What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292740 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 5292740?

Bedroom 2 Carpet: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity invoices: 10/01/2022 – 0…: $4,435.89 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $813.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292740?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12691886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292740 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 5292740?

Bedroom 2 Carpet: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity invoices: 10/01/2022 – 0…: $4,435.89 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $813.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292740?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12691886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Rimini Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5292740 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292740 — net $5,656.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: 07/12/2023 – 07/11/2024	$813.43	Water rates: 07/12/2023 – 07/11/2024
Electricity invoices: 10/01/2022 – 09/06/2025	$4,435.89	Electricity invoices: 10/01/2022 – 09/06/2025
Cleaning and lawns	$50.00	Cleaning and lawns
Replace smoke alarms (x2	$50.00	Replace smoke alarms (x2
Repairs: curtains	$150.00	Repairs: curtains
Insurance excess for lounge carpet	$500.00	Insurance excess for lounge carpet
Insurance excess for dining room vinyl	$500.00	Insurance excess for dining room vinyl
Insurance excess for hallway walls	$500.00	Insurance excess for hallway walls
Insurance excess for bedroom 1	$500.00	Insurance excess for bedroom 1
Bedroom 2 carpet	$150.00	Bedroom 2 carpet
Insurance excess for clothesline	$500.00	Insurance excess for clothesline
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,656.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,656.32

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292740 — net $5,656.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: 07/12/2023 – 07/11/2024	$813.43	Water rates: 07/12/2023 – 07/11/2024
Electricity invoices: 10/01/2022 – 09/06/2025	$4,435.89	Electricity invoices: 10/01/2022 – 09/06/2025
Cleaning and lawns	$50.00	Cleaning and lawns
Replace smoke alarms (x2	$50.00	Replace smoke alarms (x2
Repairs: curtains	$150.00	Repairs: curtains
Insurance excess for lounge carpet	$500.00	Insurance excess for lounge carpet
Insurance excess for dining room vinyl	$500.00	Insurance excess for dining room vinyl
Insurance excess for hallway walls	$500.00	Insurance excess for hallway walls
Insurance excess for bedroom 1	$500.00	Insurance excess for bedroom 1
Bedroom 2 carpet	$150.00	Bedroom 2 carpet
Insurance excess for clothesline	$500.00	Insurance excess for clothesline
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,656.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,656.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kayla-Iesha Kololita Parfuti Vilikai must pay [The landlord/s] $5,656.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 3 November 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The issues I must determine are: a. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices? b. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding electricity invoices? c. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This 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 by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The law

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 1 This includes the supply of water if the water supplier charges on the basis of consumption, which Watercare does. 2
Any agreement or arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA is of no effect unless: 3 a. The inconsistency is expressly permitted by the RTA; or b. The Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency should be permitted. Analysis
The tenancy began on 14 May 2021 and ended on 13 June 2025.
The landlord submitted a water invoice summary, which records water invoices issued between 6 October 2023 and 7 November 2024. The summary states that the tenant owes $813.43 in outstanding water rates invoices. Despite this, the landlord claims the tenant owes $3,060.00. This is because the landlord claims clause 7 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant to pay $20.00 per week towards water. The landlord claims the tenant has not paid $20.00 per week towards water since 10 July 2022.
Clause 7 of the tenancy agreement is inconsistent with section 39(3) RTA. This is because the landlord has no way of proving that the tenant has in fact consumed $20.00 worth of water per week. A tenant is only responsible for paying for water exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities, not an estimated amount.
The inconsistency between Clause 7 of the tenancy agreement and section 39(3) RTA is not expressly permitted by the RTA and I decline to permit it for the following reasons: a. Compliance with the RTA is to be encouraged, and the Tribunal should be slow to legitimise arrangements that are inconsistent with its provisions. b. Section 39(3) is a protective provision for tenants. It prohibits landlords from charging tenants for outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. The Tribunal should be especially slow to erode protective provisions like section 39(3). 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(c). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11. c. Permitting the inconsistency in this case would open up the floodgates to allowing landlords to enter into private agreements with tenants about how much a tenant should pay for water, regardless of the amount of water actually consumed by them.
Clause 7 of the tenancy agreement is not enforceable. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for $3,060.00 in outstanding water rates invoices is dismissed.
The landlord has submitted a water invoice summary, which proves the tenant owes $813.43 in outstanding water rates invoices.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $813.43.

How much does the tenant owe in electricity?

The law

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 4 This includes electricity. 5
Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 6 Analysis
The landlord claims the tenant experienced difficulties getting an electricity account in their own name because they have a poor credit rating. Therefore, the landlord organised for electricity to be provided to the premises and put the account in the landlord’s name. The electricity invoices for the premises are in the landlord’s name and I accept their evidence on this point.
The landlord claims the tenant owes $6,653.83 in outstanding electricity invoices issued between 10 January 2022 and 9 June 2025. The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from the electricity provider, together with a summary. The landlord does not seek the amounts outstanding for the period 11 December 2023 – 9 September 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that they tried to deal with the issue of the tenant not paying the electricity invoices by contacting the tenant directly. The landlord claims the tenant always promised to pay and said that they were seeking 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. assistance from Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). No payment was ever made by the tenant to the landlord.
The tenant has not paid electricity invoices since 10 January 2022. The tenancy ended on 13 June 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of outstanding electricity invoices with the tenant personally, but only up to a certain point. By 9 January 2023, it should have been obvious to the landlord that the tenant was never going to pay the outstanding electricity invoices and was unlikely to pay any future invoices as well. The landlord could have mitigated their loss by sending the tenant a 14-day notice and filing an application with the Tribunal termination of the tenancy. Instead, the landlord continued to try to deal with the issue themselves and outstanding electricity invoices increased, to the point that they totalled $6,653.83 by the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be an adjustment to the total amount of compensation sought to reflect this. In Huang v Ashworth, 7 the District Court adjusted rent arrears by one third to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. I adopt the same approach in this case.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding electricity invoices is granted for $4,435.89.

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. 8
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 9 It does not mean commercially clean, 10 spotless 11 or to a hotel or motel standard. 12 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 13
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 14 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. 7 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 9 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 10 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 11 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 12 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 13 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, with the exception of the oven and lawns. No personal belongings or rubbish were left at the premises. Inside, the floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The benches have been wiped down and the bathroom has been cleaned.
The photograph of the oven, show it is dirty inside. No attempt to clean the oven appears to have been made. Outside, the lawns are overgrown and there are lots of weeds.
The landlord has proven the tenant did not leave the oven or lawns reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has not had the premises cleaned and no invoices were submitted. The landlord submitted a quote to clean the entire premises for $287.50.
The landlord has incurred a cost of $287.50 to clean the premises. Further, the tenant is only responsible for not cleaning the oven and mowing the lawns. They are not responsible for deep cleaning the entire premises.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $50.00, which I think reasonably reflects the extent of the tenant’s breach. Smoke alarms
The landlord claims two smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
Smoke alarms are a chattel provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. All smoke alarms should have been returned at the end of the tenancy, which they were not.
The landlord submitted a quote for $138.00 to replace the smoke alarms.
The landlord has not incurred a cost of $138.00 to replace the smoke alarms. It has been almost 5 months since the tenancy ended, which means I have some reservations about whether the landlord actually intends to re-tenant the premises or purchase new smoke alarms.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $50.00.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.

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. 15
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 16
When considering a claim for compensation for damage, the Tribunal has a discretion to award either the full cost of replacement or diminution in value. In determining what option to award, the overarching principle is one of reasonableness. 17 Curtains
The landlord gave evidence that all of the curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. They submitted a quote for $5,265.00 to replace the curtains. The landlord’s insurance did not include the curtains.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show curtains present in all three bedrooms, the dining area and lounge. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end show curtains are missing from bedroom 1 and the dining area. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant removed the curtains in these areas during the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the curtains in bedroom 2 intact. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end show one of the curtains is frayed and ripped. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced this damaged occurred during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The photographs of the lounge taken at the beginning of the tenancy show different curtains than those in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant changed the curtains in the lounge during the tenancy. The curtains are now mismatching.
The landlord has proven the tenant is responsible for removing the curtains in bedroom 1 and the dining area, not throughout the entire house. The landlord 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 16 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 17 Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344. has also proven the tenant is responsible for damaging the curtains in bedroom 2 and changing the curtains in the lounge.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the original curtains in a relatively poor condition. They are not hung properly and appear thin and old. This is relevant when considering how much compensation the tenant should pay the landlord.
The purpose of compensation is to return the landlord 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.
Considering the state of the curtains at the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $150.00. This fairly and reasonably reflects the principles of betterment and depreciation. Lounge carpet
The landlord submitted photographs of the carpet in the lounge taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No stains or marks are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a number of dark and light coloured stains to the lounge carpet.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the carpet in the lounge was stained during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The landlord has paid an excess of $500.00 to replace the carpet.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $500.00. Dining area
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any stains to the vinyl in the dining room. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show multiple small satins and one moderate sized stain to the vinyl in the dining area.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the vinyl in the dining room was stained during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has paid an excess of $500.00 to replace the vinyl.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $500.00. Kitchen
The landlord claims the floor, cupboards, drawer and benchtop in the kitchen were damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show marks on the floor where the fridge sat, as well as marks on the kitchen benchtop. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show these same marks (see photographs 217, 218 and 223 of the entry report). Because the marks are present in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not convinced the damage occurred during the tenancy and are the tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord also claims the cupboards and fridge panels were damaged by water during the tenancy. The kitchen boarders the laundry. In the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, water is present on the floor in the laundry/kitchen (see photographs 243, 247 and 254 of the entry report). The landlord’s insurer noted their suspicion that a pipe was leaking in the laundry. This evidence means I am unsure whether any water damage to the cupboards and fridge panels in the kitchen was caused by the tenant or is the result of leaking water in the laundry entering the kitchen. The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for damaging the cupboards and fridge panels.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the bottom cutlery drawer in good condition. The photographs taken at the end show it is unable to close properly. I am not convinced this damage exceeds fair wear and tear. Kitchen drawers are generally used multiple times per day. It is reasonably foreseeable that they might deteriorate from ordinary use over time. The tenancy was 4.5 years long. No evidence to suggest unreasonable use of the kitchen drawers was submitted by the landlord.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the kitchen is dismissed. Laundry floor
The landlord submitted photographs of the laundry floor taken at the end of the tenancy. Stains are present, however, stains are also present in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy (see photographs 242 and 249). Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the stains occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the laundry floor is dismissed. Hallway
The landlord submitted photographs of the hallway taken at the beginning of the tenancy. There is no damage to the walls. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show attempted patch repairs to the walls. I am convinced the walls in the hallway were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has paid an excess of $500.00 to repair the walls.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $500.00. Bedroom 1 walls and doors
The landlord submitted photographs of bedroom 1 taken at the beginning of the tenancy. There is no damage to the walls or doors. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show attempted patch repairs to the walls and wardrobe door in bedroom 1.
I am convinced the walls and wardrobe door in bedroom 1 were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has paid an excess of $500.00 to repair the walls and door.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $500.00. Bedroom 2 carpet
The landlord submitted photographs of the carpet in bedroom 2 at the beginning of the tenancy. No stains are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show one minor stain to the carpet. The landlord’s insurer has accepted their claim to replace the carpet and the excess fee is $500.00.
The size of the stain is minor and I find replacing the entire carpet unreasonable. Rather than requiring the tenant to pay the landlord the $500.00, I order them to pay an amount that most likely reflects the diminution in value to the carpet caused by the stain.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $150.00. Bedroom 3 carpet
The landlord claims the carpet in bedroom 3 was stained during the tenancy however, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy do not show any stains. As part of this application, the landlord has tried to claim for some damage that was pre-existing such as, the stains to the laundry floor. Therefore, I consider there needs to be solid evidence to support their claim that the carpet was stained in bedroom 3. It is not obvious from the photographs that this was the case and the landlord has not proven this claim.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to bedroom 3 is dismissed. Clothesline
The landlord submitted photographs of the clothesline taken at the beginning of the tenancy. It is upright. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show it is bent to one side.
I am convinced the clothesline was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has paid an excess of $500.00 to replace the clothesline.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $500.00. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292740 — Property damage at 10 Rimini Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292740 — Property damage at 10 Rimini Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

How much does the tenant owe in electricity?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

How much does the tenant owe in electricity?

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