What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278959 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 5278959?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $244.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278959?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278959 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 5278959?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $244.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278959?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278959 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

5 Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278959 — Rent arrears | 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 5278959 — net $1,281.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 28 April 2025	$460.00	Rent arrears 28 April 2025
Water rates	$150.00	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$80.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns	$120.00	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: curtains	$244.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Net award	$1,281.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,281.00

Claims and awards for application 5278959 — net $1,281.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears 28 April 2025

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears 28 April 2025

Water rates

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Rubbish removal

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lawns

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Olivia Redemski, Simon Utakea, Neo Redemski and Charlize Redemski must pay [The landlord/s] $1,081.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 28 April 2025, reimbursement of filing fee, water bills and vacated costs, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears 28 April 2025$460.00 Water rates$150.00 Rubbish removal$80.00 Carpet Cleaning$200.00 Lawns$120.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$244.00 Total award$1,281.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,281.00
The landlord sought to claim additional costs which I have dismissed. These costs are some of the curtains claims, landscaping/removal of pavers, cleaning, exemplary damages for removing smoke alarm and painting costs.
The landlord seeks me to order Tenancy Services to refund $1920.00 to them because of the release of disputed bond at the bond centre. I cannot order Tenancy Services to do this as it is outside my jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, I must dismiss this claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a landlord claim for vacated costs, water bills, rent arrears, exemplary damages, refund of bond payment made by Tenancy Services to the tenants and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background:
This was a short term tenancy that commenced on 18 February 2025 and terminated on 28 April 2025.
The landlord gave the tenants a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 12 March 2025. Subsequently the tenants gave the landlord 28 days’ notice, and the tenancy was terminated on 28 April 2025. Relevant legal considerations:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant and Respondent), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Refund of bond by bond centre:
The tenants paid $3840.00 in bond at the start of the tenancy. The landlord lodged the bond at the bond centre. The situation between the landlord and tenants deteriorated, largely due to concerns about damages and rent arrears. The bond centre paid out $1920.00 to the landlord with the consent of the tenants for rent arrears.
The remaining bond of $1920.00 was to remain at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy. The bond was in dispute and therefore should have remained in the bond centre until the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing.
The tenants appear to have provided a false signature for the landlord on a bond refund form which they sent to the bond centre. The bond centre paid the remaining bond to one of the tenants despite the landlords claims before the Tribunal and advise that the bond was in dispute.
The landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal directing the bond centre to refund the $1920.00 to the landlords because of the failure of the bond centre to carry out checks before releasing the bond.
I do not have the jurisdiction to order the bond centre to refund money that has already been paid out. I must dismiss this claim. Pavers:
The landlord claims $200.00 in compensation for the tenants moving some pavers on the property. The landlord describes the grounds as “landscaped.” The landlord provided photos of the grounds which I would not describe as of “landscaping standard.” There was brick pavers laid out in some areas, but they look to have just been placed there rather than professionally prepared and laid.
The tenants accept that they moved some of the lose pavers and bricks around the garden area to build up the access to the clothesline. I do not accept that the tenants have caused damage to a landscaped garden by moving some pavers to level out ground to enable the tenants to use the clothesline. The landlord has provided an invoice from themselves to cover the costs of replacing the paving bricks where they were originally laid. I have not been provided with before and after photos, so am unable to assess whether there was damage that required remedial work to be carried out.
I am dismissing the claim.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which they claim is the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent schedule shows that the tenants owed $2380.00 in rent arrears. The landlord and tenants agreed to release half of the bond to pay part of the rent arrears. The landlord received $1920.00 from the bond centre for rent arrears. After deducting the bond payment, the outstanding rent arrears are $460.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
There were two meters at the property for water bills. The tenant disputes the water bills. The landlords record keeping was not good. I am not satisfied that the landlord had proven the actual amount owed by the tenant in water bills. I accept that there are outstanding water bills that should be paid. I am nominating $150.00 as compensation for the water bills.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord states that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning:
The landlord provided a few photos of rubbish and areas that they claim were unclean inside the property. The landlord also provided a handwritten invoice for $300.00 for the cost of cleaning inside the property.
The tenants provided photos of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ photos show a property that is reasonably clean and tidy. The standard of cleaning is a reasonable standard not a professional standard of cleaning.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven their claim for the cleaning costs. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord has also provided an invoice for $200.00 for carpet cleaning. The tenants had a dog in the property and the landlord claims that there was dog urine on the carpet. The landlord provided a photo of what appears to be dog urine stains on the carpet.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for carpet cleaning costs. Rubbish:
The landlord provided photos of rubbish left outside the carport at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for $80.00 for the cost of bagging up the rubbish and disposing of it.
The tenants accept there was a bit of household rubbish left but that they were not going back to collect it due to the ill feelings between the parties.
The landlord has proven their claim for the rubbish removal. Lawns:
The landlord has claimed $120.00 for the cost of lawns and garden maintenance. They have provided an invoice and photos of the overgrown lawns and un-weeded gardens.
I am satisfied the landlord has proven their claim for the lawns.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damaged and missing thermal and net curtains. -Damage to paint work Curtains:
The landlord claimed that she replaced the net and thermal curtains at the property in 2024. The landlord provided the receipts for these curtains.
The landlord provided photos of missing and damage to some of the net curtains and thermals. The tenants accept that they took down the net and thermal curtains hanging on the ranch slider and have now misplaced them, furthermore that the nets and thermals were damaged in two of the bedrooms.
The landlord provided the original receipts when she bought the curtains in 2024. Rather than buying new curtains the landlord has replaced the missing and damaged curtains with second hand one.
The landlord has not suffered any loss by replacing the curtains, nor has she proven the cost of the claim for the curtains. However, given that the tenants accept they damaged the curtains and lost some curtains I am awarding the sum of $244.00, which represents the original cost of the accepted damaged and missing curtains. Paint work:
The landlord has an invoice for $318.33 for the cost of repainting areas in the property such as windowsills in the bathroom and bedroom door. The photos provided to the Tribunal do not satisfy me that the windows sills and door have been damaged during this tenancy.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for painting. Interfering with smoke alarms:
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...,” which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the tenants had removed the batteries out of the smoke alarm, therefore interfering with the smoke alarm. The tenants accept that the batteries were not replaced during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement and the RTA.
I am declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord for the tenant’s breach. I accept that the property has less protection in the event of a fire if smoke alarms are not present in the property.
The tenant’s obligation to replace batteries in smoke alarms during the tenancy is set out in section 40(2)(ab) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. However, the Act does not specify that a failure to replace smoke alarm batteries constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Accordingly, while a landlord may seek a work order or compensation for any actual loss resulting from the tenant’s failure to replace batteries, exemplary damages are not available for this breach. Agents’ fees:
The landlord seeks to claim for agent’s fees. The tenants misled the property agent who provided the tenants application to the landlord. The tenants had supplied a family members detail, purporting to be a former landlord, to give a reference for the tenant’s application. That is not disputed by the tenants. As a result of the reference the property agent provided a tenancy agreement to the tenants. The landlord incurred agents’ fees of $1104.00, which they seek refunded to them by the tenants.
While the tenant’s provision of a false reference on their tenancy application may amount to misrepresentation or even fraud, there is no specific provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that entitles a landlord to recover agent’s fees from the tenant as a result.
The Tribunal may award compensation for actual loss suffered as a direct result of the tenant’s conduct; however, agent’s fees incurred in re-letting the property are generally considered a business expense and are not recoverable from the tenant in these circumstances. I must therefore dismiss this claim. Filing fee/ bond/suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and identifying details and as they have been partially successful, I am granting suppression.
The bond has previously been refunded to the landlord for part of the rent arrears.

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 5278959 — net $1,281.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 28 April 2025	$460.00	Rent arrears 28 April 2025
Water rates	$150.00	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$80.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns	$120.00	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: curtains	$244.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Net award	$1,281.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,281.00

Claims and awards for application 5278959 — net $1,281.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears 28 April 2025

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears 28 April 2025

Water rates

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Rubbish removal

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lawns

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Olivia Redemski, Simon Utakea, Neo Redemski and Charlize Redemski must pay [The landlord/s] $1,081.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 28 April 2025, reimbursement of filing fee, water bills and vacated costs, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears 28 April 2025$460.00 Water rates$150.00 Rubbish removal$80.00 Carpet Cleaning$200.00 Lawns$120.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$244.00 Total award$1,281.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,281.00
The landlord sought to claim additional costs which I have dismissed. These costs are some of the curtains claims, landscaping/removal of pavers, cleaning, exemplary damages for removing smoke alarm and painting costs.
The landlord seeks me to order Tenancy Services to refund $1920.00 to them because of the release of disputed bond at the bond centre. I cannot order Tenancy Services to do this as it is outside my jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, I must dismiss this claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a landlord claim for vacated costs, water bills, rent arrears, exemplary damages, refund of bond payment made by Tenancy Services to the tenants and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background:
This was a short term tenancy that commenced on 18 February 2025 and terminated on 28 April 2025.
The landlord gave the tenants a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 12 March 2025. Subsequently the tenants gave the landlord 28 days’ notice, and the tenancy was terminated on 28 April 2025. Relevant legal considerations:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant and Respondent), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Refund of bond by bond centre:
The tenants paid $3840.00 in bond at the start of the tenancy. The landlord lodged the bond at the bond centre. The situation between the landlord and tenants deteriorated, largely due to concerns about damages and rent arrears. The bond centre paid out $1920.00 to the landlord with the consent of the tenants for rent arrears.
The remaining bond of $1920.00 was to remain at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy. The bond was in dispute and therefore should have remained in the bond centre until the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing.
The tenants appear to have provided a false signature for the landlord on a bond refund form which they sent to the bond centre. The bond centre paid the remaining bond to one of the tenants despite the landlords claims before the Tribunal and advise that the bond was in dispute.
The landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal directing the bond centre to refund the $1920.00 to the landlords because of the failure of the bond centre to carry out checks before releasing the bond.
I do not have the jurisdiction to order the bond centre to refund money that has already been paid out. I must dismiss this claim. Pavers:
The landlord claims $200.00 in compensation for the tenants moving some pavers on the property. The landlord describes the grounds as “landscaped.” The landlord provided photos of the grounds which I would not describe as of “landscaping standard.” There was brick pavers laid out in some areas, but they look to have just been placed there rather than professionally prepared and laid.
The tenants accept that they moved some of the lose pavers and bricks around the garden area to build up the access to the clothesline. I do not accept that the tenants have caused damage to a landscaped garden by moving some pavers to level out ground to enable the tenants to use the clothesline. The landlord has provided an invoice from themselves to cover the costs of replacing the paving bricks where they were originally laid. I have not been provided with before and after photos, so am unable to assess whether there was damage that required remedial work to be carried out.
I am dismissing the claim.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which they claim is the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent schedule shows that the tenants owed $2380.00 in rent arrears. The landlord and tenants agreed to release half of the bond to pay part of the rent arrears. The landlord received $1920.00 from the bond centre for rent arrears. After deducting the bond payment, the outstanding rent arrears are $460.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
There were two meters at the property for water bills. The tenant disputes the water bills. The landlords record keeping was not good. I am not satisfied that the landlord had proven the actual amount owed by the tenant in water bills. I accept that there are outstanding water bills that should be paid. I am nominating $150.00 as compensation for the water bills.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord states that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning:
The landlord provided a few photos of rubbish and areas that they claim were unclean inside the property. The landlord also provided a handwritten invoice for $300.00 for the cost of cleaning inside the property.
The tenants provided photos of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ photos show a property that is reasonably clean and tidy. The standard of cleaning is a reasonable standard not a professional standard of cleaning.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven their claim for the cleaning costs. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord has also provided an invoice for $200.00 for carpet cleaning. The tenants had a dog in the property and the landlord claims that there was dog urine on the carpet. The landlord provided a photo of what appears to be dog urine stains on the carpet.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for carpet cleaning costs. Rubbish:
The landlord provided photos of rubbish left outside the carport at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for $80.00 for the cost of bagging up the rubbish and disposing of it.
The tenants accept there was a bit of household rubbish left but that they were not going back to collect it due to the ill feelings between the parties.
The landlord has proven their claim for the rubbish removal. Lawns:
The landlord has claimed $120.00 for the cost of lawns and garden maintenance. They have provided an invoice and photos of the overgrown lawns and un-weeded gardens.
I am satisfied the landlord has proven their claim for the lawns.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damaged and missing thermal and net curtains. -Damage to paint work Curtains:
The landlord claimed that she replaced the net and thermal curtains at the property in 2024. The landlord provided the receipts for these curtains.
The landlord provided photos of missing and damage to some of the net curtains and thermals. The tenants accept that they took down the net and thermal curtains hanging on the ranch slider and have now misplaced them, furthermore that the nets and thermals were damaged in two of the bedrooms.
The landlord provided the original receipts when she bought the curtains in 2024. Rather than buying new curtains the landlord has replaced the missing and damaged curtains with second hand one.
The landlord has not suffered any loss by replacing the curtains, nor has she proven the cost of the claim for the curtains. However, given that the tenants accept they damaged the curtains and lost some curtains I am awarding the sum of $244.00, which represents the original cost of the accepted damaged and missing curtains. Paint work:
The landlord has an invoice for $318.33 for the cost of repainting areas in the property such as windowsills in the bathroom and bedroom door. The photos provided to the Tribunal do not satisfy me that the windows sills and door have been damaged during this tenancy.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for painting. Interfering with smoke alarms:
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...,” which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the tenants had removed the batteries out of the smoke alarm, therefore interfering with the smoke alarm. The tenants accept that the batteries were not replaced during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement and the RTA.
I am declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord for the tenant’s breach. I accept that the property has less protection in the event of a fire if smoke alarms are not present in the property.
The tenant’s obligation to replace batteries in smoke alarms during the tenancy is set out in section 40(2)(ab) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. However, the Act does not specify that a failure to replace smoke alarm batteries constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Accordingly, while a landlord may seek a work order or compensation for any actual loss resulting from the tenant’s failure to replace batteries, exemplary damages are not available for this breach. Agents’ fees:
The landlord seeks to claim for agent’s fees. The tenants misled the property agent who provided the tenants application to the landlord. The tenants had supplied a family members detail, purporting to be a former landlord, to give a reference for the tenant’s application. That is not disputed by the tenants. As a result of the reference the property agent provided a tenancy agreement to the tenants. The landlord incurred agents’ fees of $1104.00, which they seek refunded to them by the tenants.
While the tenant’s provision of a false reference on their tenancy application may amount to misrepresentation or even fraud, there is no specific provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that entitles a landlord to recover agent’s fees from the tenant as a result.
The Tribunal may award compensation for actual loss suffered as a direct result of the tenant’s conduct; however, agent’s fees incurred in re-letting the property are generally considered a business expense and are not recoverable from the tenant in these circumstances. I must therefore dismiss this claim. Filing fee/ bond/suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and identifying details and as they have been partially successful, I am granting suppression.
The bond has previously been refunded to the landlord for part of the rent arrears.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278959 — Rent arrears at 5 Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278959 — Rent arrears at 5 Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions