What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272526 about?

The tribunal order states: Upon application, the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5272526?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272526?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272526?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12982176-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272526 about?

The tribunal order states: Upon application, the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5272526?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272526?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272526?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12982176-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9A Pennant Street, Long Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272526 — Property damage

Order

Upon application, the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims for outstanding water and electricity charges are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is directed to pay the bond of $2,480.00 to the landlord.
Ellen Power must pay [The landlord/s] $8,604.25 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Should the Tribunal proceed in the tenant’s absence?

Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for payment of outstanding water and electricity charges, compensation, refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, and suppression of its identifying details.
The applicant landlord (a property management company) attended the hearing, along with one of the beneficiaries of the trust that owns the property. The tenant did not attend.
The Tribunal attempted to contact the tenant on the two known telephone numbers without success. At an earlier hearing, an adjournment had been granted to the tenant, who attended only by chance, to ensure proper service. A notice of hearing was subsequently sent to the tenant’s two known email addresses. Despite previously seeking an adjournment, the tenant made no further contact with the Tribunal and did not request an adjournment or alternative means of attendance.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal proceeded in the tenant’s absence pursuant to section 92(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Are water and electricity charges payable?

The tenancy ended on 27 April 2025.
The landlord produced rent and electricity invoices generated by apportioning overall usage across several adjoining rental premises. The landlord explained that there was no separate meter to measure the tenant’s individual electricity or volumetric water consumption.
Section 39(3) of the Act provides that a tenant is responsible only for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. This requires actual measurement, not estimated or apportioned usage, as confirmed in cases such as Swift v Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana [2020] NZTT Porirua 4291385
The landlord relied on: a. the tenancy agreement, which materially reflects section 39(3) of the Act; and; b. the fact that the tenant had previously paid apportioned invoices. However, section 11 of the Act renders void and unenforceable any agreement or practice that purports to contract out of the Act.
As the claims are based on apportioned rather than exclusively attributable usage, the landlord’s claims for water and electricity charges are dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with end-of-tenancy obligations?

At the end of a tenancy, a 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 use (sections 40(1)(e)(ii)–(v) of the Act).
The tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and failed to remove all rubbish. Pre- and post-tenancy photographs, inspection reports, invoices, and the property manager’s evidence confirm that extensive cleaning and remedial works were required beyond that covered by insurance.
The tenant also kept three dogs at the premises without permission, resulting in soiling and damage.
At the end of the tenancy, the lounge blinds, towel rail wiring, and the letterbox were missing and required replacement.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the amounts claimed and ordered for cleaning, pest control, replacement of missing items, disposal of rubbish, and insurance excesses are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord also claims for: a. an emergency call-out and repairs to the oven, attributed by the repairer to cockroach infestation; and b. damage caused by the unauthorised dogs, including damage to the kitchen hose, flooring, power points, and bathroom fittings.
This damage occurred during the tenancy, largely at its end, when the tenant was arrested. Despite attempts by the landlord to obtain assistance from Police and Animal Management, the dogs were left unsupervised in the property for three days.
The landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. Tenants are responsible for damage caused by themselves or others permitted at the premises (sections 40, 41, and 49B of the Act)..
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 damage resulted from a lack of cleanliness leading to infestation and from the unauthorised dogs. It is more than fair wear and tear.
Allowance has been made for betterment and depreciation. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant complied with their obligations, but not to be better off.
The amounts claimed are proven and are therefore ordered. It is appropriate that the bond is refunded to the landlord to offset and mitigate the loss of the landlords.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

As the landlord has been substantially successful, reimbursement of the filing fee is required under section 102 of the Act.

Should suppression be granted?

Given the landlord’s substantial success, suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details is ordered under section 95A of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272526 — Property damage at 9A Pennant Street, Long Bay, Auckland 0630

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272526 — Property damage at 9A Pennant Street, Long Bay, Auckland 0630

Order

Reasons

Are water and electricity charges payable?

Did the tenant comply with end-of-tenancy obligations?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression be granted?

Order

Reasons

Are water and electricity charges payable?

Did the tenant comply with end-of-tenancy obligations?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression be granted?