What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286021 about?

The tribunal order states: Vad Properties Ltd Deepak Goyal must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5286021?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286021?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12478800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286021 about?

The tribunal order states: Vad Properties Ltd Deepak Goyal must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5286021?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286021?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12478800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

147A Bucklands Beach Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286021 — Mould & damp

Order

Vad Properties Ltd Deepak Goyal must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,430.00 (5929855-001) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Attendance:

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
This tenancy ended on 29 May 2025, following 28 days’ notice issued by the tenant to the landlord. The tenant has applied for the refund of his bond, as well as compensation for delays in processing the bond, which he says were unnecessarily caused by the landlord’s actions.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $1,150 for plastering and painting, $920 for carpet stain cleaning, and $460 for mould removal and repair of silicone. The onus of proof:
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. This means the party bringing the application must establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
In the claims described above, the tenant is seeking the return of their bond, which already belongs to them. They do not need to prove anything further. By contrast, the landlord is seeking to retain the bond and obtain compensation for damages. The onus of proof rests with the landlord.

Is the claim for painting and plaster costs proven?

The landlord told me that the house was new at the commencement of the tenancy and provided photos showing close-up images of particular parts of the wall with dents and indentations. It is difficult for me to assess the size and extent of these marks because no pre-inspection report or post-inspection report giving a general overview of the property has been provided.
The tenant brought a video of the property to the hearing, which the parties and I watched together. The video appears to show the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. At certain points, the landlord asked me to pause and compare the footage with close-up photos on his phone, which he said showed scratches. I have no reason to doubt the video, which was taken at a reasonable distance and does not show damage. The more likely explanation is that the landlord zoomed in and captured the images in a way that makes the marks appear more pronounced. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s responsibility to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities which he has not done.
Even though the house was new at the start of the tenancy, after three years of use one would reasonably expect the property to show signs of wear. The tenant is not obliged to return the property in its original condition, but they are liable if they have caused careless or intentional damage. Even if I accepted the landlord’s version that damage was present, I would find it to be fair wear and tear arising from normal use, taking into account the nature of the property. This is a subdivision built to standard specifications. Having reviewed the Tribunal’s records for this landlord, it seems that many of the properties this landlord owns within this subdivision show similar signs of use over time, which supports the conclusion that any such marks are fair wear and tear rather than careless or intentional damage.
For these reasons, the claim for plastering and painting costs is dismissed.

Is the claim for carpet cleaning proven?

The landlord has also provided photos of the carpet in particular areas, with sections circled. He says the carpet is discoloured and stained. However, this is not apparent in the photos. At most, there may be slight discolouration, but on the evidence provided, it appears more consistent with normal wear from use of the carpet rather than staining.
For these reasons, the claim for carpet stain cleaning costs is dismissed.

Is the claim for mould removal proven?

The applicant has also claimed costs for mould removal, saying it was the tenant’s responsibility. The photos show mould growing under the silicon, which is common in subdivisions of this type built to this specification. It is expected that wet areas of a house, such as the toilet, kitchen, laundry, and bathrooms, will be exposed to water.
A tenant is expected to keep these areas clean and tidy. However, if the silicon is installed in such a way that, despite reasonable cleaning, water seeps in and mould eventually develops underneath, it is not the tenant’s responsibility to remedy it. In that case, it is for the landlord to seek advice, have the silicon replaced if necessary, and repair. This is not a tenant obligation.
For these reasons, the claim for mould removal and silicon repair costs is dismissed. Compensation for delays:
The tenant has applied for $1,000 in compensation for delays he says were caused by the landlord in returning his bond. These types of disputes sometimes occur, which is why bonds are held by the Bond Centre. If the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be disbursed, the matter must come before the Tribunal for a decision. The Tribunal does not typically award compensation for this delay.
For these reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation for the delay in the return of the bond is dismissed. The filing fee:
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Vad Properties Ltd Deepak Goyal must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,430.00 (5929855-001) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Attendance:

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
This tenancy ended on 29 May 2025, following 28 days’ notice issued by the tenant to the landlord. The tenant has applied for the refund of his bond, as well as compensation for delays in processing the bond, which he says were unnecessarily caused by the landlord’s actions.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $1,150 for plastering and painting, $920 for carpet stain cleaning, and $460 for mould removal and repair of silicone. The onus of proof:
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. This means the party bringing the application must establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
In the claims described above, the tenant is seeking the return of their bond, which already belongs to them. They do not need to prove anything further. By contrast, the landlord is seeking to retain the bond and obtain compensation for damages. The onus of proof rests with the landlord.

Is the claim for painting and plaster costs proven?

The landlord told me that the house was new at the commencement of the tenancy and provided photos showing close-up images of particular parts of the wall with dents and indentations. It is difficult for me to assess the size and extent of these marks because no pre-inspection report or post-inspection report giving a general overview of the property has been provided.
The tenant brought a video of the property to the hearing, which the parties and I watched together. The video appears to show the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. At certain points, the landlord asked me to pause and compare the footage with close-up photos on his phone, which he said showed scratches. I have no reason to doubt the video, which was taken at a reasonable distance and does not show damage. The more likely explanation is that the landlord zoomed in and captured the images in a way that makes the marks appear more pronounced. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s responsibility to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities which he has not done.
Even though the house was new at the start of the tenancy, after three years of use one would reasonably expect the property to show signs of wear. The tenant is not obliged to return the property in its original condition, but they are liable if they have caused careless or intentional damage. Even if I accepted the landlord’s version that damage was present, I would find it to be fair wear and tear arising from normal use, taking into account the nature of the property. This is a subdivision built to standard specifications. Having reviewed the Tribunal’s records for this landlord, it seems that many of the properties this landlord owns within this subdivision show similar signs of use over time, which supports the conclusion that any such marks are fair wear and tear rather than careless or intentional damage.
For these reasons, the claim for plastering and painting costs is dismissed.

Is the claim for carpet cleaning proven?

The landlord has also provided photos of the carpet in particular areas, with sections circled. He says the carpet is discoloured and stained. However, this is not apparent in the photos. At most, there may be slight discolouration, but on the evidence provided, it appears more consistent with normal wear from use of the carpet rather than staining.
For these reasons, the claim for carpet stain cleaning costs is dismissed.

Is the claim for mould removal proven?

The applicant has also claimed costs for mould removal, saying it was the tenant’s responsibility. The photos show mould growing under the silicon, which is common in subdivisions of this type built to this specification. It is expected that wet areas of a house, such as the toilet, kitchen, laundry, and bathrooms, will be exposed to water.
A tenant is expected to keep these areas clean and tidy. However, if the silicon is installed in such a way that, despite reasonable cleaning, water seeps in and mould eventually develops underneath, it is not the tenant’s responsibility to remedy it. In that case, it is for the landlord to seek advice, have the silicon replaced if necessary, and repair. This is not a tenant obligation.
For these reasons, the claim for mould removal and silicon repair costs is dismissed. Compensation for delays:
The tenant has applied for $1,000 in compensation for delays he says were caused by the landlord in returning his bond. These types of disputes sometimes occur, which is why bonds are held by the Bond Centre. If the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be disbursed, the matter must come before the Tribunal for a decision. The Tribunal does not typically award compensation for this delay.
For these reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation for the delay in the return of the bond is dismissed. The filing fee:
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286021 — Mould & damp at 147A Bucklands Beach Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286021 — Mould & damp at 147A Bucklands Beach Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the claim for painting and plaster costs proven?

Is the claim for carpet cleaning proven?

Is the claim for mould removal proven?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the claim for painting and plaster costs proven?

Is the claim for carpet cleaning proven?

Is the claim for mould removal proven?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions