What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229236 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 5229236?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $227.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,130.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $405.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229236?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13549508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229236 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 5229236?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $227.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,130.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $405.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229236?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13549508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229236 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229236 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229236 — net $2,151.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$227.14	Rent arrears
Water rates	$405.33	Water rates
Wall repair	$322.00	Wall repair
Curtain replacement	$200.00	Curtain replacement
Remote control replacement	$240.00	Remote control replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$600.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$2,130.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,151.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,151.44

Claims and awards for application 5229236 — net $2,151.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $227.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $405.33
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Wall repair

Amount: $322.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repair

Curtain replacement

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Curtain replacement

Remote control replacement

Amount: $240.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remote control replacement

Lawns and Garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,151.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.03 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$227.14 Water rates$405.33 Wall repair$322.00 Curtain replacement$200.00 Remote control replacement$240.00 Lawns and Garden work$600.00 Rubbish removal$2,130.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,151.47 Minus bond-$2,000.03 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,151.44

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
A hearing was convened today in Waitakere. The Property Manager was in attendance, as was [The tenant/s]. The tenant was assisted by her son, and a court officer who speaks Filipino.

BACKGROUND

This is a tenancy of long duration, commencing in 2017. This claim is filed against three co-tenants.
The tenancy was terminated by way of Tribunal order dated 13 March 2025 being application 5085490, that order ending the tenancy as of 30 March 2025. The Tenancy was terminated on the basis that the tenant had sublet the premises. I note in the earlier order, the adjudicator indicated that the tenants were not living on the premises, but that is disputed by the tenant today. At the hearing today, the property manager advised that there were 12 people living in the Tenancy.
After the tenancy was terminated, the property manager entered into a new tenancy agreement with eight of the tenants who had been living in the property at the time of the termination.
But as indicated above, this tenancy came to an end on 30 March 2025.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears of $227.14 b. Water rates of $405.33 c. Wall damage repairs of $322.00 d. Curtain replacement of $1,832.69 e. Key and remote control replacement of $240.00 f. Gardening costs of $1800.00; and g. Rubbish removal of $2,130.00.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 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 likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims advanced by the landlord in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears and water rates.
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants pay rent arrears of $227.14, being arrears until 30 March 2025 and water rates of $405.33, due at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant considered they were up to date with rent. At the hearing we went through the rent ledger. That shows that the tenants were regular with rent payments, but the problem is that they were in arrears (behind) from November 2023, and they never caught up from that. So while the payments were regular, there was a consistent arrears that carried over.
On the basis of the information I have available, I find that this claim has been established.
In terms of the water rates, the landlord has claimed $405.33 for water rates.
The tenant says that there is another dwelling at the rear of the tenancy, and they pay the utilities for that dwelling also.
The landlord responded that the utilities are in the landlord’s name, and the rear dwelling has a check meter. So when the account for the water bill arrives, the landlord takes the reading from the check meter, calculates what each dwelling used in terms of water, and raised an invoice based on that calculation.
At the hearing, we spent considerable time going through the water charges, and I am entirely satisfied that the landlord’s approach was correct. I can see that the landlord has taken photographs of the check meter, and each water account has been annotated with the breakdown between the two dwellings. I am very confident in concluding that the landlord’s water charges were for the Tenancy dwelling only.
The evidence supports a finding that the landlord’s calculations around the water claims are correct, and the claim is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Wall repairs
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay compensation for damage to the walls of $322.00.
A photograph has been provided showing a reasonably sizeable hole in the bathroom wall. Based on the photograph, I would estimate it to be about the size of a small plate. The landlord also provided a photograph taken prior to the tenancy which did not show that hole.
The landlord has provided a quotation of $322.00 for repairs.
The tenant disputes that the hole in the wall was caused during their tenancy.
On balance, I consider it more likely than not that the hole was caused during this tenancy. The damage was fairly obvious, and if it had been there over the duration of the tenancy, it would have been seen prior. While I cannot discount that the hole was caused after the tenants left the premises, that is less likely, and I cannot see any likely explanation for why the landlord would have put the hole in the wall.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and I consider the tenants must be liable for this damage cost. Claim 3 – Curtain replacement
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants fund curtain replacement costs of $1,832.69.
The landlord states that there were curtains provided in 2017 which were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that any curtains would need depreciation, but in this case, there was nothing returned at all.
The tenants say that when the premises were rented, there were no curtains in 2017.
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant” like curtains.
On the evidence available, I consider it more likely than not that curtains were provided in the tenancy. I accept they were not returned to the landlord. However, as the landlord has accepted, depreciation must be applied to the curtains. I am uncertain as to the age the curtains were at the start of the tenancy, but I note the Inland Revenue depreciation guide guides (IR 265) record that the estimated useful life of curtains in a residential tenancy, would be eight years. That is about the length of time this Tenancy went for.
While I accept that the curtains would have been almost completely depreciated given the length of the tenancy, they should have been returned nevertheless. It is reasonable to make a nominal order for the curtain replacement, which I set at $200. Claim 4 – Key and remote replacement
The landlord seeks costs to replace remote controls totalling $240.00.
The landlord states that when the premises were returned, the remote controls were not provided. The landlord referred to a photograph which he says was taken at the start of the tenancy (which shows two remote controls).
The tenant disputes receiving any remote controls.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $240.00 from ‘Door Master’ for “Garage door motor’s receiver and 2 remotes with setting”.
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
I can seen no reason not to accept the photograph provided of the keys and remote controls provided at the start of the tenancy. That supports a conclusion that two remote controls were provided to the tenants, I accept they were not returned. The tenant is liable for the full cost of the remote control replacement. Claim 5 – Gardening costs
The landlord seeks gardening costs of $1,800.00.
The landlord’s position is that the gardens were extensively overgrown at the end of the tenancy. An agreement was reached with the new tenants that two weeks rent was excused for them tidying up the yard. The landlord relies on the photographs taken on 6 April.
The tenant’s position is that the garden was mowed before moving out. The tenants had a gardener they would pay $65 per month, and the lawns were mowed two weeks prior to the tenancy end.
A quotation has been provided from “Ming Pang” for “lawn mowing and cleaning up all the vines and small plants on the ground”.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. That includes the gardens. The landlord has provided photographs that were taken within a week of the tenancy ending, and without hesitation, I find that the gardens were overgrown and far from tidy condition. I do not accept that what is shown in the photographs would represent growth over the one week after the end of this tenancy.
The tenant must be responsible for the gardening cost, but I do not accept that a claim of $1,800 would be reasonable. In short, I do not consider that would represent a commercial rate for tidying the gardens. In the absence of better evidence, I have determined that an order at $600 would represent a more realistic commercial rate, and that is ordered. Claim 6 – Rubbish removal costs
The final claim from the landlord is a claim for rubbish removal costs of $2,130.00.
The landlord’s position is that there was extensive rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants position is that rubbish that was left in the garage was for the tenant who continued living in the tenancy. Besides that, the tenants consider that the claim is excessive.
The landlord responded that this is the actual cost of the rubbish removal.
An invoice has been provided from HB Furniture Removals Ltd, for rubbish removal totalling $2,300.00.
As indicated above, the tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they are required to remove any rubbish. One of the difficulties that arises in this case is that the tenants did not return vacant possession to the landlord, but that was with the landlord’s consent, when the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with eight of the existing tenants.
I accept that the landlord has incurred this rubbish removal cost. The claimed cost for the rubbish removal is confirmed in the invoice provided, that is the actual cost faced. Taking a strict approach, which I will in this case, I find that the responsibility for the rubbish removal cost must sit with the outgoing tenants. At the end of the tenancy, it is the outgoing tenants that are responsible for returning the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If the tenants consider that it was subtenants who are responsible for that cleaning cost, then they are able to bring a claim against those subtenants. But strictly speaking, there would be no legal obligation that the sub-tenants would have to the landlord to have the rubbish removed before their next tenancy started. This claim is therefore ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and landlord name suppression is granted.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229236 — net $2,151.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$227.14	Rent arrears
Water rates	$405.33	Water rates
Wall repair	$322.00	Wall repair
Curtain replacement	$200.00	Curtain replacement
Remote control replacement	$240.00	Remote control replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$600.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$2,130.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,151.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,151.44

Claims and awards for application 5229236 — net $2,151.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $227.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $405.33
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Wall repair

Amount: $322.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repair

Curtain replacement

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Curtain replacement

Remote control replacement

Amount: $240.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remote control replacement

Lawns and Garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,151.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.03 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$227.14 Water rates$405.33 Wall repair$322.00 Curtain replacement$200.00 Remote control replacement$240.00 Lawns and Garden work$600.00 Rubbish removal$2,130.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,151.47 Minus bond-$2,000.03 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,151.44

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
A hearing was convened today in Waitakere. The Property Manager was in attendance, as was [The tenant/s]. The tenant was assisted by her son, and a court officer who speaks Filipino.

BACKGROUND

This is a tenancy of long duration, commencing in 2017. This claim is filed against three co-tenants.
The tenancy was terminated by way of Tribunal order dated 13 March 2025 being application 5085490, that order ending the tenancy as of 30 March 2025. The Tenancy was terminated on the basis that the tenant had sublet the premises. I note in the earlier order, the adjudicator indicated that the tenants were not living on the premises, but that is disputed by the tenant today. At the hearing today, the property manager advised that there were 12 people living in the Tenancy.
After the tenancy was terminated, the property manager entered into a new tenancy agreement with eight of the tenants who had been living in the property at the time of the termination.
But as indicated above, this tenancy came to an end on 30 March 2025.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears of $227.14 b. Water rates of $405.33 c. Wall damage repairs of $322.00 d. Curtain replacement of $1,832.69 e. Key and remote control replacement of $240.00 f. Gardening costs of $1800.00; and g. Rubbish removal of $2,130.00.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 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 likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims advanced by the landlord in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears and water rates.
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants pay rent arrears of $227.14, being arrears until 30 March 2025 and water rates of $405.33, due at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant considered they were up to date with rent. At the hearing we went through the rent ledger. That shows that the tenants were regular with rent payments, but the problem is that they were in arrears (behind) from November 2023, and they never caught up from that. So while the payments were regular, there was a consistent arrears that carried over.
On the basis of the information I have available, I find that this claim has been established.
In terms of the water rates, the landlord has claimed $405.33 for water rates.
The tenant says that there is another dwelling at the rear of the tenancy, and they pay the utilities for that dwelling also.
The landlord responded that the utilities are in the landlord’s name, and the rear dwelling has a check meter. So when the account for the water bill arrives, the landlord takes the reading from the check meter, calculates what each dwelling used in terms of water, and raised an invoice based on that calculation.
At the hearing, we spent considerable time going through the water charges, and I am entirely satisfied that the landlord’s approach was correct. I can see that the landlord has taken photographs of the check meter, and each water account has been annotated with the breakdown between the two dwellings. I am very confident in concluding that the landlord’s water charges were for the Tenancy dwelling only.
The evidence supports a finding that the landlord’s calculations around the water claims are correct, and the claim is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Wall repairs
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay compensation for damage to the walls of $322.00.
A photograph has been provided showing a reasonably sizeable hole in the bathroom wall. Based on the photograph, I would estimate it to be about the size of a small plate. The landlord also provided a photograph taken prior to the tenancy which did not show that hole.
The landlord has provided a quotation of $322.00 for repairs.
The tenant disputes that the hole in the wall was caused during their tenancy.
On balance, I consider it more likely than not that the hole was caused during this tenancy. The damage was fairly obvious, and if it had been there over the duration of the tenancy, it would have been seen prior. While I cannot discount that the hole was caused after the tenants left the premises, that is less likely, and I cannot see any likely explanation for why the landlord would have put the hole in the wall.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and I consider the tenants must be liable for this damage cost. Claim 3 – Curtain replacement
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants fund curtain replacement costs of $1,832.69.
The landlord states that there were curtains provided in 2017 which were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that any curtains would need depreciation, but in this case, there was nothing returned at all.
The tenants say that when the premises were rented, there were no curtains in 2017.
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant” like curtains.
On the evidence available, I consider it more likely than not that curtains were provided in the tenancy. I accept they were not returned to the landlord. However, as the landlord has accepted, depreciation must be applied to the curtains. I am uncertain as to the age the curtains were at the start of the tenancy, but I note the Inland Revenue depreciation guide guides (IR 265) record that the estimated useful life of curtains in a residential tenancy, would be eight years. That is about the length of time this Tenancy went for.
While I accept that the curtains would have been almost completely depreciated given the length of the tenancy, they should have been returned nevertheless. It is reasonable to make a nominal order for the curtain replacement, which I set at $200. Claim 4 – Key and remote replacement
The landlord seeks costs to replace remote controls totalling $240.00.
The landlord states that when the premises were returned, the remote controls were not provided. The landlord referred to a photograph which he says was taken at the start of the tenancy (which shows two remote controls).
The tenant disputes receiving any remote controls.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $240.00 from ‘Door Master’ for “Garage door motor’s receiver and 2 remotes with setting”.
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
I can seen no reason not to accept the photograph provided of the keys and remote controls provided at the start of the tenancy. That supports a conclusion that two remote controls were provided to the tenants, I accept they were not returned. The tenant is liable for the full cost of the remote control replacement. Claim 5 – Gardening costs
The landlord seeks gardening costs of $1,800.00.
The landlord’s position is that the gardens were extensively overgrown at the end of the tenancy. An agreement was reached with the new tenants that two weeks rent was excused for them tidying up the yard. The landlord relies on the photographs taken on 6 April.
The tenant’s position is that the garden was mowed before moving out. The tenants had a gardener they would pay $65 per month, and the lawns were mowed two weeks prior to the tenancy end.
A quotation has been provided from “Ming Pang” for “lawn mowing and cleaning up all the vines and small plants on the ground”.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. That includes the gardens. The landlord has provided photographs that were taken within a week of the tenancy ending, and without hesitation, I find that the gardens were overgrown and far from tidy condition. I do not accept that what is shown in the photographs would represent growth over the one week after the end of this tenancy.
The tenant must be responsible for the gardening cost, but I do not accept that a claim of $1,800 would be reasonable. In short, I do not consider that would represent a commercial rate for tidying the gardens. In the absence of better evidence, I have determined that an order at $600 would represent a more realistic commercial rate, and that is ordered. Claim 6 – Rubbish removal costs
The final claim from the landlord is a claim for rubbish removal costs of $2,130.00.
The landlord’s position is that there was extensive rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants position is that rubbish that was left in the garage was for the tenant who continued living in the tenancy. Besides that, the tenants consider that the claim is excessive.
The landlord responded that this is the actual cost of the rubbish removal.
An invoice has been provided from HB Furniture Removals Ltd, for rubbish removal totalling $2,300.00.
As indicated above, the tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they are required to remove any rubbish. One of the difficulties that arises in this case is that the tenants did not return vacant possession to the landlord, but that was with the landlord’s consent, when the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with eight of the existing tenants.
I accept that the landlord has incurred this rubbish removal cost. The claimed cost for the rubbish removal is confirmed in the invoice provided, that is the actual cost faced. Taking a strict approach, which I will in this case, I find that the responsibility for the rubbish removal cost must sit with the outgoing tenants. At the end of the tenancy, it is the outgoing tenants that are responsible for returning the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If the tenants consider that it was subtenants who are responsible for that cleaning cost, then they are able to bring a claim against those subtenants. But strictly speaking, there would be no legal obligation that the sub-tenants would have to the landlord to have the rubbish removed before their next tenancy started. This claim is therefore ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and landlord name suppression is granted.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229236 — Property damage at 162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229236 — Property damage at 162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

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

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.