the work and the tenant is ordered to pay $201.35 to the landlord. Benchtop
The landlord provided photos of damage to the benchtop. Brown marks are present which were not apparent in the photos from the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the repair costs for the bench top of $1,656.00. The landlord accepts that the counter top was not new and so has reduced the claim to 25% of the invoiced costs, namely $414.00. The tenant is ordered to pay $414.00 to the landlord. The landlord also seeks compensation for materials required for the repair totalling $364.20.
The tenant accepted that the damage to the benchtop had been caused by her. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation to the landlord of $364.20. Materials
The landlord carried out the repair work that he says was required. The landlord provided receipts for the materials and equipment used totalling $899.91.
The tenant says that during the course of the tenancy no maintenance work was done by the landlord. The repairs conducted by the landlord were not referred to previously in any of the inspection reports by the landlord. The obligation to prove that the compensation amounts claimed relate to damage caused during the tenancy, is on the landlord. The landlord is required to prove the claim with evidence on the balance of probabilities. I find that the following claims by the landlord are proven to that standard; Door stops$3.88 Smoke alarm in kitchen$23.97 Door knob set$7.95 Light shade (depreciated amount)$130.00 Total$165.80 The balance of the landlord’s claim for materials costs is dismissed. Flexi Bin
The landlord hired a flexi bin to dispose of building waste at a cost of $164.90. I consider some of this to be a reasonable expense, given the work that the landlord has carried out which has been approved by the Tribunal in this order. I have reduced the amount of compensation payable by the tenant to take into account those items of repair which have not been approved by the Tribunal. The tenant is ordered to pay $70.00. Tenant’s claims Fence
There is a wooden fence at the front of the premises. The tenant says that the landlord has failed to maintain the fence. The tenant says that it was in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. They advised the property manager at that time and say that they have consistently reminded the landlord at each subsequent inspection. The tenant said that the property manager responded by saying that the owner was ignoring it.
The fence eventually collapsed in on 23 May 2021. The tenant advised the landlord on the same day. The tenant was unable to give specific evidence is to when the fence had been repaired by the landlord.
The landlord said in evidence that the fence was repaired on 19 July 2021, a matter of 8 weeks after it had collapsed.
A landlord is required to complete repairs within a reasonable time of being advised by a tenant of any damage. What will be a reasonable time will be dependent on the nature of the damage. Whilst the photos provided to the Tribunal indicate that the fence was in a poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it was only in May 2021 when the fence collapsed, that there was in my view, an obligation on the landlord to complete repairs. Those repairs were completed within a period of less than two months. The inconvenience to the tenant during that period was limited.
An award of exemplary damages requires a landlord to have acted intentionally. I do not consider that the failure to maintain on this occasion was intentional and as a result an award of exemplary damages is not appropriate. I accept that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenant in not having a fence during that limited period. The landlord is ordered to pay $20.00 per week for the period of 8 weeks ,totalling $160.00. Stove Top
The tenant said that the stove top was old. The timer did not work. The stove top glass was broken. The tenant says that the landlord has failed to maintain the stove top. This resulted in a fire on the stove top whilst the tenant whilst it was in use. The fire occurred on 8 May 2024. The tenant provided a video of the fire. The landlord was advised of the issue at an inspection. The tenant says that the stove top was not replaced or repaired during the tenancy.
The landlord said that the stove top was in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy, but that the tenant had not cleaned it correctly by cleaning and scraping the top. The landlord said that a video of the issue was sent to them on 9 May 2024. On 13 May 2024, a replacement oven was installed. There is an obvious conflict of evidence between the parties on this point. The tenant’s evidence on whether the stove had been replaced was vague. I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The burden of proof is on the tenant. In this matter the tenant has not proven that it is more likely than not that the stove was not maintained and replaced. The claim is dismissed. Failure to provide premises in a clean condition.
Section 45(1)(a) RTA provides that a landlord must provide premises in a clean condition.
The tenant said that the carpets had fleas at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant provided photos of one of her children with what appear to be flea bites and photos of fleas.
The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 4 January 2019 asking if previous tenants had kept pets at the premises and explaining that the child had numerous bites. The tenant asked the landlord to have the carpet cleaned professionally.
A letter from Starship Children’s Emergency Department dated 2 January 2019 records that the child had been seen with multiple bites consistent with flea bites.
Section 109(2)(b) RTA states that a party to a tenancy may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. More than 12 months has passed since the act occurred and accordingly the Tribunal may not award exemplary damages. I do consider that there has been a failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The evidence indicates that fleas have been present almost immediately at the commencement of the tenancy. There is a period of 9 days between the tenancy commencing and the child being taken to hospital. There has been a breach of the RTA for which damages should be awarded for the breach by the landlord.
In Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Limited [2022] 4323927 the Tribunal held that in assessing the quantum of general damages, the tribunal must take into account the following factors; • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
With reference to the District Court decision in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667 the Tribunal set out three bands of awards. A. At the lower end of the scale, where the breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00 B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear; an award of over $3,000.00.
I accept that the tenant was upset by the effect of the flea bites on her child. The tenant has suffered worry and stress as a result of the bites. I consider that the tenants emotional harm falls within band A. In all the circumstances, I order the landlord to pay the tenant damages of $1,000.00. Heating
All residential premises must have complied with the Healthy Homes heating standard by 1 July 2025. The tenancy had ended prior to that date. The heating requirements in the Healthy Home standards did not apply to this tenancy. The application is dismissed.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this application. No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee and the applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216432 — Property damage at 26 Childers Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216432 — Property damage at 26 Childers Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions