What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261487 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5261487?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Plants: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $463.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261487?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261487?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12533225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261487 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5261487?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Plants: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $463.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261487?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261487?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12533225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 25 Lucinda Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5261487 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 2, 25 Lucinda Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5261487 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261487 — net $3,001.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Living room (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Living room (insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom 2 (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom 3 (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess
Repairs: Bathroom (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bathroom (insurance excess
Repairs: Hallway (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Hallway (insurance excess
Repairs: Exterior path pavers (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Exterior path pavers (insurance excess
Cleaning: Interior	$517.50	Cleaning: Interior
Cleaning: Blinds	$172.50	Cleaning: Blinds
Lock/key replacement	$439.90	Lock/key replacement
Replace plants	$400.00	Replace plants
Rubbish removal	$463.32	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,001.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,001.22

Claims and awards for application 5261487 — net $3,001.22 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: Living room (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Living room (insurance excess

Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Repairs: Bedroom 2 (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Repairs: Bedroom 3 (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Repairs: Bathroom (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to immediately pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s].
Savelina Tofa must immediately pay [The landlord/s] the remaining debt owed after payment of the bond, being $2,601.22, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Introduction

Savelina Tofa (the Tenant) lived at Unit/Flat 2, 25 Lucinda Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 (the Premises) owned by [the Owner] (the Owner) and managed by [The property management company] (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for approximately 15 months.
The Landlord says that, after the tenancy ended in February 2025, the Landlord discovered damaged caused by the Tenant during the tenancy. The Landlord also says the Tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to remove all rubbish.
On 8 October 2025, the Property Manager attended the in-person hearing as representative of the Landlord. The Tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Did the Tenant cause damage in the following rooms: i. Living room; ii. Bedroom 1; iii. Bedroom 2; iv. Bedroom 3; v. Bathroom; vi. Hallway; vii. Exterior path. b. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy? c. Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy? d. Did the Tenant remove 4 Hydrangea plants and 4 Griselinia trees from the garden? e. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish from the Premises at the end of the tenancy? f. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee? g. Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed? 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.
This approach is applied to each issue below.

Did the Tenant cause damage in the named rooms?

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. 1
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). 2
The Landlord says the Tenant caused damage to the walls, floor coverings (carpet) and some doors in the living room, all three bedrooms, the bathroom and hallway. The Landlord also says the Tenant damaged exterior pavers over which an access ramp was placed during the tenancy.
In support, the Landlord has produced photos taken during an in-going inspection conducted 22 November 2023 which show the condition of the walls, 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 2 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. doors and carpet in all interior rooms. The photos also show the exterior pavers intact.
The Landlord produced photos taken during the out-going inspection conducted on 3 March 2025 which show the interior walls were scuffed and scratched in several rooms, the carpet was stained and some doors showed large scratches, likely caused by a pet. The out-going inspection also shows the exterior pavers were cracked and had not been replaced. The Landlord also produced a photograph taken during the tenancy which showed the Tenant parking their car on the pavers (which are the sort designed for foot traffic, not vehicular traffic).
The Property Manager says on 23 January 2025 the owner became aware that the Tenant had five dogs on the Premises. The tenancy agreement explicitly states the Tenant is not permitted to have pets at the Premises. They say the pets may well have caused a lot of the damage, including the scratches on several walls and doors and certainly the damage to the carpet (urine staining).
The Property Manager says when she attended the Premises on 3 March 2025, there was a strong smell of urine throughout the house. The Property Manager also referred to an email from the Owner’s builder who offered his observation that the carpet throughout the house appeared to be heavily stained with urine.
The Landlord produced correspondence with their insurer who confirmed claims had been accepted in relation to the living room, all three bedrooms, the bathroom and hallway as well as the exterior pavers. An insurance settlement was made, with an excess of $500 applied to each claim (one claim per room). The Landlord therefore seeks reimbursement of the excess paid in respect of each of the seven claims for the seven rooms/areas requiring repair, being at total of $3,500.00.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage to the walls, doors and carpet in the living room, all three bedrooms, the bathroom and hallway, as well as the exterior pavers, was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy. The in- going and out-going inspection photos clearly establish that. I am also satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear – much of the damage to the walls were deep gouges likely caused by a pet. A nail driven into the wall of the shower in the bathroom pierced the waterproof layer, requiring a complete replacement of the shower.
The Landlord has proved an insurance claim was made, and the excess for each of the seven claims was $500.00. The Tenant’s liability is limited to that amount, and I make the orders accordingly.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the interior of the Premises clean and did not clean the blinds in the kitchen, lounge and bedrooms 1 and 3.
The Landlord relied on the photographs taken during the exit inspection on 3 March 2025 which showed the Premises was not left reasonably clean. Floor coverings had debris on them and surfaces were not cleaned.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 17 March 2025 for $517.50 for 6.5 hours of interior cleaning, and an invoice dated 27 March 2025 for $172.50 for
5 hours for blind cleaning.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not leave the Premises and the blinds in the Premises reasonably clean and that the Landlord incurred the costs as claimed.
I make the orders accordingly.

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices provided for their benefit. 4
The Landlord says the Tenant did not return the keys, and consequently the Landlord had to have new keys cut for the front ranchslider, the back door and the laundry door.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 6 March 2025 for $439.30 for replacement locks and keys for those three rooms.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not return the keys and that the Landlord incurred the costs as claimed.
I make the order accordingly.

Did the Tenant remove 4 Hydrangea plants and 4 Griselinia trees from the garden?

The Landlord says the Tenant intentionally removed 4 Hydrangea plants from the back garden of the Premises and 4 Griselinia trees from the side of the Premises. The Property Manager says in February 2025, when the tenancy was coming to an end, he asked the Tenant what happened to the Hydrangea bushes. [The property manager] says the Tenant told him they had hacked them with a machete to make more room in the backyard. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. 4 Section 40(1)(e)(iv).
The Landlord relied on the photographs taken during the in-going inspection in November 2023 which show the plants in place. The Landlord relies on the photographs taken during the exit inspection on 3 March 2025 which show the plants were not present at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord was not able to produce evidence of the cost incurred to replace the eight plants. The Landlord says the owner obtained a quote for $862.50 and that was the final cost, but at the hearing was unable to produce a final invoice or proof of payment. 5
I am satisfied the Landlord incurred some cost in replacing the missing plants. Without evidence of the actual cost incurred, I award a nominal amount of $50 per plant, being a total of $400.00.
I make an order accordingly. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish from the Premises at the end of the tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his goods from the premises and remove all rubbish. 6
The Landlord says the Tenant did not remove large pieces of broken furniture and other rubbish left around the exterior of the Premises. The Landlord relied on the photographs taken during the exit inspection on 3 March 2025 which showed wood and furniture left in the exterior shed, under the house and leaning up against the boundary fence.
The Property Manager says the Owner removed the rubbish themselves and produced receipts for the cost of hiring a trailer and two dump fees.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not remove all rubbish and that the Landlord incurred the costs as claimed.
I make the order accordingly. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?
As the Landlord has succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. 5 I permitted the Landlord until 4pm on 8 October 2025 to file evidence of the actual cost incurred by email to the registry. As at 5pm on 8 October 2025, no further evidence had been received. 6 Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iii). Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed?
The Landlord applied for suppression of their name. As the Landlord’s application was successful, the Landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261487 — net $3,001.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Living room (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Living room (insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom 2 (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom 3 (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess
Repairs: Bathroom (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Bathroom (insurance excess
Repairs: Hallway (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Hallway (insurance excess
Repairs: Exterior path pavers (insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Exterior path pavers (insurance excess
Cleaning: Interior	$517.50	Cleaning: Interior
Cleaning: Blinds	$172.50	Cleaning: Blinds
Lock/key replacement	$439.90	Lock/key replacement
Replace plants	$400.00	Replace plants
Rubbish removal	$463.32	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,001.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,001.22

Claims and awards for application 5261487 — net $3,001.22 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: Living room (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Living room (insurance excess

Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Repairs: Bedroom 2 (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Repairs: Bedroom 3 (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom 1 (insurance excess

Repairs: Bathroom (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to immediately pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s].
Savelina Tofa must immediately pay [The landlord/s] the remaining debt owed after payment of the bond, being $2,601.22, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Introduction

Savelina Tofa (the Tenant) lived at Unit/Flat 2, 25 Lucinda Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 (the Premises) owned by [the Owner] (the Owner) and managed by [The property management company] (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for approximately 15 months.
The Landlord says that, after the tenancy ended in February 2025, the Landlord discovered damaged caused by the Tenant during the tenancy. The Landlord also says the Tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to remove all rubbish.
On 8 October 2025, the Property Manager attended the in-person hearing as representative of the Landlord. The Tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Did the Tenant cause damage in the following rooms: i. Living room; ii. Bedroom 1; iii. Bedroom 2; iv. Bedroom 3; v. Bathroom; vi. Hallway; vii. Exterior path. b. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy? c. Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy? d. Did the Tenant remove 4 Hydrangea plants and 4 Griselinia trees from the garden? e. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish from the Premises at the end of the tenancy? f. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee? g. Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed? 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.
This approach is applied to each issue below.

Did the Tenant cause damage in the named rooms?

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. 1
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). 2
The Landlord says the Tenant caused damage to the walls, floor coverings (carpet) and some doors in the living room, all three bedrooms, the bathroom and hallway. The Landlord also says the Tenant damaged exterior pavers over which an access ramp was placed during the tenancy.
In support, the Landlord has produced photos taken during an in-going inspection conducted 22 November 2023 which show the condition of the walls, 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 2 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. doors and carpet in all interior rooms. The photos also show the exterior pavers intact.
The Landlord produced photos taken during the out-going inspection conducted on 3 March 2025 which show the interior walls were scuffed and scratched in several rooms, the carpet was stained and some doors showed large scratches, likely caused by a pet. The out-going inspection also shows the exterior pavers were cracked and had not been replaced. The Landlord also produced a photograph taken during the tenancy which showed the Tenant parking their car on the pavers (which are the sort designed for foot traffic, not vehicular traffic).
The Property Manager says on 23 January 2025 the owner became aware that the Tenant had five dogs on the Premises. The tenancy agreement explicitly states the Tenant is not permitted to have pets at the Premises. They say the pets may well have caused a lot of the damage, including the scratches on several walls and doors and certainly the damage to the carpet (urine staining).
The Property Manager says when she attended the Premises on 3 March 2025, there was a strong smell of urine throughout the house. The Property Manager also referred to an email from the Owner’s builder who offered his observation that the carpet throughout the house appeared to be heavily stained with urine.
The Landlord produced correspondence with their insurer who confirmed claims had been accepted in relation to the living room, all three bedrooms, the bathroom and hallway as well as the exterior pavers. An insurance settlement was made, with an excess of $500 applied to each claim (one claim per room). The Landlord therefore seeks reimbursement of the excess paid in respect of each of the seven claims for the seven rooms/areas requiring repair, being at total of $3,500.00.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage to the walls, doors and carpet in the living room, all three bedrooms, the bathroom and hallway, as well as the exterior pavers, was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy. The in- going and out-going inspection photos clearly establish that. I am also satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear – much of the damage to the walls were deep gouges likely caused by a pet. A nail driven into the wall of the shower in the bathroom pierced the waterproof layer, requiring a complete replacement of the shower.
The Landlord has proved an insurance claim was made, and the excess for each of the seven claims was $500.00. The Tenant’s liability is limited to that amount, and I make the orders accordingly.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the interior of the Premises clean and did not clean the blinds in the kitchen, lounge and bedrooms 1 and 3.
The Landlord relied on the photographs taken during the exit inspection on 3 March 2025 which showed the Premises was not left reasonably clean. Floor coverings had debris on them and surfaces were not cleaned.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 17 March 2025 for $517.50 for 6.5 hours of interior cleaning, and an invoice dated 27 March 2025 for $172.50 for
5 hours for blind cleaning.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not leave the Premises and the blinds in the Premises reasonably clean and that the Landlord incurred the costs as claimed.
I make the orders accordingly.

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices provided for their benefit. 4
The Landlord says the Tenant did not return the keys, and consequently the Landlord had to have new keys cut for the front ranchslider, the back door and the laundry door.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 6 March 2025 for $439.30 for replacement locks and keys for those three rooms.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not return the keys and that the Landlord incurred the costs as claimed.
I make the order accordingly.

Did the Tenant remove 4 Hydrangea plants and 4 Griselinia trees from the garden?

The Landlord says the Tenant intentionally removed 4 Hydrangea plants from the back garden of the Premises and 4 Griselinia trees from the side of the Premises. The Property Manager says in February 2025, when the tenancy was coming to an end, he asked the Tenant what happened to the Hydrangea bushes. [The property manager] says the Tenant told him they had hacked them with a machete to make more room in the backyard. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. 4 Section 40(1)(e)(iv).
The Landlord relied on the photographs taken during the in-going inspection in November 2023 which show the plants in place. The Landlord relies on the photographs taken during the exit inspection on 3 March 2025 which show the plants were not present at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord was not able to produce evidence of the cost incurred to replace the eight plants. The Landlord says the owner obtained a quote for $862.50 and that was the final cost, but at the hearing was unable to produce a final invoice or proof of payment. 5
I am satisfied the Landlord incurred some cost in replacing the missing plants. Without evidence of the actual cost incurred, I award a nominal amount of $50 per plant, being a total of $400.00.
I make an order accordingly. Did the Tenant fail to remove all rubbish from the Premises at the end of the tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his goods from the premises and remove all rubbish. 6
The Landlord says the Tenant did not remove large pieces of broken furniture and other rubbish left around the exterior of the Premises. The Landlord relied on the photographs taken during the exit inspection on 3 March 2025 which showed wood and furniture left in the exterior shed, under the house and leaning up against the boundary fence.
The Property Manager says the Owner removed the rubbish themselves and produced receipts for the cost of hiring a trailer and two dump fees.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not remove all rubbish and that the Landlord incurred the costs as claimed.
I make the order accordingly. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?
As the Landlord has succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. 5 I permitted the Landlord until 4pm on 8 October 2025 to file evidence of the actual cost incurred by email to the registry. As at 5pm on 8 October 2025, no further evidence had been received. 6 Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iii). Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed?
The Landlord applied for suppression of their name. As the Landlord’s application was successful, the Landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261487 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 25 Lucinda Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261487 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 25 Lucinda Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the Tenant cause damage in the named rooms?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant remove 4 Hydrangea plants and 4 Griselinia trees from the garden?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the Tenant cause damage in the named rooms?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant remove 4 Hydrangea plants and 4 Griselinia trees from the garden?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions