What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291581 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 5291581?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $678.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,743.57 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tile: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $2,415.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains, curtain racks, curtain par…: $1,626.75 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors, Doorstoppers: $1,019.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $950.33 awarded to landlord; Weeding: $46.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291581?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530096-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291581 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 5291581?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $678.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,743.57 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tile: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $2,415.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains, curtain racks, curtain par…: $1,626.75 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors, Doorstoppers: $1,019.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $950.33 awarded to landlord; Weeding: $46.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291581?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530096-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

47 Cobham Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291581 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291581 — net $9,803.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 July 2025	$4,743.57	Rent arrears to 3 July 2025
Water rates 09/07/2024 – 03/07/2025	$950.33	Water rates 09/07/2024 – 03/07/2025
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$667.00	Rubbish removal
Pest control	$678.50	Pest control
Weeding	$46.00	Weeding
Repairs: Walls, doors, doorstoppers	$1,019.00	Repairs: Walls, doors, doorstoppers
Repairs: Carpet	$2,415.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Curtains, curtain racks, curtain parts	$1,626.75	Repairs: Curtains, curtain racks, curtain parts
Repairs: Bathroom tile	$460.00	Repairs: Bathroom tile
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,803.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,803.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Veronica Aukuso and Gagaifo Lamauta must pay [The landlord/s] $9,803.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 8 October 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 3 July 2025 after the tenant gave notice. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $4,743.57 up to this date.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,743.57.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

The landlord claims the tenant owes $950.33 in outstanding water rates invoices for the period 9 July 2024 – 3 July 2025. The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which they claim the tenant has not paid. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $950.33.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6].
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the property. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. The bathroom has not been cleaned and there is a lot of soap scum in the shower. There are photographs of cockroaches in some areas of the house. There is also a significant amount of rubbish in the garden shed. The outskirts of the garden have overgrown weeds.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, pest control and weeding is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $690.00 b. Rubbish removal: $667.00 c. Pest control: $678.50 d. Weeding: $46.00
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The landlord also claims the tenant did not return remotes for the gate, a letter box key and security cards provided at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. Their claim for compensation of $235.50 to replace the gate remotes, letter box key and security cards is granted. The landlord submitted invoices totalling this amount.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

The law

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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the following: a. Walls, doors, window frames and door stoppers. b. Carpet. c. Curtains and curtain racks/rods. d. Bathroom tile.
I deal with each issue individually below. Walls, doors, window frames and door stoppers
The landlord gave evidence the premises were freshly renovated before the tenancy began. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the house to be in a very good condition. The interior is modern and new. The walls appear freshly painted with no signs of damage or fair wear and tear.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy which show drawings on multiple walls inside the premises. There are also some scuff marks and scratches to the walls. Some of these are minor and consistent with fair wear and tear, while others are not. For example, there is a large scratch on the wall in the dining room and small gouges to the wall in the lounge above the fireplace. The top half of the wall in bedroom 4 has also been painted in a different colour. Some internal doors are missing doorhandles and door stoppers. Other doors show signs of damage, which the tenant has tried to repair however, the repair is not professional.
The landlord claims the window frames have also been damaged however, I find this to be fair wear and tear. The photograph referred to by the landlord shows minor marks to a window frame in one of the bedrooms. The damage is minimal and more consistent with deterioration due to day to day living, rather than intentional or careless damage.
A comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, convince me on the balance of probabilities that some of the walls, doors and doorstoppers were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,219.00 for repairs. There needs to be a slight adjustment to recognise the fact that the damage to the window frames 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. was fair wear and tear. Further, some of the marks on the walls were fair wear and tear as well. There also needs to be a slight adjustment for betterment and depreciation. Whilst the inside of the premises was new at the beginning of the tenancy, it was one year old at the end. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and must not be any better or worse off. I find a reduction of $200.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the walls, doors and doorstoppers is granted for $1,019.00. Carpet
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was newly installed shortly before the tenancy began. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the carpet to be in good condition with no signs of damage or fair wear and tear. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show stains to the carpet in all five bedrooms. There are pink/red stains on the carpet in bedrooms 1, 3 and 5. There are paint stains to the carpet in bedroom
There are also dark stains on the carpet in bedroom 2.
A comparison of the photographs of the carpet taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy convince me on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord gave evidence that the stains were of such a nature that professional cleaning was unlikely to get rid of them. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The landlord is an experienced property manager who has dealt with multiple instances of carpet stains and cleaning previously.
The landlord also claims that the nature and extent of the staining was such that full replacement of the carpet in all of the bedrooms was required. I accept this submission. Whilst some of the stains in some of the bedrooms are smaller in size, there are many of them.
The landlord has had the carpet replaced and submitted an invoice for $2,760.00. There needs to be a slight adjustment for betterment and depreciation to reflect the fact that the carpet was one year old at the end of the tenancy. The estimated useful lifespan of carpet is 8 years, according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates IR265. Therefore, I find a reduction of 1/8 ($345.00) to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $2,415.00. Curtains and curtain racks/rods
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show netting and drapes throughout the premises, all of which appear to be in good condition. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some netting and drapes are missing. For example, there is no netting or drapes covering the ranch slider door in the lounge. Netting and curtains are also missing from one of the windows in the dining room. The curtain rods are also missing from these areas and the curtain rod in bedroom 1 is broken. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that some of the netting, curtains and curtain rods were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $1,926.75 to replace the netting, drapes, curtain rods and curtain parts. There needs to be a slight reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the netting and curtains were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy however, they were one year old by the end. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $300.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the netting an curtains is granted for $1,626.75. Bathroom tile
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any damage to the tiles in the bathroom. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show one of the tiles is badly cracked. It appears as though something heavy may have been dropped on to the floor.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tile in the bathroom was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $460.00 to repair the bathroom tile. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must also grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291581 — net $9,803.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 July 2025	$4,743.57	Rent arrears to 3 July 2025
Water rates 09/07/2024 – 03/07/2025	$950.33	Water rates 09/07/2024 – 03/07/2025
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$667.00	Rubbish removal
Pest control	$678.50	Pest control
Weeding	$46.00	Weeding
Repairs: Walls, doors, doorstoppers	$1,019.00	Repairs: Walls, doors, doorstoppers
Repairs: Carpet	$2,415.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Curtains, curtain racks, curtain parts	$1,626.75	Repairs: Curtains, curtain racks, curtain parts
Repairs: Bathroom tile	$460.00	Repairs: Bathroom tile
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,803.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,803.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Veronica Aukuso and Gagaifo Lamauta must pay [The landlord/s] $9,803.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 8 October 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 3 July 2025 after the tenant gave notice. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $4,743.57 up to this date.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,743.57.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

The landlord claims the tenant owes $950.33 in outstanding water rates invoices for the period 9 July 2024 – 3 July 2025. The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which they claim the tenant has not paid. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $950.33.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6].
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the property. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. The bathroom has not been cleaned and there is a lot of soap scum in the shower. There are photographs of cockroaches in some areas of the house. There is also a significant amount of rubbish in the garden shed. The outskirts of the garden have overgrown weeds.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, pest control and weeding is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $690.00 b. Rubbish removal: $667.00 c. Pest control: $678.50 d. Weeding: $46.00
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The landlord also claims the tenant did not return remotes for the gate, a letter box key and security cards provided at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. Their claim for compensation of $235.50 to replace the gate remotes, letter box key and security cards is granted. The landlord submitted invoices totalling this amount.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

The law

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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the following: a. Walls, doors, window frames and door stoppers. b. Carpet. c. Curtains and curtain racks/rods. d. Bathroom tile.
I deal with each issue individually below. Walls, doors, window frames and door stoppers
The landlord gave evidence the premises were freshly renovated before the tenancy began. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the house to be in a very good condition. The interior is modern and new. The walls appear freshly painted with no signs of damage or fair wear and tear.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy which show drawings on multiple walls inside the premises. There are also some scuff marks and scratches to the walls. Some of these are minor and consistent with fair wear and tear, while others are not. For example, there is a large scratch on the wall in the dining room and small gouges to the wall in the lounge above the fireplace. The top half of the wall in bedroom 4 has also been painted in a different colour. Some internal doors are missing doorhandles and door stoppers. Other doors show signs of damage, which the tenant has tried to repair however, the repair is not professional.
The landlord claims the window frames have also been damaged however, I find this to be fair wear and tear. The photograph referred to by the landlord shows minor marks to a window frame in one of the bedrooms. The damage is minimal and more consistent with deterioration due to day to day living, rather than intentional or careless damage.
A comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, convince me on the balance of probabilities that some of the walls, doors and doorstoppers were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,219.00 for repairs. There needs to be a slight adjustment to recognise the fact that the damage to the window frames 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. was fair wear and tear. Further, some of the marks on the walls were fair wear and tear as well. There also needs to be a slight adjustment for betterment and depreciation. Whilst the inside of the premises was new at the beginning of the tenancy, it was one year old at the end. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and must not be any better or worse off. I find a reduction of $200.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the walls, doors and doorstoppers is granted for $1,019.00. Carpet
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was newly installed shortly before the tenancy began. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the carpet to be in good condition with no signs of damage or fair wear and tear. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show stains to the carpet in all five bedrooms. There are pink/red stains on the carpet in bedrooms 1, 3 and 5. There are paint stains to the carpet in bedroom
There are also dark stains on the carpet in bedroom 2.
A comparison of the photographs of the carpet taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy convince me on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord gave evidence that the stains were of such a nature that professional cleaning was unlikely to get rid of them. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The landlord is an experienced property manager who has dealt with multiple instances of carpet stains and cleaning previously.
The landlord also claims that the nature and extent of the staining was such that full replacement of the carpet in all of the bedrooms was required. I accept this submission. Whilst some of the stains in some of the bedrooms are smaller in size, there are many of them.
The landlord has had the carpet replaced and submitted an invoice for $2,760.00. There needs to be a slight adjustment for betterment and depreciation to reflect the fact that the carpet was one year old at the end of the tenancy. The estimated useful lifespan of carpet is 8 years, according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates IR265. Therefore, I find a reduction of 1/8 ($345.00) to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $2,415.00. Curtains and curtain racks/rods
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show netting and drapes throughout the premises, all of which appear to be in good condition. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some netting and drapes are missing. For example, there is no netting or drapes covering the ranch slider door in the lounge. Netting and curtains are also missing from one of the windows in the dining room. The curtain rods are also missing from these areas and the curtain rod in bedroom 1 is broken. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that some of the netting, curtains and curtain rods were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $1,926.75 to replace the netting, drapes, curtain rods and curtain parts. There needs to be a slight reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the netting and curtains were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy however, they were one year old by the end. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $300.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the netting an curtains is granted for $1,626.75. Bathroom tile
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any damage to the tiles in the bathroom. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show one of the tiles is badly cracked. It appears as though something heavy may have been dropped on to the floor.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tile in the bathroom was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $460.00 to repair the bathroom tile. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must also grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291581 — Property damage at 47 Cobham Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291581 — Property damage at 47 Cobham Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions