What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277163 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 () immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 5277163?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Alteration By Tenant: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Lawn Reinstatement: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.76 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $121.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277163?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12436499-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277163 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 () immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 5277163?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Alteration By Tenant: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Lawn Reinstatement: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.76 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $121.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277163?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12436499-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

308 Roscommon Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277163 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277163 — net $973.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Garage alteration by tenant	$287.50		Garage alteration by tenant
Water charges to end of tenancy	$121.61		Water charges to end of tenancy
Replacement lounge window	$322.81		Replacement lounge window
Replacement internet power adapter	$48.99		Replacement internet power adapter
Lawn reinstatement	$330.00		Lawn reinstatement
Lock/key replacement	$63.76		Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$299.00		Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond		$500.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond
Total award	$1,473.67	$500.00
Net award	$973.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$973.67

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $973.67 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $266.33

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 September 2025.
On 30 May 2025 the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation. In written submissions the landlord amended the application to include a claim for loss of rent.
On 11 September 2025 the tenant applied for refund of the bond. At the hearing, the tenant amended the application to include exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond.
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims for the cost of remedying alterations to the garage windows ($287.50) and water charges ($121.61). Rent in Lieu
The tenant accepted that he gave 7 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy when a longer notice period was necessary. The tenant gave notice on 20 March 2025 to end the tenancy on 27 March 2025. He vacated on 28 March 2025.
The notice given on 20 March 2025 would have ended the tenancy on 10 April 2025, pursuant to section 51(2A) of the Act. It is however arguable that the tenancy ended by agreement on 28 March 2025, when the tenant vacated, because the next day the landlord conducted a final inspection with the tenant. Further, the landlord did not provide a rent summary and did not know when the property was re-tenanted. It is unclear on the evidence presented whether the landlord has suffered any loss. Windows
The landlord said the tenant was provided with latches/stays for the kitchen and toilet windows for the tenant to install, as requested. The latches were not installed properly, and the windows could not be opened. The tenant said he put the latches on, and they worked fine. Further, the landlord did not raise any issues with the windows during inspections, including the final inspection. The landlord opened and closed the windows at inspections.
There is no independent evidence to verify that the latches/stays were incorrectly installed by the tenant. There is a quotation from a handyman (for $414.00) which seems to have been provided based on photographs. I find that this claim is not established.
The landlord said the lounge window was cracked during the tenancy. The tenant said this was not identified at the final inspection and believed it was not there at the time. The landlord provided photographs of the window, said to have been taken before the tenancy and at the final inspection.
I find that the window was cracked during the tenancy. I award $322.81 for the cost of repair (the insurance excess being $550.00). Power Adaptor and Shower Parts
The landlord claimed the cost of a missing power adaptor for the fibre internet box. The tenant said he may have taken this by mistake, but he could not find it. The tenant also indicated that power adaptors can be obtained for free from Chorus but provided no evidence to support this.
I award the cost of a replacement from PB Tech, where they can be purchased for $48.99.
The landlord said she provided the tenant with shower parts which the tenant did not use or return. The tenant said the landlord provided spacers, but they did not fit and would not help to repair the shower door. The tenant made his own repairs to prevent the door from catching.
The claim is for $33.70. Probably the tenant should have returned the parts to the landlord, even if they could not be used for anything. Whether the landlord could have then obtained a refund from the retailer is unknown. That said, the claim involves a somewhat minor issue. I find that this aspect of the application was “frivolous or vexatious” and the claim is struck out pursuant to section 92A of the Act. Lawns
The landlord said the lawns were left very bare, with rubbish, ashes, and burned patches that needed to be restored. The landlord provided photographs of the surrounding grounds. The tenant said it was unclear when the photographs were taken and, in written submissions, alleged that the landlord had used marketing photographs taken prior to the tenancy.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the previous tenant (who left in May 2023) about maintenance issues at the property. The previous tenant said she was blamed for issues arising before she moved in, including the poor condition of the yard and the carpets. The evidence from the previous tenant was that the landlord’s photographs reflected the condition of the premises when she lived there.
On the other hand, the tenant admitted to levelling an area of the garden next to the driveway that was uneven. One week before moving out, they levelled an area of the front lawn that was uneven and had deep tyre ruts. The tenant said they used a charcoal barbecue in the back yard “that sat low to the lawn”. This is consistent with the landlord’s complaint about ashes and burned patches which can be seen in the photographs.
The landlord’s photographs taken at the inspection on 29 September 2023 show the lawns at the back of the house in good condition. This can be contrasted with the photographs apparently taken on 29 March 2025.
The landlord has performed “interim” work to make the area safe and presentable. She has applied potting mix, lawn seed, and fertilizer. The cost of fully remediating the area has been verbally quoted as $4,000.00. There is insufficient support for this remediation cost, which is said to include removal of rubble and “contaminated soil”. I award the cost of the interim work only ($150.00 for materials and $180.00 for labour). Missing Chattels
The landlord said her workbench was taken, with only the top left behind. The tenant said this was stored in the garage, which was leaking. The bench was badly deteriorated, and the tenant disposed of it. The previous tenant also said the bench was dirty and swollen due to water damage.
Disposing of the bench was not really the tenant’s decision to make, however it is unclear whether it had any value. I decline to award compensation.
The landlord said various screws and sleeve anchors from the garage were taken by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs said to show garage fittings missing from the garage entrance. The tenant did not remember there being any screws. He had agreed to install the garage door but said he did not have sufficient materials. The garage entrance remained open and exposed the inside of the garage to the weather during the tenancy.
There was a written statement from a neighbour alleging that the tenant had taken the heat pump assembly from a vacant property nearby. It is not possible to place any weight on this evidence. The witness was not called to be questioned about what they saw. There was a similar allegation made against contractors of the landlord relating to a Kainga Ora home, again from a witness who only gave a written statement. No reliance can be placed on this hearsay evidence to support such serious claims.
The landlord’s photographs do appear to show that fittings included in the garage door mechanism were missing. It is not clear what happened to these, how they went missing or when, or why the tenant would want to take them. I dismiss this claim. Keys and Curtain
The landlord said the tenant had not returned one of the keys. The tenant said he could not return all the keys at the final inspection, and afterwards he was unable to arrange a time to hand the keys back before the landlord changed the locks.
The tenant’s obligation was to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant failed to do so. I award $63.76 for the cost of changing the locks.
The landlord claimed the cost of replacing a damaged thermal curtain. The tenant said this was fair wear and tear and the curtain was in poor condition when they moved in. The landlord disputed this. It is unknown what kind of condition the curtain was in at the start of the tenancy. I dismiss this claim. Stove and Oven
The landlord claimed the cost of a replacement oven. She said a knob on the stove did not fit correctly and the stove element was cracked and could not be used. The tenant said he knows the current tenant and the appliance has not been replaced. Further, the problem with the knob not fitting correctly was a known issue and was due to poor quality or a manufacturing fault. The element cracked with use, as this was the main element they used most frequently.
I note that an invoice for the replacement oven has not been provided. I also note that both the previous tenant and the tenant recounted ongoing problems with the stove/oven, and there were several replacements. I am not satisfied that the tenant carelessly damaged the stove and dismiss this claim. Cleaning and Carpet Cleaning
The landlord claimed $150.00 for cleaning, based on 5 hours of her own labour at $30.00 per hour. The landlord said the toilet and cupboards needed cleaning.
The tenant said they did not use the laundry, and the photographs reflected its original state. In later written submissions the tenant acknowledged that the laundry was used for storage, but it was cleaned prior to the final inspection.
Looking at the photographs from the final inspection on 29 March 2025, I find that the toilet and floors were not reasonably clean. The laundry area would have gathered dust even if unused. In any event, the landlord’s photographs tend to show that the tenant used this area as their belongings are shown there. I award the cleaning costs claimed.
The landlord claimed the cost of cleaning the carpets to the lounge ($149.00). The tenant said the carpets were cleaned and left in a better condition at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning.
The earliest inspection report is dated 29 September 2023, although the tenancy started on 6 July 2023. However, comparing the photographs on 29 September 2023 with the photograph on 29 March 2025, the carpet was visibly less clean when the tenancy ended. I award the cost of carpet cleaning. Labour
The landlord claimed a total of 23 hours ($690.00) for organising quotations, removing rubbish, organising tradespeople, cleaning, and garden work.
There was some firewood left behind, but in a stack, and about 8 black rubbish bags. The landlord claimed 4 hours for removing rubbish. I consider the landlord could have disposed of the rubbish bags in the weekly Council collection.
I decline to award the labour costs for organising things. Given that the landlord was managing the tenancy herself, some of these costs can be seen as the cost of running the landlord’s business. The tenant is not liable to pay the landlord’s overheads. Bond Lodgement
The tenant said he told the landlord on 28 April 2025 that he would apply to the Tribunal if his bond (less water charges) was not returned. He was notified on 3 July 2025 that the bond had been lodged, which the tenant says was 23 months and 8 days late. The bond lodgement date on the Tribunal’s system is 10 July 2025.
The landlord explained her difficult personal circumstances when the bond was paid on 22 June 2023 and noted that she had not managed a tenancy before (the Tribunal understood that a property manager had been involved for previous tenancies). The landlord said the tenancy was arranged by her ex- husband and she did not receive the bond money. The tenant disputed this.
The tenant advised the landlord on 1 April 2025 that the bond had not been lodged. However, the landlord did not lodge the bond until after she filed her application with the Tribunal. I also consider that the landlord should have known, despite or perhaps because of the previous use of a property manager, that the bond needed to be lodged. The landlord said her ex-husband arranged the tenancy. This is contradicted somewhat by the landlord’s evidence that she completed the tenancy agreement with the tenant. Whoever arranged the tenancy or received the bond, only the landlord was named in the tenancy agreement, and the landlord signed the agreement in her own name, including the bond receipt.
I find that the landlord committed an “unlawful act” that was intentional and that it would be just to award exemplary damages. It is of fundamental importance that bonds relating to residential tenancies are lodged.
The maximum award that can be made is $1,500.00. After considering the factors in section 109(3) including the effect on the tenant (who had to borrow money to pay moving costs) and the conduct of the landlord (who did ultimately lodge a bond of $1,240.00) I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.
Both parties requested suppression. Neither party has been “wholly or substantially” successful. Both parties made allegations against the other that have not been upheld. Suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277163 — net $973.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Garage alteration by tenant	$287.50		Garage alteration by tenant
Water charges to end of tenancy	$121.61		Water charges to end of tenancy
Replacement lounge window	$322.81		Replacement lounge window
Replacement internet power adapter	$48.99		Replacement internet power adapter
Lawn reinstatement	$330.00		Lawn reinstatement
Lock/key replacement	$63.76		Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$299.00		Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond		$500.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond
Total award	$1,473.67	$500.00
Net award	$973.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$973.67

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $973.67 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $266.33

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 September 2025.
On 30 May 2025 the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation. In written submissions the landlord amended the application to include a claim for loss of rent.
On 11 September 2025 the tenant applied for refund of the bond. At the hearing, the tenant amended the application to include exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond.
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims for the cost of remedying alterations to the garage windows ($287.50) and water charges ($121.61). Rent in Lieu
The tenant accepted that he gave 7 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy when a longer notice period was necessary. The tenant gave notice on 20 March 2025 to end the tenancy on 27 March 2025. He vacated on 28 March 2025.
The notice given on 20 March 2025 would have ended the tenancy on 10 April 2025, pursuant to section 51(2A) of the Act. It is however arguable that the tenancy ended by agreement on 28 March 2025, when the tenant vacated, because the next day the landlord conducted a final inspection with the tenant. Further, the landlord did not provide a rent summary and did not know when the property was re-tenanted. It is unclear on the evidence presented whether the landlord has suffered any loss. Windows
The landlord said the tenant was provided with latches/stays for the kitchen and toilet windows for the tenant to install, as requested. The latches were not installed properly, and the windows could not be opened. The tenant said he put the latches on, and they worked fine. Further, the landlord did not raise any issues with the windows during inspections, including the final inspection. The landlord opened and closed the windows at inspections.
There is no independent evidence to verify that the latches/stays were incorrectly installed by the tenant. There is a quotation from a handyman (for $414.00) which seems to have been provided based on photographs. I find that this claim is not established.
The landlord said the lounge window was cracked during the tenancy. The tenant said this was not identified at the final inspection and believed it was not there at the time. The landlord provided photographs of the window, said to have been taken before the tenancy and at the final inspection.
I find that the window was cracked during the tenancy. I award $322.81 for the cost of repair (the insurance excess being $550.00). Power Adaptor and Shower Parts
The landlord claimed the cost of a missing power adaptor for the fibre internet box. The tenant said he may have taken this by mistake, but he could not find it. The tenant also indicated that power adaptors can be obtained for free from Chorus but provided no evidence to support this.
I award the cost of a replacement from PB Tech, where they can be purchased for $48.99.
The landlord said she provided the tenant with shower parts which the tenant did not use or return. The tenant said the landlord provided spacers, but they did not fit and would not help to repair the shower door. The tenant made his own repairs to prevent the door from catching.
The claim is for $33.70. Probably the tenant should have returned the parts to the landlord, even if they could not be used for anything. Whether the landlord could have then obtained a refund from the retailer is unknown. That said, the claim involves a somewhat minor issue. I find that this aspect of the application was “frivolous or vexatious” and the claim is struck out pursuant to section 92A of the Act. Lawns
The landlord said the lawns were left very bare, with rubbish, ashes, and burned patches that needed to be restored. The landlord provided photographs of the surrounding grounds. The tenant said it was unclear when the photographs were taken and, in written submissions, alleged that the landlord had used marketing photographs taken prior to the tenancy.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the previous tenant (who left in May 2023) about maintenance issues at the property. The previous tenant said she was blamed for issues arising before she moved in, including the poor condition of the yard and the carpets. The evidence from the previous tenant was that the landlord’s photographs reflected the condition of the premises when she lived there.
On the other hand, the tenant admitted to levelling an area of the garden next to the driveway that was uneven. One week before moving out, they levelled an area of the front lawn that was uneven and had deep tyre ruts. The tenant said they used a charcoal barbecue in the back yard “that sat low to the lawn”. This is consistent with the landlord’s complaint about ashes and burned patches which can be seen in the photographs.
The landlord’s photographs taken at the inspection on 29 September 2023 show the lawns at the back of the house in good condition. This can be contrasted with the photographs apparently taken on 29 March 2025.
The landlord has performed “interim” work to make the area safe and presentable. She has applied potting mix, lawn seed, and fertilizer. The cost of fully remediating the area has been verbally quoted as $4,000.00. There is insufficient support for this remediation cost, which is said to include removal of rubble and “contaminated soil”. I award the cost of the interim work only ($150.00 for materials and $180.00 for labour). Missing Chattels
The landlord said her workbench was taken, with only the top left behind. The tenant said this was stored in the garage, which was leaking. The bench was badly deteriorated, and the tenant disposed of it. The previous tenant also said the bench was dirty and swollen due to water damage.
Disposing of the bench was not really the tenant’s decision to make, however it is unclear whether it had any value. I decline to award compensation.
The landlord said various screws and sleeve anchors from the garage were taken by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs said to show garage fittings missing from the garage entrance. The tenant did not remember there being any screws. He had agreed to install the garage door but said he did not have sufficient materials. The garage entrance remained open and exposed the inside of the garage to the weather during the tenancy.
There was a written statement from a neighbour alleging that the tenant had taken the heat pump assembly from a vacant property nearby. It is not possible to place any weight on this evidence. The witness was not called to be questioned about what they saw. There was a similar allegation made against contractors of the landlord relating to a Kainga Ora home, again from a witness who only gave a written statement. No reliance can be placed on this hearsay evidence to support such serious claims.
The landlord’s photographs do appear to show that fittings included in the garage door mechanism were missing. It is not clear what happened to these, how they went missing or when, or why the tenant would want to take them. I dismiss this claim. Keys and Curtain
The landlord said the tenant had not returned one of the keys. The tenant said he could not return all the keys at the final inspection, and afterwards he was unable to arrange a time to hand the keys back before the landlord changed the locks.
The tenant’s obligation was to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant failed to do so. I award $63.76 for the cost of changing the locks.
The landlord claimed the cost of replacing a damaged thermal curtain. The tenant said this was fair wear and tear and the curtain was in poor condition when they moved in. The landlord disputed this. It is unknown what kind of condition the curtain was in at the start of the tenancy. I dismiss this claim. Stove and Oven
The landlord claimed the cost of a replacement oven. She said a knob on the stove did not fit correctly and the stove element was cracked and could not be used. The tenant said he knows the current tenant and the appliance has not been replaced. Further, the problem with the knob not fitting correctly was a known issue and was due to poor quality or a manufacturing fault. The element cracked with use, as this was the main element they used most frequently.
I note that an invoice for the replacement oven has not been provided. I also note that both the previous tenant and the tenant recounted ongoing problems with the stove/oven, and there were several replacements. I am not satisfied that the tenant carelessly damaged the stove and dismiss this claim. Cleaning and Carpet Cleaning
The landlord claimed $150.00 for cleaning, based on 5 hours of her own labour at $30.00 per hour. The landlord said the toilet and cupboards needed cleaning.
The tenant said they did not use the laundry, and the photographs reflected its original state. In later written submissions the tenant acknowledged that the laundry was used for storage, but it was cleaned prior to the final inspection.
Looking at the photographs from the final inspection on 29 March 2025, I find that the toilet and floors were not reasonably clean. The laundry area would have gathered dust even if unused. In any event, the landlord’s photographs tend to show that the tenant used this area as their belongings are shown there. I award the cleaning costs claimed.
The landlord claimed the cost of cleaning the carpets to the lounge ($149.00). The tenant said the carpets were cleaned and left in a better condition at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning.
The earliest inspection report is dated 29 September 2023, although the tenancy started on 6 July 2023. However, comparing the photographs on 29 September 2023 with the photograph on 29 March 2025, the carpet was visibly less clean when the tenancy ended. I award the cost of carpet cleaning. Labour
The landlord claimed a total of 23 hours ($690.00) for organising quotations, removing rubbish, organising tradespeople, cleaning, and garden work.
There was some firewood left behind, but in a stack, and about 8 black rubbish bags. The landlord claimed 4 hours for removing rubbish. I consider the landlord could have disposed of the rubbish bags in the weekly Council collection.
I decline to award the labour costs for organising things. Given that the landlord was managing the tenancy herself, some of these costs can be seen as the cost of running the landlord’s business. The tenant is not liable to pay the landlord’s overheads. Bond Lodgement
The tenant said he told the landlord on 28 April 2025 that he would apply to the Tribunal if his bond (less water charges) was not returned. He was notified on 3 July 2025 that the bond had been lodged, which the tenant says was 23 months and 8 days late. The bond lodgement date on the Tribunal’s system is 10 July 2025.
The landlord explained her difficult personal circumstances when the bond was paid on 22 June 2023 and noted that she had not managed a tenancy before (the Tribunal understood that a property manager had been involved for previous tenancies). The landlord said the tenancy was arranged by her ex- husband and she did not receive the bond money. The tenant disputed this.
The tenant advised the landlord on 1 April 2025 that the bond had not been lodged. However, the landlord did not lodge the bond until after she filed her application with the Tribunal. I also consider that the landlord should have known, despite or perhaps because of the previous use of a property manager, that the bond needed to be lodged. The landlord said her ex-husband arranged the tenancy. This is contradicted somewhat by the landlord’s evidence that she completed the tenancy agreement with the tenant. Whoever arranged the tenancy or received the bond, only the landlord was named in the tenancy agreement, and the landlord signed the agreement in her own name, including the bond receipt.
I find that the landlord committed an “unlawful act” that was intentional and that it would be just to award exemplary damages. It is of fundamental importance that bonds relating to residential tenancies are lodged.
The maximum award that can be made is $1,500.00. After considering the factors in section 109(3) including the effect on the tenant (who had to borrow money to pay moving costs) and the conduct of the landlord (who did ultimately lodge a bond of $1,240.00) I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.
Both parties requested suppression. Neither party has been “wholly or substantially” successful. Both parties made allegations against the other that have not been upheld. Suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277163 — Property damage at 308 Roscommon Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277163 — Property damage at 308 Roscommon Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions