What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257219?

The tribunal order states: Jason Aso Egelagi must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5257219?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,192.86 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light in bathro…: $170.84 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light in bedroo…: $175.47 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light in kitche…: $102.81 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light/fan in lo…: $310.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $49.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257219?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257219?

The tribunal order states: Jason Aso Egelagi must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5257219?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,192.86 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light in bathro…: $170.84 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light in bedroo…: $175.47 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light in kitche…: $102.81 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Light/fan in lo…: $310.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $49.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257219?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5H, 11 Durham Street East, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257219 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257219 — net $1,317.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/04/25	$1,192.86	Rent arrears to 08/04/25
Repairs: Front door damage - insurance excess	$250.00	Repairs: Front door damage - insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Light in bedroom	$175.47	Replace furnishings: Light in bedroom
Replace furnishings: Light in bathroom	$170.84	Replace furnishings: Light in bathroom
Replace furnishings: Light in kitchen	$102.81	Replace furnishings: Light in kitchen
Replace furnishings: Light/fan in lounge	$310.97	Replace furnishings: Light/fan in lounge
Repairs: Carpet	$500.00	Repairs: Carpet
Rubbish removal	$49.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,317.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,317.45

Order

Jason Aso Egelagi must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For S Malik $1,317.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage, removal of rubbish and cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing the landlord sought to add a new claim seeking exemplary damages for failure, without reasonable excuse, to quit the premises upon termination. As the landlord had not served the tenant with notice of the additional claim, the landlord was not permitted to add the claim. The landlord may not file any additional claims in relation to this tenancy. 1 The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2021 and ended on 8 April 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the tenant owed $1,192.86 in rent as at that date.
The amount ordered is 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.
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. Damage to front door
The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the premises were in as at an inspection conducted 25 May 2022. 1 Relying See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 and the principle that party is required to present their entire case during the course of legal proceedings and may not prosecute a claim by installments.
The 25 May 2022 inspection report showed the front door, which was a fire-stop door, was in good working condition. The landlord produced a breach notice issued to the tenant by the body corporate on 24 August 2022 for “wilful damage – apartment door.” The landlord also produced an email dated 27 August 2024 in which the property manager noted the tenant had accepted causing the damage to the apartment’s front door.
The landlord produced evidence a claim had been made to the landlord’s insurer in September 2024 for replacement of the fire-stop door. The excess paid by the landlord was $250.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage/alterations to light fittings
The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the premises were in as at an inspection conducted 25 May 2022. It showed light fittings in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and lounge were in working (and unaltered) condition at that time. I note one light (beside the shower) in the bathroom appeared not to be in working condition as 25 May 2022, and I have therefore not awarded compensation for any damage to that light.
I am satisfied the landlord produced evidence lights in the bedroom, bathroom (1), kitchen and lounge were either damaged, or altered, as at the inspection conducted 10 May 2025.
The following lights were damaged and/or altered without consent during the tenancy. The proven cost of repair is also listed below: 2 a. Light in bedroom: $175.47; b. Light in bathroom: $170.84; c. Light under cabinets in kitchen: $102.81; d. Light and fan in lounge: $310.97. 3
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Damage to carpet
The landlord says the carpet was newly installed in April 2019. 2 The cost of repair is calculated based on the cost of replacing each light, with the labour cost of $309.50 divided by 7 being the total number of lights replaced by the tradesperson. 3 The cost of repair of the light/fan in the lounge was in a separate invoice. The landlord’s evidence was that the replacement installed by the tenant was not a like-for-like replacement (it was a light only, not fan) and was not safely installed.
The landlord relied on the same photos from the inspection conducted 25 May 2022 as evidence of the condition of the carpet at, or near to, the start of the tenancy.
The landlord relied on the photos from the inspection conducted 10 May 2025 as evidence the tenant damaged the carpet in three areas; the entrance hall (paint splatter), and lounge (oval shaped rust stain, and, square discoloured stain and paint splatter). The landlord said the carpet had also been stained by urine, noting the tenant had had a pet in the premises.
The landlord says the owner decided to replace the entire carpet, rather than patch the areas damaged. The landlord produced evidence that the cost of replacing the carpet was $2,154.55 + GST. The landlord accepts the tenant is not liable for the total cost of replacing the carpet but seeks a contribution towards that cost as they say, but for the tenant’s damage, the landlord would not have been required to replace the carpet.
Based on a quote provided the landlord says patching damage the size of a “dinner plate” would have cost $230+GST. The landlord says, if the landlord had only patched the affected areas it would have cost $1,380+GST (on the basis there were the equivalent of 6 dinner plate sized areas). The landlord seeks that amount in compensation.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant caused damage to the carpet. However, I do not consider an award of $1,587, being more than half the cost of new carpet, is appropriate. That is partly due to the age of the carpet. Carpet installed in a residential rental property is estimated to have a useful lifespan of eight years. 4 By the end of the tenancy, the carpet was six years old. Given the amount of damage caused by the tenant, and taking into account the age of the carpet, I consider an appropriate level of compensation is $500.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. 4 IR265 August 2024, p.36.
Photos taken during the inspection conducted 10 May 2025 show the premises was not left clean. The landlord has produced an invoice for the cost of cleaning, being $138.
Photos taken during the inspection conducted 10 May 2025 also show the tenant left two mirrors in a storage area and weight-lifting plate. The landlord produced an invoice for the cost of removing those items, which totalled $129.
The landlord sought $49.50 in compensation from the tenant for the two items he left as the landlord accepts the total cost included removal of some chattels which belonged to the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved. 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 5257219 — net $1,317.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/04/25	$1,192.86	Rent arrears to 08/04/25
Repairs: Front door damage - insurance excess	$250.00	Repairs: Front door damage - insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Light in bedroom	$175.47	Replace furnishings: Light in bedroom
Replace furnishings: Light in bathroom	$170.84	Replace furnishings: Light in bathroom
Replace furnishings: Light in kitchen	$102.81	Replace furnishings: Light in kitchen
Replace furnishings: Light/fan in lounge	$310.97	Replace furnishings: Light/fan in lounge
Repairs: Carpet	$500.00	Repairs: Carpet
Rubbish removal	$49.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,317.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,317.45

Order

Jason Aso Egelagi must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For S Malik $1,317.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage, removal of rubbish and cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing the landlord sought to add a new claim seeking exemplary damages for failure, without reasonable excuse, to quit the premises upon termination. As the landlord had not served the tenant with notice of the additional claim, the landlord was not permitted to add the claim. The landlord may not file any additional claims in relation to this tenancy. 1 The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2021 and ended on 8 April 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the tenant owed $1,192.86 in rent as at that date.
The amount ordered is 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.
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. Damage to front door
The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the premises were in as at an inspection conducted 25 May 2022. 1 Relying See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 and the principle that party is required to present their entire case during the course of legal proceedings and may not prosecute a claim by installments.
The 25 May 2022 inspection report showed the front door, which was a fire-stop door, was in good working condition. The landlord produced a breach notice issued to the tenant by the body corporate on 24 August 2022 for “wilful damage – apartment door.” The landlord also produced an email dated 27 August 2024 in which the property manager noted the tenant had accepted causing the damage to the apartment’s front door.
The landlord produced evidence a claim had been made to the landlord’s insurer in September 2024 for replacement of the fire-stop door. The excess paid by the landlord was $250.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage/alterations to light fittings
The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the premises were in as at an inspection conducted 25 May 2022. It showed light fittings in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and lounge were in working (and unaltered) condition at that time. I note one light (beside the shower) in the bathroom appeared not to be in working condition as 25 May 2022, and I have therefore not awarded compensation for any damage to that light.
I am satisfied the landlord produced evidence lights in the bedroom, bathroom (1), kitchen and lounge were either damaged, or altered, as at the inspection conducted 10 May 2025.
The following lights were damaged and/or altered without consent during the tenancy. The proven cost of repair is also listed below: 2 a. Light in bedroom: $175.47; b. Light in bathroom: $170.84; c. Light under cabinets in kitchen: $102.81; d. Light and fan in lounge: $310.97. 3
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Damage to carpet
The landlord says the carpet was newly installed in April 2019. 2 The cost of repair is calculated based on the cost of replacing each light, with the labour cost of $309.50 divided by 7 being the total number of lights replaced by the tradesperson. 3 The cost of repair of the light/fan in the lounge was in a separate invoice. The landlord’s evidence was that the replacement installed by the tenant was not a like-for-like replacement (it was a light only, not fan) and was not safely installed.
The landlord relied on the same photos from the inspection conducted 25 May 2022 as evidence of the condition of the carpet at, or near to, the start of the tenancy.
The landlord relied on the photos from the inspection conducted 10 May 2025 as evidence the tenant damaged the carpet in three areas; the entrance hall (paint splatter), and lounge (oval shaped rust stain, and, square discoloured stain and paint splatter). The landlord said the carpet had also been stained by urine, noting the tenant had had a pet in the premises.
The landlord says the owner decided to replace the entire carpet, rather than patch the areas damaged. The landlord produced evidence that the cost of replacing the carpet was $2,154.55 + GST. The landlord accepts the tenant is not liable for the total cost of replacing the carpet but seeks a contribution towards that cost as they say, but for the tenant’s damage, the landlord would not have been required to replace the carpet.
Based on a quote provided the landlord says patching damage the size of a “dinner plate” would have cost $230+GST. The landlord says, if the landlord had only patched the affected areas it would have cost $1,380+GST (on the basis there were the equivalent of 6 dinner plate sized areas). The landlord seeks that amount in compensation.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant caused damage to the carpet. However, I do not consider an award of $1,587, being more than half the cost of new carpet, is appropriate. That is partly due to the age of the carpet. Carpet installed in a residential rental property is estimated to have a useful lifespan of eight years. 4 By the end of the tenancy, the carpet was six years old. Given the amount of damage caused by the tenant, and taking into account the age of the carpet, I consider an appropriate level of compensation is $500.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. 4 IR265 August 2024, p.36.
Photos taken during the inspection conducted 10 May 2025 show the premises was not left clean. The landlord has produced an invoice for the cost of cleaning, being $138.
Photos taken during the inspection conducted 10 May 2025 also show the tenant left two mirrors in a storage area and weight-lifting plate. The landlord produced an invoice for the cost of removing those items, which totalled $129.
The landlord sought $49.50 in compensation from the tenant for the two items he left as the landlord accepts the total cost included removal of some chattels which belonged to the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved. 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 5257219 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5H, 11 Durham Street East, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257219 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5H, 11 Durham Street East, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions