How much money was awarded in case 5242713?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $445.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Television: $248.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $32.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242713?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12685335-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5242713?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $445.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Television: $248.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $32.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242713?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12685335-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 60, 33 Mount Street, Central City, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242713 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242713 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242713 — net $1,002.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$32.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$100.90	Lock/key replacement
Replace television	$248.00	Replace television
Repair door	$445.00	Repair door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,002.90
Bond	$1,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,002.90

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Ashton R Kipa is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,002.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,002.90 Ashton R Kipa: $77.10

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted via telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why he would not attend the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

Claim for cleaning costs: a. The landlord says the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and is claiming cleaning costs of $251.60 to have the carpet shampooed and the room cleaned. The landlord has provided an invoice to support this claim. The landlord has only provided one photograph which shows that a surface area in the room was not left clean and tidy. b. The landlord says that he had the carpets cleaned because there was a very bad smell in the room, that there was mould, and the surfaces had to be cleaned. c. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not leave the room clean and tidy. However, I must also consider if the sum paid was reasonable. Given that there was only one room and no bathroom to clean, I consider the fee excessive. I award $150 (including GST) for this claim.

Claim for rubbish removal costs: a. The landlord says that the tenant did not remove all rubbish and is claiming $32.00 to remove the rubbish. The landlord has provided a receipt to support this claim. The landlord did not provide any photographs of the rubbish left at the premises. However, I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that there was rubbish left at the premises. b. This claim is proved, and I award $32.00 (including GST) for this claim.

Claim for replacement lock: a. The landlord says that the tenant did not return the key and the landlord had to replace the lock. The landlord is claiming $100.90 and has provided an invoice to support this claim. b. This claim is proved, and I award $100.90 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.

Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).

Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.

Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.

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 landlord says that during the tenancy the following damage was caused: damage to the door and damage to the television.

Damage to the television: a. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the television during the tenancy and is claiming $248.00 to replace the television. The landlord has provided an invoice showing that a new television was purchased and a photograph of the broken television. There is no visible damage, but the landlord says it would not turn on. b. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was not intentional or careless. c. I must take betterment and depreciation into account. 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. The Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Guidance, IR265, August 2024, 1 provides that televisions in residential rental properties have a useful lifespan of 5 years. d. The landlord says the television was two years old. I award $158.72 for this claim being the replacement cost of the television after depreciation.

Damage to the door: a. The landlord claims that the door was damaged to the tenancy and is claiming the repair costs of $445.00. The landlord has provided a photograph of the door and an invoice to support this claim. b. The landlord has provided an inspection report from the start of the tenancy 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz › ir › ir265-august-2024, retrieved on 09 November 2025. which is initialled by both parties. The report does not record any damage to the premises. c. The photograph shows damage to the door frame. Part of the frame appears to have been ripped from the wall. I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was not intentional or careless. It appears to me more likely than not that the damage was intentional. For this reason, the limit of liability is four weeks’ rent. d. This claim is proved, and I award $445.00 (including GST). Filing fee and suppression:

The landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord has asked for his name to be suppressed. As the landlord is the successful party, this application is granted. (See section 95A of the RTA.)

The landlord has also asked for the tenant’s name to be suppressed. There is a statutory expectation in the RTA that decisions of the Tribunal are published as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish 2

In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the RTA to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, with the new suppression provision introduced at section 95A of the RTA. In summary, this section: a. Creates a statutory expectation that the successful party will have available name suppression if they apply for it, unless the Tribunal considers that parties name should be published; and b. Creates a statutory discretion for the Tribunal to order name suppression to any party (such as the unsuccessful party), after taking into consideration the parties and public interest.

The usual situation in law is that judicial proceedings are open, unless the circumstances are exceptional. 3 Section 95A does not create a mandatory expectation of suppression, rather this provision provides the Tribunal with a discretion as to whether suppression should be granted. That requires the Tribunal in all cases where there has been an application for suppression, to evaluate the facts of the individual case, against the relevant law that applies – both statute and case law.

As far as case law is concerned, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that when 2 See section 115B of the RTA. 3 Read v Police HC Tauranga CRI-2011-470-3, 29 September 2011 at [20]. considering applications for suppression, the starting point must be on the principle of open justice. The Court of Appeal went to approve the approach taken by the High Court, which stated that this principle requires that there should only be restrictions on publication of case information in “very special circumstances”. 4

The tenant in this case has not been the successful party. Therefore, section 95A(4) applies. That provision allows the landlord to request that the name and identifying details of the tenant are suppressed. However, in order to grant name suppression, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. Applying those considerations requires a balancing exercise of two potentially competing considerations.

At the hearing the landlord has said that he has requested suppression for the tenant because he appeared to him to be a good person. Presumably, the landlord is concerned that this Order will reflect badly on the tenant. It is common knowledge, that some landlords will search published Tenancy Tribunal Orders, when deciding whether to offer a tenancy to a prospective tenant. I accept it is strongly in the tenant’s interest that the decision not be published.

I must weigh the public interest with the tenant’s interest. The Dictionary of New Zealand Law defines public interest as “[a]n interest common to the public at large or a significant portion of the public”. 5 The Office of the Ombudsman broadly equates public interest “to the concept of public good”, which the best interests of society”. 6

Generally, the open reporting of justice is in the public interest. 7 In this case, I consider there is a public interest for the decision to be published. Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the tenant’s considerations. Therefore, I decline the application for tenant name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242713 — net $1,002.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$32.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$100.90	Lock/key replacement
Replace television	$248.00	Replace television
Repair door	$445.00	Repair door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,002.90
Bond	$1,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,002.90

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Ashton R Kipa is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,002.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,002.90 Ashton R Kipa: $77.10

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says that during the tenancy the following damage was caused: damage to the door and damage to the television.

The landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord has asked for his name to be suppressed. As the landlord is the successful party, this application is granted. (See section 95A of the RTA.)

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242713 — Property damage at Room 60, 33 Mount Street, Central City, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242713 — Property damage at Room 60, 33 Mount Street, Central City, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions