What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250895 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $1,492.18 of the bond (5557947-004) to The Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5250895?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Doors: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $170.18 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250895?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12319023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250895 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $1,492.18 of the bond (5557947-004) to The Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5250895?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Doors: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $170.18 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250895?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12319023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Kingsclere Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250895 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250895. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: Downstairs bedroom sliding door (by consent	$450.00	Window repairs: Downstairs bedroom sliding door (by consent
Replace wardrobe doors	$200.00	Replace wardrobe doors
Repair wooden hallway cupboard door	$100.00	Repair wooden hallway cupboard door
Repair white door leading to stairs	$100.00	Repair white door leading to stairs
Water rates: 28/11/24 - 27/03/25	$170.18	9. The Landlord sought $289.32 in unpaid water rates, however that amount includes water rate arrears which appear to date back as far as 6 June
Rubbish removal	$185.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs: Upstairs bedroom 3 window	$260.00	Window repairs: Upstairs bedroom 3 window
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,492.18 of the bond (5557947-004) to The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For George Qiao immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay $307.82 of the bond (5557947-004) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 34 Kingsclere Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 (the Premises) owned by George Qiao and managed by The Rent Shop Limited (the Landlord) for nearly 13 years.
After the tenancy ended in March 2025, the Landlord says the Tenant owes the Landlord for unpaid water rates and compensation for damage to the premises and removing rubbish.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Is the Tenant responsible for unpaid water rates? b. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish on termination of the tenancy? c. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to windows and doors in the Premises? d. Should the Tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
Both parties attended the remote hearing. The Landlord attended via Microsoft Teams. The Tenant attended via phone. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

Is the Tenant responsible for unpaid water rates?

The Landlord sought $289.32 in unpaid water rates, however that amount includes water rate arrears which appear to date back as far as 6 June 2024. The Landlord only provided Watercare invoices for water consumption from 28 November 2024 to March 2025. As the Landlord has not provided evidence of Watercare charges prior to 28 November 2024, the Landlord has failed to provide evidence of the actual costs incurred for water use prior to that date.
In addition, the Tenant says a leak in the hot water cylinder meant she may have been charged for water that was leaked, and not consumed. The Landlord has provided evidence the hot water cylinder was repaired by 20 November 2024. I am therefore satisfied that evidence of water charges after that date are attributable solely to consumption by the Tenant, and are not as a result of the hot water cylinder leak.
The tenancy ended on 31 March 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which show for the period 28 November 2024 to 27 March 2025, Watercare charged $390.18 for water consumed by the Tenant. During that same period, the tenant made 11 payments of $20 each towards water rates, totalling $220.
Accordingly, the amount outstanding in unpaid water rates for that period is $170.18. I make an order for that amount. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish on termination of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The Landlord says the Tenant did not remove all rubbish, leaving wood and metal stacked in the backyard, a ute canopy cover, an oil drum which appeared to have been used as an outdoor fire and other debris outside. The Landlord says the cost of a skip bin being delivered to remove the rubbish was $370.00 and produced an invoice dated 25 April 2025.
The Tenant says some of the rubbish referred to was the old fence which the neighbour took down in late 2024 and stacked on the Premises’ boundary. The Tenant says she informed the Landlord, Mr Qiao, that it was left there. The Tenant says the bags of cement under the deck were left there by Mr Qiao when he did work on the deck during the tenancy. The Tenant says the ute canopy and oil drum were possibly left by her son who lived at the Premises with her.
I am satisfied some of the rubbish left, including the oil drum and ute canopy, were left by the Tenant. 1 I am not satisfied it is more likely than not that the wood and metal debris left by the boundary, nor the bags of cement under the deck, were the responsibility of the Tenant. I accept the Tenant’s evidence that it is likely these items were placed there by the neighbour’s contractors (the fence debris) and the Landlord (the cement bags).
I consider a fair amount to award the Landlord in compensation for the rubbish left by the Tenant is half the cost incurred for all rubbish removal, being $185.00. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to windows and doors in the

Premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The Landlord says the following damage was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy: a. Damage to glass: i. Downstairs bedroom sliding glass door: cost of repair $450.00; ii. Upstairs bedroom 3 window: cost of repair $260.00. b. Damage to doors: total cost of repair $690; i. Upstairs bedroom wardrobe doors – missing at end of tenancy; ii. Wooden cupboard doors in hallway – damaged; iii. White door leading to stairs – damaged;
Prior to the hearing, the Landlord also sought compensation of $287.50 for a missing post in the internal stairway balustrade, however, after hearing from the Tenant, who said it fell out 2-3 years ago and was taken away by the Landlord Mr Qiao in early 2024, the Property Manager withdrew the claim in relation to the balustrade.
At the outset of the hearing, the Tenant accepted liability for repairs to the downstairs bedroom sliding glass door. Accordingly, I make an order for the 1 Section 41 of the Act states a tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. cost of that repair, being $450.00, by consent. The remainder of the claims for damage were disputed by the Tenant.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused the damage to the window in the upstairs bedroom. The Landlord provided evidence the window was intact during an inspection completed on 7 February 2019 and that the window was broken at the end of the tenancy during the exit inspection completed on 2 April 2025. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability. The Landlord provided evidence the cost to repair the window was $260. The amount ordered is proved.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused damage (removed) the upstairs bedroom wardrobe doors. The Tenant confirmed they were removed during the tenancy but she was unsure by who or when. The Tenant confirmed they were present at the start of the tenancy. Given the Tenant accepts they were removed during the tenancy, I am satisfied the Tenant is liable for the cost of their replacement. The Landlord provided evidence the total cost to replace the wardrobe doors, and repair two other internal doors, was $690. I consider a reasonable portion of that total cost for the replacement of the two wardrobe doors is $200.00.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused to the wooden cupboard doors in the hallway. The Landlord provided evidence the wooden cupboard doors were not damaged during an inspection completed on 14 August 2018 and were damaged at the end of the tenancy during the exit inspection completed on 2 April 2025. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability. The Landlord provided evidence the total cost to replace the wardrobe doors, and repair the two internal doors, was $690. I consider a reasonable portion of that total cost for the repair of the hole in one of the two wooden doors is $100.00. The amount ordered is proved.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused to the white door leading to the stairs. The Landlord provided evidence the white door leading to the stairs was not damaged during an inspection completed on 14 September 2023 and was damaged at the end of the tenancy during the exit inspection completed on 2 April 2025. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability. The Landlord provided evidence the total cost to replace the wardrobe doors, and repair the two internal doors, was $690. I consider a reasonable portion of that total cost for the repair of the hole in the white door leading to the stairs is $100.00. The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250895. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: Downstairs bedroom sliding door (by consent	$450.00	Window repairs: Downstairs bedroom sliding door (by consent
Replace wardrobe doors	$200.00	Replace wardrobe doors
Repair wooden hallway cupboard door	$100.00	Repair wooden hallway cupboard door
Repair white door leading to stairs	$100.00	Repair white door leading to stairs
Water rates: 28/11/24 - 27/03/25	$170.18	9. The Landlord sought $289.32 in unpaid water rates, however that amount includes water rate arrears which appear to date back as far as 6 June
Rubbish removal	$185.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs: Upstairs bedroom 3 window	$260.00	Window repairs: Upstairs bedroom 3 window
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,492.18 of the bond (5557947-004) to The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For George Qiao immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay $307.82 of the bond (5557947-004) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 34 Kingsclere Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 (the Premises) owned by George Qiao and managed by The Rent Shop Limited (the Landlord) for nearly 13 years.
After the tenancy ended in March 2025, the Landlord says the Tenant owes the Landlord for unpaid water rates and compensation for damage to the premises and removing rubbish.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Is the Tenant responsible for unpaid water rates? b. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish on termination of the tenancy? c. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to windows and doors in the Premises? d. Should the Tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
Both parties attended the remote hearing. The Landlord attended via Microsoft Teams. The Tenant attended via phone. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

Is the Tenant responsible for unpaid water rates?

The Landlord sought $289.32 in unpaid water rates, however that amount includes water rate arrears which appear to date back as far as 6 June 2024. The Landlord only provided Watercare invoices for water consumption from 28 November 2024 to March 2025. As the Landlord has not provided evidence of Watercare charges prior to 28 November 2024, the Landlord has failed to provide evidence of the actual costs incurred for water use prior to that date.
In addition, the Tenant says a leak in the hot water cylinder meant she may have been charged for water that was leaked, and not consumed. The Landlord has provided evidence the hot water cylinder was repaired by 20 November 2024. I am therefore satisfied that evidence of water charges after that date are attributable solely to consumption by the Tenant, and are not as a result of the hot water cylinder leak.
The tenancy ended on 31 March 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which show for the period 28 November 2024 to 27 March 2025, Watercare charged $390.18 for water consumed by the Tenant. During that same period, the tenant made 11 payments of $20 each towards water rates, totalling $220.
Accordingly, the amount outstanding in unpaid water rates for that period is $170.18. I make an order for that amount. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish on termination of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The Landlord says the Tenant did not remove all rubbish, leaving wood and metal stacked in the backyard, a ute canopy cover, an oil drum which appeared to have been used as an outdoor fire and other debris outside. The Landlord says the cost of a skip bin being delivered to remove the rubbish was $370.00 and produced an invoice dated 25 April 2025.
The Tenant says some of the rubbish referred to was the old fence which the neighbour took down in late 2024 and stacked on the Premises’ boundary. The Tenant says she informed the Landlord, Mr Qiao, that it was left there. The Tenant says the bags of cement under the deck were left there by Mr Qiao when he did work on the deck during the tenancy. The Tenant says the ute canopy and oil drum were possibly left by her son who lived at the Premises with her.
I am satisfied some of the rubbish left, including the oil drum and ute canopy, were left by the Tenant. 1 I am not satisfied it is more likely than not that the wood and metal debris left by the boundary, nor the bags of cement under the deck, were the responsibility of the Tenant. I accept the Tenant’s evidence that it is likely these items were placed there by the neighbour’s contractors (the fence debris) and the Landlord (the cement bags).
I consider a fair amount to award the Landlord in compensation for the rubbish left by the Tenant is half the cost incurred for all rubbish removal, being $185.00. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to windows and doors in the

Premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The Landlord says the following damage was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy: a. Damage to glass: i. Downstairs bedroom sliding glass door: cost of repair $450.00; ii. Upstairs bedroom 3 window: cost of repair $260.00. b. Damage to doors: total cost of repair $690; i. Upstairs bedroom wardrobe doors – missing at end of tenancy; ii. Wooden cupboard doors in hallway – damaged; iii. White door leading to stairs – damaged;
Prior to the hearing, the Landlord also sought compensation of $287.50 for a missing post in the internal stairway balustrade, however, after hearing from the Tenant, who said it fell out 2-3 years ago and was taken away by the Landlord Mr Qiao in early 2024, the Property Manager withdrew the claim in relation to the balustrade.
At the outset of the hearing, the Tenant accepted liability for repairs to the downstairs bedroom sliding glass door. Accordingly, I make an order for the 1 Section 41 of the Act states a tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. cost of that repair, being $450.00, by consent. The remainder of the claims for damage were disputed by the Tenant.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused the damage to the window in the upstairs bedroom. The Landlord provided evidence the window was intact during an inspection completed on 7 February 2019 and that the window was broken at the end of the tenancy during the exit inspection completed on 2 April 2025. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability. The Landlord provided evidence the cost to repair the window was $260. The amount ordered is proved.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused damage (removed) the upstairs bedroom wardrobe doors. The Tenant confirmed they were removed during the tenancy but she was unsure by who or when. The Tenant confirmed they were present at the start of the tenancy. Given the Tenant accepts they were removed during the tenancy, I am satisfied the Tenant is liable for the cost of their replacement. The Landlord provided evidence the total cost to replace the wardrobe doors, and repair two other internal doors, was $690. I consider a reasonable portion of that total cost for the replacement of the two wardrobe doors is $200.00.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused to the wooden cupboard doors in the hallway. The Landlord provided evidence the wooden cupboard doors were not damaged during an inspection completed on 14 August 2018 and were damaged at the end of the tenancy during the exit inspection completed on 2 April 2025. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability. The Landlord provided evidence the total cost to replace the wardrobe doors, and repair the two internal doors, was $690. I consider a reasonable portion of that total cost for the repair of the hole in one of the two wooden doors is $100.00. The amount ordered is proved.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused to the white door leading to the stairs. The Landlord provided evidence the white door leading to the stairs was not damaged during an inspection completed on 14 September 2023 and was damaged at the end of the tenancy during the exit inspection completed on 2 April 2025. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability. The Landlord provided evidence the total cost to replace the wardrobe doors, and repair the two internal doors, was $690. I consider a reasonable portion of that total cost for the repair of the hole in the white door leading to the stairs is $100.00. The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250895 — Property damage at 34 Kingsclere Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250895 — Property damage at 34 Kingsclere Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant responsible for unpaid water rates?

Premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant responsible for unpaid water rates?

Premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.