Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5245277 — Property damage at 70 Glidepath Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616
Decided 3 Sept 2025 · Published 3 Sept 2025 · Application 5245277
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited Hobsonville As Agent For M & K Chambers $212.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (6492470-010) to The Rent Shop Limited Hobsonville As Agent For M & K Chambers immediately. DescriptionLandlordzTenant Water rates$197.59 Repairs: Wall repairs$285.00 Repairs: Door - insurance excess$1,000.00 Repairs: Carpet - insurance excess$1,000.00 Cleaning: Exit cleaning$523.25 Carpet Cleaning$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,132.84 Bond refund-$2,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$212.84 5245277, 52605472
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 21 July 2025. The tenant was represented by a Mandarin interpreter.
- The premises was a new-build, and the tenant was the first tenant to have occupied the premises.
- The tenancy was from 13 May 2023 until 11 March 2025.
- Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond and compensation for the premises not being reasonably maintained by the landlord and for Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) issues.
- The landlord made a cross-application for water rates arrears, and compensation for carpet replacement, carpet cleaning, wall repairs, door repair and exit cleaning.
- I deal with the tenant’s application first. The tenant’s claims
- The tenant claimed that the landlord had breached the HHS by failing to provide the tenant with a warm, dry and safe living environment through the tenancy.
- The tenant said that the property suffered from multiple serious leaks during the tenancy which caused damage to the tenant’s personal property including beds, duvets, pillows and electronic devices. The tenant said that they were forced to use an air mattress as the standard mattress was rendered unusable due to repeated water damage. The air mattress was a necessary substitute due to persistent damp conditions.
- The tenant said that there was significant and ongoing mould growth on the second-floor bedroom windowsill which was never adequately addressed. The tenant claimed that the presence of mould and dampness contributed to frequent illness of the tenant’s child especially during the winter months.
- The tenant also said that the flooring was unsafe due to there being numerous protruding carpet tacks throughout the property particularly around the carpet edges and skirting boards in multiple rooms. The tenant said that those sharp nails repeatedly injured both the tenant and her daughter causing cuts to their feet.
- The tenant sought for a total compensation of $25,201.60 made up of rent reduction for not being able to use one of the three bedrooms fully, and damage to a bed, bedding and furniture.
- The landlord confirmed that the tenant had contacted the landlord twice for leaks – once in November 2023 and once in January 2024. The first time was due to a leak in the kitchen and the second time was for a leak in the upstairs 5245277, 52605473 bedroom. Both times, Jalcon Homes was contacted by the landlord and they came out and attended to the leaks under the builder’s warranty. There was no other contact by the tenant notifying the landlord of any other leaks.
- There was no evidence to prove mould issues in one of the three bedrooms. The only evidence was a picture of the windowsill which was inconclusive. It could be simply that the top paint layer has been rubbed off somehow. The tenant claimed that other windowsill did not have the same marks in the windowsill and claimed that it was mould. Even if that showed small marks of the mould, there was no other evidence of mould anywhere in the room walls or the corners to prove that the room suffered from dampness issues.
- From the inspection photos, that room was being used as a study room as well as storage. There was an open coat hanger which does not support the tenant’s claim that the room was unusable due to mould issues.
- Regarding the flooring issues, there were no photos to prove the state of the floors. There were no emails or text message to notify the landlord of the supposed issue. The tenant claimed that it was raised verbally to the landlord but the landlord had no recollection of that. The landlord said that they would have told Jalcon Builders straight away as they had done with the water leaks if they had been told. The tenant said that she did not want to be fussy tenants.
- The premises was tested for HHS and was found to be compliant. The landlord produced evidence of the premises being tested for HHS.
- There was no evidence of ruined bed, bedding or furniture.
- I do not find that the tenant has proven her claims to the required standard. I dismiss the claims. The landlord’s cross-application
- I now turn to the landlord’s cross-application.
- The landlord sought $197.59 for water rates arrears, $1,000.00 insurance excess for lounge carpet replacement, $285.00 for internal wall paint repairs, $1,000.00 insurance excess for the front door damage, $523.25 for exit cleaning and $100.00 for carpet cleaning.
- The tenant did not dispute the water rates arrears but disputed everything else.
- In relation to the lounge carpet, the tenant claimed that there was no need for the carpet to be replaced. However, the landlord provided evidence of the subsequent tenant complaining about the smell that would not go away despite cleaning. The landlord had the carpet professionally cleaned but it was not enough to get rid of the smell.
- When the carpet was being replaced, it was found to have stains in the underlay that accorded with dog urine. The tenant was allowed to have a dog inside the 5245277, 52605474 premises. The combination of the dog inside the house and the complaint about the smell and the stain underneath, I find that the carpet damage was caused carelessly by the tenant due to the dog urinating on it.
- The tenant is liable to pay the insurance excess for any careless damage caused by the tenant or anyone allowed at the premises by the tenant.
- I find that the landlord has proven the claim for insurance excess for carpet replacement and carpet cleaning.
- In relation to the wall damage, the tenant claimed that the damages were fair wear and tear. I have looked at the photos and I disagree with the tenant. I find that they were more than fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. I find this claim proven.
- In relation to the front door damage, the tenant claimed that it could have been the landlord’s contractors or some other person who caused the damage. Having seen the photos, I find that it was more likely than not caused by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. I find the landlord has proven this claim.
- The cleaning claim is also proven to the required standard with the photos provided by the landlord. I do not find that the premises was left reasonably clean especially in the oven.
- Finally, because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
- The bond will be paid to the landlord to offset the amount payable by the tenant.