What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273662 about?

The tribunal order states: Adelaide Perham and Michael Perham to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5273662?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.94 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273662?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12251952-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273662 about?

The tribunal order states: Adelaide Perham and Michael Perham to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5273662?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.94 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273662?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12251952-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 285B Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273662 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273662 — net $729.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$137.50	2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $137.50.
Window repairs	$219.94	Window repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $345.00 to the landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$729.44
Bond	$1,820.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$729.44

Order

Adelaide Perham and Michael Perham to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Steed, Michelle Chester, Colin And Dorothy $729.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 (3421211-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Steed, Michelle Chester, Colin And Dorothy: $729.44 Adelaide Perham and Michael Perham: $1,090.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 25 April 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $137.50. The landlord explained that an overpayment of rent by the tenant had been used to part pay the water rates arrears. This has left an outstanding balance of $137.50. Had those funds not been used, this would have resulted in a higher water rates debt. In turn, that would have resulted in that increased debt being deducted from the tenant’s bond in this order.
Section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal may exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal may determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations.
I accept that the amount claimed by the landlord is the correct remaining balance for water rates. The tenant is ordered to pay $137.50 in water rates. 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord says that the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but that as the premises were being returned to the landlord, further work was required to bring the premises to an acceptable standard. The sole requirement under the RTA is that a tenant leave premises reasonably clean and tidy. I have not been provided with photos of the premises to assist in my consideration. The burden of proof is on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
Carpet cleaning was carried out at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for $345.00. The tenant agreed that the carpet cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $345.00 to the landlord
The landlord says that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord said that she discussed the removal of rubbish with the tenant prior to the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there was a photo of a glass table and assorted rubbish piled at the end of the driveway. The photo was not provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. This application had been filed by the landlord in May 2025. The landlord has had more than sufficient time to file any evidence prior to this hearing.
The tenant said that she had left a glass table at the end of the driveway as her neighbour had indicated that they wished to have the table. She said that no other rubbish had been left out by her.
The burden of proof in this matter is on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that the rubbish left at the end of the driveway was the tenants. The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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 tenant accepted that a window in the garage had been damaged during the course of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $219.94. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proven.
As Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Steed, Michelle Chester, Colin And Dorothy has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273662 — net $729.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$137.50	2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $137.50.
Window repairs	$219.94	Window repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $345.00 to the landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$729.44
Bond	$1,820.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$729.44

Order

Adelaide Perham and Michael Perham to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Steed, Michelle Chester, Colin And Dorothy $729.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 (3421211-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Steed, Michelle Chester, Colin And Dorothy: $729.44 Adelaide Perham and Michael Perham: $1,090.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 25 April 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $137.50. The landlord explained that an overpayment of rent by the tenant had been used to part pay the water rates arrears. This has left an outstanding balance of $137.50. Had those funds not been used, this would have resulted in a higher water rates debt. In turn, that would have resulted in that increased debt being deducted from the tenant’s bond in this order.
Section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal may exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal may determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations.
I accept that the amount claimed by the landlord is the correct remaining balance for water rates. The tenant is ordered to pay $137.50 in water rates. 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord says that the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but that as the premises were being returned to the landlord, further work was required to bring the premises to an acceptable standard. The sole requirement under the RTA is that a tenant leave premises reasonably clean and tidy. I have not been provided with photos of the premises to assist in my consideration. The burden of proof is on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
Carpet cleaning was carried out at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for $345.00. The tenant agreed that the carpet cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $345.00 to the landlord
The landlord says that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord said that she discussed the removal of rubbish with the tenant prior to the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there was a photo of a glass table and assorted rubbish piled at the end of the driveway. The photo was not provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. This application had been filed by the landlord in May 2025. The landlord has had more than sufficient time to file any evidence prior to this hearing.
The tenant said that she had left a glass table at the end of the driveway as her neighbour had indicated that they wished to have the table. She said that no other rubbish had been left out by her.
The burden of proof in this matter is on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that the rubbish left at the end of the driveway was the tenants. The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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 tenant accepted that a window in the garage had been damaged during the course of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $219.94. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proven.
As Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Steed, Michelle Chester, Colin And Dorothy has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273662 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 285B Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273662 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 285B Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions