How much money was awarded in case 5261679?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $26.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,071.43 awarded to landlord; Dents/Holes, Patching And Painting: $337.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261679?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12148860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5261679?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $26.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,071.43 awarded to landlord; Dents/Holes, Patching And Painting: $337.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261679?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12148860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5261679 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261679 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261679 — net $1,881.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 13 April 2025	$1,071.43	Rent arrears (to 13 April 2025
Cleaning	$220.00	Cleaning
Window repairs – garage door	$200.00	Window repairs – garage door
Repairs: dents/holes, patching and painting	$337.00	Repairs: dents/holes, patching and painting
Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarm	$26.13	Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,881.56
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,881.56

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,881.56 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,881.56 [The tenant/s]: $518.44

Reasons

[Property Manager], Property Manager appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.

The tenancy commenced on 27 December 2019 with the fixed term ending on 15 January 2021, there after the tenancy became periodic.

The landlord served a 42-day notice on the tenant and the tenancy ended on 13 April 2025.

On 13 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement of provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). Rent arrears

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and filed rent records with their application to prove their claim. This rent record indicates the arrears totalled $1,324.00.

At the hearing, the landlord stated the tenant failed to pay rent for the period 4 April 2025 to 13 April 2025 sought an order for arrears totalling $1,017.43.

The tenant challenged the reliability of the landlord’s rent records and produced two e-mails and a rent record, provided to them by the landlord. The tenant did not produce their own rent records.

The first email dated 3 April 2025, states the tenant is 8 days in rent arrears and owes $878.29. The second e-mail dated 5 April 2025, states the tenant is 10 days in rent arrears and owes $878.29.

The tenant produced a partial rent record previously provided by the landlord, produced as a screen shot on the tenant’s phone. It correctly records the tenancy address and rental period, but incorrectly records the tenant’s name.

The tenant stated they were not in rent arrears but in rent credit, having paid two weeks rent in advance at the commencement of the tenancy.

At the hearing, the landlord withdrew the earlier rent record, acknowledged it contained incorrect information, and filed an up to date rent record which they then relied on to prove their claim.

The landlord explanation for the irregularity with their records was due to a rent increase being incorrectly applied to the tenant’s account. The landlord also acknowledged that this incorrect information was the basis on which their emails dated 3 and 5 April 2025, were sent to the tenant. No explanation was offered for the wrong tenant’s name being affixed to the rent record supplied to the tenant.

The up-dated rent record proves the tenant paid rent two weeks in advance on 26 December 2019. It also records that the next rent payment was made on 10 January 2020.

Having heard from the landlord and taking the opportunity to discuss the rent records with the Tribunal, the tenant accepted the landlord’s claim.

The amount claimed is proved and awarded.

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) of the Act. Cleaning

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.

The landlord paid a contractor to clean the windows, windowsills, skirting boards, bathrooms, and toilets to a reasonable clean and tidy standard and provided an invoice totalling $220.00.

The landlord had filed a pre-tenancy inspection report which lacked the referenced photographs referred to in the report. The landlord facilitated the viewing of these images during the hearing, via their laptop.

During the hearing, the landlord filed a 408-page post tenancy inspection report with photographs.

The tenant disputes the landlord’s claim that they did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant produced their own black and white photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.

During the hearing, the Tribunal took time to traverse the photographs provided by both parties.

Having reviewed all the evidence and hearing from the parties I consider the landlord’s claim proved. The property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s invoice for cleaning is reasonable and the amount sought awarded.

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 of the Act. Lounge window

The landlord submitted a photograph taken at the end of the tenancy showing a small hole in the lounge window glass.

The landlord submitted an invoice for cost of reglazing the window totalling $609.50.

The tenant denies responsibility for damage to the lounge window glass stating the hole was present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant said he told the previous property manager about it, had asked for it to be repaired, but nothing happened.

The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs produced by the landlord fails to record the condition of the lounge room or the lounge room window at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord accepted the hole could have been present at the commencement of the tenancy and brough to the attention of the previous property manager.

Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Glazed aluminium door

The tenant acknowledged the glazing in the aluminium door into the garage was broken during the tenancy. On the evidence I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant could not provide an explanation for how the damage occurred.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $200.00 to reglaze the door. The amount claimed is awarded. Various damage to walls and ceiling

The landlord paid a contractor to undertake various repairs to the walls of the property including fixing the holes, sanding, patching, and painting. The invoice totalled $437.00.

The Tribunal took time during the hearing to review the pre and post tenancy photographs with the parties. The tenant accepted responsibility for some of the damage to the walls, specifically holes and surface damage to the walls in two of the bedrooms and a hole in the wall of the garage.

Considering the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must take 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. In determining betterment, the Tribunal will take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy.

In this case considering the age and condition of the property, betterment, and the work undertaken by the tenant, the Tribunal deducts $100.00 and awards the landlord $337.00.

The tenant stated that a hole in wall in the master bedroom and a hole in the wall in the entrance were present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant said he had asked the former property manager to arrange for them to be repaired, but when that did not happen, he plastered over the damage himself. These repairs were not sanded or painted. I am not satisfied that this is damage the tenant is liable for. Smoke alarm and light bulbs

The tenant acknowledged that two light bulbs and a smoke alarm were removed during the tenancy and not replaced.

The landlord submitted an invoice for two light bulbs and one smoke alarm totalling $26.13. The amount claimed is awarded. Costs

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

The tenant did not seek name suppression. However, in the circumstances, I feel that this is an appropriate case for the tribunal to exercise its discretion in accordance with section 95A(4), and order suppression of tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261679 — net $1,881.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 13 April 2025	$1,071.43	Rent arrears (to 13 April 2025
Cleaning	$220.00	Cleaning
Window repairs – garage door	$200.00	Window repairs – garage door
Repairs: dents/holes, patching and painting	$337.00	Repairs: dents/holes, patching and painting
Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarm	$26.13	Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,881.56
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,881.56