What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286967 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Pro Management (Auckland)

How much money was awarded in case 5286967?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $6,135.71 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286967?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12575697-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286967 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Pro Management (Auckland)

How much money was awarded in case 5286967?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $6,135.71 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286967?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12575697-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Leicester Parade, Somerville, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286967 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286967 — net $3,762.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 14 March 2025	$6,135.71	Rent to 14 March 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$2,400.00	Water charges to end of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,762.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,762.71

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 October 2025. The parties were requested to file copies of the photographs and videos shown on their devices at the hearing. The landlord was requested to provide a copy of any ingoing inspection report.

Neither party seems to have complied with these directions, and so must take the risk that the Tribunal might have made a different order, if the evidence requested had been filed as directed.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water charges, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants raised issues with the condition of the premises but did not file a cross-application.

The tenancy started on 12 March 2024 and ended on 14 March 2025. The weekly rent was $1,200.00. A bond of $4,800.00 was paid and lodged with the Bond Centre. Rent and Water

The landlord provided a rent summary covering the entirety of the tenancy. The tenants acknowledged that they missed some payments. They did not identify any payments not shown in the rent summary. I award the rent arrears claimed.

The landlord claimed $4,462.03 for water charges during the tenancy. The landlord also provided a summary of the water charges and invoices covering the period from 12 April 2024 to 10 April 2025. The tenants said there were various issues with leaks at the property that were notified to the landlord.

I have tabulated the water consumption during the tenancy as follows (wastewater use is not included): MonthWater use (Litres) April20,000 May98,000 June59,000 July52,000 August49,000 September70,000 October66,000 November69,000 December46,000 January118,000 February91,000 March129,000

This was a household of two adults and three children. The Watercare invoices include a “Usage Target” which indicates that a household of five will use between 621 and 775 litres of water per day. Over 31 days this equals consumption of between 19,251 and 24,025 litres. I take this target to be a proxy for reasonable water use.

Throughout the tenancy, the water use was much higher than might be expected for a household of its size. I also note that the landlord claimed for water charges for the period after the end of the tenancy in the sum of $430.67.

The tenants are required to pay for what they used. There is some evidence of leaks at the property, so this is not entirely a case of heavy water use. I am not satisfied that the tenants used such a large amount of water compared to the size of their household. Even a six-person household would have a maximum usage target of only 28,830 litres over a 31-day period. This would result in monthly charges in the region of $150.00. I award water charges of $2,400.00 ($200.00 per month). Damage

The landlord claimed $4,000.00 in compensation for damage. This was supported by a handwritten invoice containing one word: “Renovation”, and the price. The landlord said the invoice covered repairs, cleaning, and rubbish removal. The landlord provided photographs said to have been taken before and after the tenants moved in. The landlord said these showed a broken bathroom tub, broken tiles, and a broken wall.

The landlord’s photographs show missing tiles on the side of the bath, cracked tiles in the toilet, damage on the wall next to the heated towel rail, mould on the ceiling of the toilet, a hole in a wall, a missing door handle, the shower tray with the drains removed, and rubbish outside.

The tenants said these issues were present at the start of the tenancy. They said several of the landlord’s photographs had been taken during the tenancy, not before or after it. The tenants provided photographs taken on 15 March 2024. The photographs are date-stamped. They show the heated towel rail separated from the wall, the side of the bath with a missing tile (the tenants said more tiles slowly fell off during the tenancy) a broken toilet seat, rubbish under the kitchen sink, a broken cupboard door, damage to the walls of a downstairs bedroom, dirt around the shower on the floor, carpet stains, and rubbish outside. There was a photograph of a dirty shower tray, mould behind the washing machine, and a shower tray with a missing drain.

The tenants’ text messages show they advised the landlord soon after moving in that the toilets were blocked, the oven wasn’t working, the shower was “broken”, there was a problem with the washing machine, there was rubbish outside (they asked the landlord for a bin) and the carpet smelled. There was a problem with the sink. On 29 May 2024 the tenants advised the landlord of a leak from the back of the laundry with a photograph of water on the floor. On 19 February 2025 the tenants advised that the toilet was constantly running, and the sink had not been fixed.

Publicly available information indicates the property was built in 1988. The photographs from the parties do not show a property in good condition. The landlord indicated that the premises were healthy homes compliant but has not provided a certificate to this effect.

I am not satisfied that the damage claimed by the landlord occurred during the tenancy. It does not seem that the landlord conducted an ingoing inspection or walk around with the tenants, the tenancy agreement itself did not include an inspection report recording the condition at the start of the tenancy, there were previous tenants who could have caused the damage, and in general the evidence shows that the premises were poorly maintained. The landlord noted, for example, that the mould on the toilet ceiling (claimed by the landlord) was caused by a leak from the upstairs bathroom.

The tenants’ text messages reveal that there were various issues when they moved in, which also reflect on the overall condition of the property. Further, the landlord’s photographs show the same external rubbish, in the same location, at the end of the tenancy as the tenants’ photographs show at the beginning. This raises doubts about the claims and the reliability of the landlord’s evidence.

I also consider the invoice from the landlord to be insufficiently itemised, indeed, it is inadequate in several respects. It does not identify the contractor, does not specify whether it includes GST, does not include a GST number, and there is no rationale for the price. The Tribunal is not confident that any award it might make would reflect the actual and reasonable cost of repair.

For these reasons, I decline to award compensation to the landlord. Filing Fee and Suppression

The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

The landlord requested name suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful (section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). I decline to grant suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286967 — net $3,762.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 14 March 2025	$6,135.71	Rent to 14 March 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$2,400.00	Water charges to end of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,762.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,762.71

Neither party seems to have complied with these directions, and so must take the risk that the Tribunal might have made a different order, if the evidence requested had been filed as directed.

The tenancy started on 12 March 2024 and ended on 14 March 2025. The weekly rent was $1,200.00. A bond of $4,800.00 was paid and lodged with the Bond Centre. Rent and Water

For these reasons, I decline to award compensation to the landlord. Filing Fee and Suppression

The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

The landlord requested name suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful (section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). I decline to grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286967 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Leicester Parade, Somerville, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286967 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Leicester Parade, Somerville, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions