What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5252339?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00066233) to Purnima

How much money was awarded in case 5252339?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252339?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12056969-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5252339?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00066233) to Purnima

How much money was awarded in case 5252339?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252339?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12056969-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Mili Way, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5252339 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5252339 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00066233) to Purnima Anand and Sulabh Anand immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, repairs to two small gouges in the walls, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants wish to have their bond refunded and are seeking reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants also raised a claim during the hearing regarding the landlord not lodging the bond within 23 days as required under section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”). Jurisdiction
The first matter to be determined is the matter of jurisdiction.
The tenancy agreement which is written on a standard Tenancy Services Residential Tenancies Agreement form, has handwritten at the top of the front page “Tenant live with landlord” [sic]. This heading is signed by Satish Kumar for the landlord and by Purnima Anand and Sulabh Anand for the tenants. On page 6 of the agreement are some handwritten conditions. One of them states: “This agreement is for boarder only”.
The RTA section 4, states that the RTA applies to “every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides an exception “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”.
Neither party seeks to assert that premises are a boarding house.
Section 8 of the RTA allows for parties that would otherwise be excluded from the RTA to contract back into the RTA by signing an agreement to that effect.
Having explained the above sections of the RTA to the Mr and Mrs Anand and Mr Kumar, I asked for their views on whether they considered they had contracted into the RTA for the purposes of this tenancy. Both parties agreed that it was their intention that the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 did apply. They also confirmed that they wished their dispute today to be heard and decided by the Tribunal.
On that basis I heard each party’s claims. The claims
The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement to start on 16 February 2025 and to end on 16 August 2025. Part way through the tenancy both parties agreed to end the tenancy early, and the tenancy ended by agreement on 27 April 2025. No claims are being brought by either party with regard to the tenancy ending.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises clean and tidy. The landlord produced photographs which show some fly marks on a lampshade, a bathroom drain that does not look clean, a mark on a mattress, and a mark on a shower tray. The landlord produced an invoice from Jim’s Maintenance for cleaning for $405.00.
The tenants produced photographs of the whole premises and a video taken at the end of the tenancy.
When I look at the photographs I consider the premises look virtually brand new, having had virtually no wear, and to have been left virtually spotless.
This is not to say that the premises were spotless or that the landlord wasn’t justified in undertaking more cleaning before the next tenant moved in. However, a start of tenancy standard of cleaning is not the standard required of an exiting tenant. I determine the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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 RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant made two small gouges in the walls, one in the stairwell and the other in the lounge.
The landlord produced two very close-up photographs that show two small gouges.
The tenant denies knowing about, or making either of the gouges in the walls. One of the holes was in a part of the house that the tenant says was an area she did not use.
On 27 April 2025 the landlord emailed the tenant saying “I inspected my house with Purnima and everything is ok.”
On 28 April 2025 the landlord again emailed the tenant saying “I have done the inspection there are a few issues I will send the pictures tomorrow”.
The landlord stated that at the initial end of tenancy inspection, the tenant was aggressive, and this made him fearful. This is why he says he conceded “everything is ok”.
The tenant produced a seven-minute video of the whole premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord viewed the whole video and referred me to where the gouges were, despite the gouges not being visible in the video. The gouges were on adjacent walls that weren’t visible in the video. The tenants’ disputed there being any holes, and stated their video cover their whole premises.
There are no photographs that show the gouges in the tenants’ premises. The weight of the information provided to me does not show any damage related to the tenants’ tenancy. This is corroborated by the email from the landlord immediately at the end of the tenancy, having done an exit inspection with the tenants, stating “everything is ok”. Furthermore I note that when the landlord sent this email, he was not in the presence of the tenants, and he could have raised the outstanding issues at this point without any fear.
It is for the landlord to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that damage was caused by the tenant. He has not managed to do that. This claim is not proved.
The tenants raised an issue about the landlord not lodging their bond within 23 days after the payment is made, as is required under section 19 of the RTA.
I note that at the beginning of the tenancy, there is no written agreement that the parties are contracting into the RTA, as is required under section 8 of the RTA for the RTA to apply to tenancy situations such as this one. Although the parties have stated today that they wish the Tribunal to address all of their claims as if the RTA does apply to this tenancy, I note that the tenants’ claim regarding the bond was not raised in the tenants’ application to Tenancy Services, and was not raised in the hearing prior to the landlord agreeing to have the dispute heard by the Tribunal. Therefore I consider it would be an abuse of process to add this claim to the tenants application at this stage, and I decline to do so.
Because Purnima Anand, Sulabh Anand has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5252339 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00066233) to Purnima Anand and Sulabh Anand immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, repairs to two small gouges in the walls, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants wish to have their bond refunded and are seeking reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants also raised a claim during the hearing regarding the landlord not lodging the bond within 23 days as required under section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”). Jurisdiction
The first matter to be determined is the matter of jurisdiction.
The tenancy agreement which is written on a standard Tenancy Services Residential Tenancies Agreement form, has handwritten at the top of the front page “Tenant live with landlord” [sic]. This heading is signed by Satish Kumar for the landlord and by Purnima Anand and Sulabh Anand for the tenants. On page 6 of the agreement are some handwritten conditions. One of them states: “This agreement is for boarder only”.
The RTA section 4, states that the RTA applies to “every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides an exception “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”.
Neither party seeks to assert that premises are a boarding house.
Section 8 of the RTA allows for parties that would otherwise be excluded from the RTA to contract back into the RTA by signing an agreement to that effect.
Having explained the above sections of the RTA to the Mr and Mrs Anand and Mr Kumar, I asked for their views on whether they considered they had contracted into the RTA for the purposes of this tenancy. Both parties agreed that it was their intention that the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 did apply. They also confirmed that they wished their dispute today to be heard and decided by the Tribunal.
On that basis I heard each party’s claims. The claims
The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement to start on 16 February 2025 and to end on 16 August 2025. Part way through the tenancy both parties agreed to end the tenancy early, and the tenancy ended by agreement on 27 April 2025. No claims are being brought by either party with regard to the tenancy ending.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises clean and tidy. The landlord produced photographs which show some fly marks on a lampshade, a bathroom drain that does not look clean, a mark on a mattress, and a mark on a shower tray. The landlord produced an invoice from Jim’s Maintenance for cleaning for $405.00.
The tenants produced photographs of the whole premises and a video taken at the end of the tenancy.
When I look at the photographs I consider the premises look virtually brand new, having had virtually no wear, and to have been left virtually spotless.
This is not to say that the premises were spotless or that the landlord wasn’t justified in undertaking more cleaning before the next tenant moved in. However, a start of tenancy standard of cleaning is not the standard required of an exiting tenant. I determine the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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 RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant made two small gouges in the walls, one in the stairwell and the other in the lounge.
The landlord produced two very close-up photographs that show two small gouges.
The tenant denies knowing about, or making either of the gouges in the walls. One of the holes was in a part of the house that the tenant says was an area she did not use.
On 27 April 2025 the landlord emailed the tenant saying “I inspected my house with Purnima and everything is ok.”
On 28 April 2025 the landlord again emailed the tenant saying “I have done the inspection there are a few issues I will send the pictures tomorrow”.
The landlord stated that at the initial end of tenancy inspection, the tenant was aggressive, and this made him fearful. This is why he says he conceded “everything is ok”.
The tenant produced a seven-minute video of the whole premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord viewed the whole video and referred me to where the gouges were, despite the gouges not being visible in the video. The gouges were on adjacent walls that weren’t visible in the video. The tenants’ disputed there being any holes, and stated their video cover their whole premises.
There are no photographs that show the gouges in the tenants’ premises. The weight of the information provided to me does not show any damage related to the tenants’ tenancy. This is corroborated by the email from the landlord immediately at the end of the tenancy, having done an exit inspection with the tenants, stating “everything is ok”. Furthermore I note that when the landlord sent this email, he was not in the presence of the tenants, and he could have raised the outstanding issues at this point without any fear.
It is for the landlord to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that damage was caused by the tenant. He has not managed to do that. This claim is not proved.
The tenants raised an issue about the landlord not lodging their bond within 23 days after the payment is made, as is required under section 19 of the RTA.
I note that at the beginning of the tenancy, there is no written agreement that the parties are contracting into the RTA, as is required under section 8 of the RTA for the RTA to apply to tenancy situations such as this one. Although the parties have stated today that they wish the Tribunal to address all of their claims as if the RTA does apply to this tenancy, I note that the tenants’ claim regarding the bond was not raised in the tenants’ application to Tenancy Services, and was not raised in the hearing prior to the landlord agreeing to have the dispute heard by the Tribunal. Therefore I consider it would be an abuse of process to add this claim to the tenants application at this stage, and I decline to do so.
Because Purnima Anand, Sulabh Anand has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252339 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Mili Way, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252339 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Mili Way, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions