Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5246611 — Rent arrears at 81A Luanda Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612
Decided 15 Sept 2025 · Published 15 Sept 2025 · Application 5246611
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Henry
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $8,190.77
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,560.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $5,630.77
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 20 September 2024 | $4,571.43 | Rent arrears to 20 September 2024 | |
| Cleaning | $460.00 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $322.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $460.00 | Cleaning | |
| Lock/key replacement |
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,630.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
- The landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the bathroom vanity is dismissed.
- The landlord’s application for suppression of the landlord’s name is granted.
Reasons
- With permission, Ken Dai, representative of the landlord, attended the hearing via telephone. An interpreter attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearing to their email addresses of service in accordance with section 91(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord has withdrawn the claim for supply of the toilet paper holder in the bathroom. 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.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy with an end date of 05 October 2024. The landlord said that the tenant contacted them advising that they wished to end the tenancy early. The landlord said the tenant vacated the premises in July 2024.
- The landlord has provided an email sent to the tenants showing that the tenant was told that they would continue to be responsible for the rent until a new tenant moved in. The landlord has also provided a rent ledger showing the tenant’s last rent payment was on 26 July 2024 when they were already in rent arrears of $640.00.
- The landlord said they started searching for a replacement tenant at the beginning of August 2024. The landlord said they did this by placing an advertisement in TradeMe and contacting Work and Income New Zealand Limited.
- There is an obligation under the RTA that both parties to a tenancy agreement have an obligation to mitigate their loss. That requirement is found in section 49 which provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
- The question then becomes, what are the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage following a contract breach? The rules of law are summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed, 1975) vol 12 at [1193]–[1194]: The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong, and if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. “The plaintiff is only required to act reasonably, and whether he has done so is a question of fact in the circumstances of each particular case, and not a question of law.”
- In most circumstances where a tenant ends a fixed term tenancy early, the landlord will be obliged to mitigate its losses by taking reasonable steps to find another tenant.
- The landlord was asked why it took 7 weeks to find a new tenant. The landlord said that was because there was a limited market for tenants in that area and because it took around 3 weeks to fix the damage in the premises before so that prospective tenants could view the premises.
- I find that in the circumstances the landlord acted reasonably and award rent arrears to 20 September 2024.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the 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.
- The landlord has provided an entry inspection report and an exit inspection report. Both of these reports contain details photographs.
- I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. I also find that the sums claimed, $460.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the premises) and $322.00 for removal of rubbish (including GST), are reasonable given the state the premises was left in.
- The landlord is also claiming $460.00 (including GST) for carpet washing. From the photographs, the carpet did not appear to be particularly dirty. However, the landlord said, and I accept, that the carpet had a strong odour from dog waste. The landlord said that it was necessary to clean the carpet several times to remove the odour. I award $460.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the carpet.
- The tenant did not return the keys for the sliding front door and the back door and the locks had to be replaced. I award $299.00 (including GST) for this work.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide 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 the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the bathroom vanity; damage to the locks on the bedroom doors and the lounge doors; damage to the power point in the lounge and damage to / removal of various lights; damage to the cat door in the laundry; missing shower curtain; and damage to the walls and 3 of the doors.
- Due to the invoice provided by the landlord grouping certain damage together, I have had to apportion some of the labour charges to the individual claims.
- Damage to the bathroom vanity: a. The landlord is claiming $270.25 (including GST) to fix the bathroom vanity. The landlord has provided photographs from the entry report which shows that the vanity door was unaligned at the start of the tenancy. b. The exit photographs show that the issue at the end of the tenancy was much worse. c. I am not convinced that the tenant should be responsible for this damage. The state of the vanity at the start of the tenancy was such that normal use of the vanity was likely to cause more damage. I find that the further damage can be fairly described as fair wear and tear. d. This claim is dismissed.
- Damage to the locks on the 3 bedrooms doors and the lounge door: a. The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the locks on the bedroom doors and the lounge door during the tenancy. The photographs from the exit report support this claim. b. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved, and I award $182.27 for this claim.
- Damage to the power point in the lounge and the lights: a. The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the power point in the lounge and that many bulbs were missing or had been damaged. b. The landlord has provided an invoice showing the charge for this work at $301.30 (including GST). c. I am satisfied that this damaged was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. d. This claim is proved, and I award $301.30 (including GST) for this claim.
- Damage to the cat door in the laundry: a. The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the cat door in the laundry during the tenancy. The photographs from the entry and exit inspection reports support this claim. b. I am satisfied that this damaged was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. c. I award $114.97 (including GST) for this claim.
- Missing shower curtain: a. The landlord claims that the tenant has removed the shower curtain. The photographs form the entry and exit inspection reports support this claim. b. I am satisfied that the shower curtain was removed during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the removal of the shower curtain was intentional or careless. c. This claim is proved, and I award $29.90 (including GST) for this claim.
- Damage to the walls and 3 of the doors: a. The landlord claims $3,450.00 (including GST) for repairs to damage to the walls and to 3 of the doors. b. The landlord acknowledged that there was damage to the walls and doors at the start of the tenancy. At the hearing, we spent a significant amount of time reviewing the photographs to determine which damage was caused during the tenancy and which damage was preexisting. The landlord says that the sum claimed is only to repair the damage caused during the tenancy. c. I accept that there was a significant amount of damage to the walls and doors caused during the tenancy and that this was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly. d. I am required to 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. e. The state of the walls and the doors at the start of the tenancy was poor. In many cases, the damage caused during the tenancy was on top of or very close to existing damage. For this reason, I am only awarding 50% of the sum claimed, being $1,725.00 (including GST). f. This is the only claim that exceeds the insurance excess of $550.00. I have not capped the damage at this sum (see paragraph 24 above) because there well over 5 damaged areas meaning each individual damage would have been under the excess. Filing fee and suppression:
- The landlord has substantially succeeded with its claim. For this reason, I have granted the application for suppression of the landlord’s name and ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s91(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246611 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,630.77
How much money was awarded in case 5246611?
Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $182.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $114.17 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,571.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Shower Curtain: $29.90 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $322.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246611?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246611?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12411061-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.