What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256439 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6011387-004) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5256439?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256439?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792087-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256439 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6011387-004) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5256439?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256439?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792087-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 305, 4 Bluegrey Avenue, Stonefields, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5256439 — Smoke alarms

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6011387-004) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application for compensation of $325.00 is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is also dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by the court appointed Cantonese interpreter.
The tenant filed an application on 23 April 2025 seeking reimbursement of money paid to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord cross applied on 7 May 2025 seeking compensation for damage and cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenant moved into the property on 1 April 2024. The tenancy ended on 21 April 2025. A final inspection was undertaken at the end of the tenancy.
The premises consisted of a 1-bedroom apartment with 1 bathroom. The tenant lived there with her daughter.
The landlord seeks vacated damages following the end of the tenancy.
There has been communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Has the tenant breached her obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation? Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends. Legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.

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

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says that “the place was not that clean”. They say that the floors, kitchen and bathroom was not left clean. They say that they gave an option to the tenant for her to clean but it was declined. The landlord provided an invoice for the amount of $290.00 plus GST during the hearing.
The tenant does not accept the claim. The tenant says that when she moved out her and her mother cleaned the apartment to the required standard. The tenant says that she returned the apartment to the landlord in a good condition. Carpet cleaning
The landlord says that the carpet had stains on it which had to be cleaned. The amount claimed is $105.00 plus GST. The landlord provided an invoice for this amount during the hearing.
The tenant does not accept this claim. The tenant says that she tried her best to clean the spots. The tenant says that they would have been easy to clean.
The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence of the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also stated during the hearing that the carpet is approximately 8 or 9 years old.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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 claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls in the hallway, dining room, lounge and damage to a stove cook top. Wall damage
The landlord says that the tenant hung ‘things’ on the wall and has then tried to repair the holes in the walls. The walls were in the hallway, dining and lounge. The landlord says that the tenant and her daughter had put things on the wall which has caused damage.
The tenant does not accept this claim. The tenant says that there were different colours on the walls before she moved into the premises. She says that she felt that it was not a problem at the time. Damage to stove cooktop
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the electric cooktop. They say that it approximately 8 years old and now has a chip on it. The landlord has not provided any entry inspection photos of the stove top. They say that it is still only a quote and has not been replaced yet. The landlord has only provided a single photograph of the cooktop during the hearing. Analysis of damage and cleaning claims
The landlord seeks compensation for alleged damage to the premises, specifically claiming that the tenant damaged walls and the kitchen cooktop.
The landlord also claims compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning.
The landlord has not provided any pre-tenancy evidence, such as a comprehensive entry inspection report or dated photographs, to establish the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has only provided the initial inspection checklist.
The problem that the landlord has with their application is the lack of evidence. Other than a single photograph of a cooktop and an invoice for cleaning, carpet cleaning and wall repair there is a total absence of a pre tenancy inspection report and photographs. The landlord has also not provided an exit inspection report with photographs confirming the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Put simply, the claims advanced by the landlord are not supported by the available evidence.
Furthermore, the landlord confirmed during the hearing that the kitchen cooktop has not yet been replaced and is still only a quote. The landlord therefore is yet to suffer a loss in respect of this alleged damage.
The Tribunal requires credible and objective evidence to support claims of tenant- caused damage, particularly where the claims are in dispute.
In the absence of both comprehensive entry and exit tenancy evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord bears the burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant, rather than being the result of fair wear and tear or a pre-existing condition. I also take note of the age of the carpet and the cooktop.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for compensation must be dismissed.
Because the landlord’s application has been dismissed the bond must now be returned to the tenant.
The landlord has been unsuccessful in their application and because of this I do not reimburse the application filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful. Tenant application
The tenant moved out of the property on 21 April 2025.
The tenant says that she paid the landlord an extra $575.00. The weekly rent was originally $590.00 but was then reduced to $575.00 on the basis that the washing machine/dryer was playing up. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they reduced the rent on this basis to $575.00.
The tenant seeks compensation of $325.00.
The tenant has not provided any evidence to confirm that additional money was paid to the landlord. The landlord also disputed this payment during the hearing. At the very least I would have expected the tenant to provide a bank statement showing the payment having been made into the landlord’s bank account.
In the absence of any evidence in support of this I cannot be satisfied that the tenant should be reimbursed this money. Put simply, there is no evidence filed by the tenant to support her claim.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is also dismissed.
Because the tenant’s application has been dismissed I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256439 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Unit 305, 4 Bluegrey Avenue, Stonefields,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256439 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Unit 305, 4 Bluegrey Avenue, Stonefields,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

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