What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242093 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 5242093?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Power Connection: $12.17 awarded to landlord; Blind Cords: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242093?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13204738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242093 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 5242093?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Power Connection: $12.17 awarded to landlord; Blind Cords: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242093?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13204738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 21 Grove Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242093 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242093 — net $409.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power connection	$12.17	Power connection
Rubbish removal	$300.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Blind cords	$70.00	Repairs: Blind cords
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$409.17
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$409.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to pay [The landlord/s] $409.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $409.17 Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited: $2,390.83

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is represented by a different property management company than the one at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant is a social housing provider which subleases premises to the community.
The tenant has carried out the exit inspection apparently in the presence of a property manager from the previous property management company.
The landlord has applied for end of tenancy costs. Power reconnection
The landlord claims $12.17 for reconnection of the power because the power was disconnected on the day that the tenancy ended.
The tenant claims that the power was connected when the tenancy ended but I rely on the exit inspection report dated 22 November 2024 which records “not tested as no power connection” nine times in the inspection comments.
The amount sought is awarded. Gas reconnection
The landlord claims $120.00 for gas reconnection and $402.50 for a gas fitter.
The ingoing inspection report records in relation to the gas stove top that “could not get to ignite.” This means that either the gas was not connected at the beginning of the tenancy, or the gas hob was not working.
The tenant said that the sub tenants did not use the gas hob and instead used a portable electric hob.
The invoice dated 10 February 2025 from the gas fitter records, “Fixed leak on gas hob connection pipe.” This could be the explanation for why the gas stove top would not ignite at the beginning of the tenancy. It is an issue that the landlord was aware of at the beginning of the tenancy and should have arranged for it to be repaired. Of concern is that there may have been a gas leak throughout the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the gas reconnection and repair is dismissed. Fibre box replacement
The landlord claims $331.97 for replacing the fibre box. The landlord did not produce an invoice for this cost.
The end of tenancy report shows that the fibre box was not attached to the wall under the window. The ingoing inspection report shows a fibre box on a different wall in the corner of the room. The two photographs do not align.
The fibre box at the end of the tenancy also appears newer than the box from the beginning of the tenancy. It is not clear what happened to the fibre box during the tenancy.
The landlord has not produced evidence (including an invoice) that the fibre box was damaged and needed replacing. It may be that the connection needed repairing but there is no evidence of the cost for this.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the fibre box is dismissed. Vacate costs
The landlord claims $2,254.00 for rubbish removal ($500.00 plus GST), repairs ($720.00 plus GST), cleaning ($360.00 plus GST) and sewerage pipe unblocking ($380.00 plus GST).
The invoice produced by the landlord is from their company. I am told that the work was carried out by contractors who provided an invoice that was not in English. That invoice was not produced and there was no translation of the invoice provided.
The landlord’s invoice includes GST but there is no GST number on the invoice. Only GST registered entities may charge GST, and a valid tax invoice must include a GST number. There is no evidence of the name of the contractors or whether their invoice includes GST.
The Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the amount claimed reflects the actual cost incurred. Without a contractor’s invoice and a certified translation of the contractor’s invoice the Tribunal cannot properly assess the nature and the amount of the work, and the cost claimed.
At the hearing the tenant acknowledged responsibility for the rubbish in the outside area. They deny responsibility for the rubbish in the garage because there is nothing to show that this garage was included in the tenancy. Also, I note that there was rubbish in the garage at the beginning of the tenancy and there was no key for the garage so it was not secure, and anyone could have used it for storage.
On the evidence produced I award $300.00 for rubbish removal.
There are two blinds where there are no chains at the end of the tenancy. I award $70.00 for replacement blind cords. I note that the tenant acknowledges this as the usual cost for such damage and in the absence of any actual cost from the landlord this is awarded.
There is no evidence of the cost for the remaining repairs, so no award is made.
The landlord claims for cleaning, but the tenant produced an invoice dated 24 November 2025 where they paid for cleaning.
At the hearing the landlord said that only the cost of cleaning the oven was sought, and two photographs of an oven were produced. It is not clear that this is the oven for this tenancy because the photographs are close and do not match the photographs from the exit inspection report.
There is no mention in the exit inspection report in relation to further cleaning being required. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord claims for unblocking pipes. At the hearing the landlord said that a blockage was discovered after the tenant vacated.
The tenant says that all pipes were tested during the exit inspection. There is no mention in the exit inspection about any issues. The claim for pipe unblocking is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the landlord’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242093 — net $409.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power connection	$12.17	Power connection
Rubbish removal	$300.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Blind cords	$70.00	Repairs: Blind cords
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$409.17
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$409.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to pay [The landlord/s] $409.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $409.17 Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited: $2,390.83

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is represented by a different property management company than the one at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant is a social housing provider which subleases premises to the community.
The tenant has carried out the exit inspection apparently in the presence of a property manager from the previous property management company.
The landlord has applied for end of tenancy costs. Power reconnection
The landlord claims $12.17 for reconnection of the power because the power was disconnected on the day that the tenancy ended.
The tenant claims that the power was connected when the tenancy ended but I rely on the exit inspection report dated 22 November 2024 which records “not tested as no power connection” nine times in the inspection comments.
The amount sought is awarded. Gas reconnection
The landlord claims $120.00 for gas reconnection and $402.50 for a gas fitter.
The ingoing inspection report records in relation to the gas stove top that “could not get to ignite.” This means that either the gas was not connected at the beginning of the tenancy, or the gas hob was not working.
The tenant said that the sub tenants did not use the gas hob and instead used a portable electric hob.
The invoice dated 10 February 2025 from the gas fitter records, “Fixed leak on gas hob connection pipe.” This could be the explanation for why the gas stove top would not ignite at the beginning of the tenancy. It is an issue that the landlord was aware of at the beginning of the tenancy and should have arranged for it to be repaired. Of concern is that there may have been a gas leak throughout the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the gas reconnection and repair is dismissed. Fibre box replacement
The landlord claims $331.97 for replacing the fibre box. The landlord did not produce an invoice for this cost.
The end of tenancy report shows that the fibre box was not attached to the wall under the window. The ingoing inspection report shows a fibre box on a different wall in the corner of the room. The two photographs do not align.
The fibre box at the end of the tenancy also appears newer than the box from the beginning of the tenancy. It is not clear what happened to the fibre box during the tenancy.
The landlord has not produced evidence (including an invoice) that the fibre box was damaged and needed replacing. It may be that the connection needed repairing but there is no evidence of the cost for this.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the fibre box is dismissed. Vacate costs
The landlord claims $2,254.00 for rubbish removal ($500.00 plus GST), repairs ($720.00 plus GST), cleaning ($360.00 plus GST) and sewerage pipe unblocking ($380.00 plus GST).
The invoice produced by the landlord is from their company. I am told that the work was carried out by contractors who provided an invoice that was not in English. That invoice was not produced and there was no translation of the invoice provided.
The landlord’s invoice includes GST but there is no GST number on the invoice. Only GST registered entities may charge GST, and a valid tax invoice must include a GST number. There is no evidence of the name of the contractors or whether their invoice includes GST.
The Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the amount claimed reflects the actual cost incurred. Without a contractor’s invoice and a certified translation of the contractor’s invoice the Tribunal cannot properly assess the nature and the amount of the work, and the cost claimed.
At the hearing the tenant acknowledged responsibility for the rubbish in the outside area. They deny responsibility for the rubbish in the garage because there is nothing to show that this garage was included in the tenancy. Also, I note that there was rubbish in the garage at the beginning of the tenancy and there was no key for the garage so it was not secure, and anyone could have used it for storage.
On the evidence produced I award $300.00 for rubbish removal.
There are two blinds where there are no chains at the end of the tenancy. I award $70.00 for replacement blind cords. I note that the tenant acknowledges this as the usual cost for such damage and in the absence of any actual cost from the landlord this is awarded.
There is no evidence of the cost for the remaining repairs, so no award is made.
The landlord claims for cleaning, but the tenant produced an invoice dated 24 November 2025 where they paid for cleaning.
At the hearing the landlord said that only the cost of cleaning the oven was sought, and two photographs of an oven were produced. It is not clear that this is the oven for this tenancy because the photographs are close and do not match the photographs from the exit inspection report.
There is no mention in the exit inspection report in relation to further cleaning being required. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord claims for unblocking pipes. At the hearing the landlord said that a blockage was discovered after the tenant vacated.
The tenant says that all pipes were tested during the exit inspection. There is no mention in the exit inspection about any issues. The claim for pipe unblocking is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the landlord’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242093 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 21 Grove Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242093 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 21 Grove Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions