What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304781 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 5304781?

Cleaning: $362.99 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Lawns: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,160.00 awarded to landlord; By consent: Rent difference to end o…: $667.85 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Trade Me Advertisement: $329.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Removal And Storage Of Tenant’S Belo…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; (ranch slider door, floorboards, dec…: $4,138.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304781?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12307919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304781 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 5304781?

Cleaning: $362.99 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Lawns: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,160.00 awarded to landlord; By consent: Rent difference to end o…: $667.85 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Trade Me Advertisement: $329.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Removal And Storage Of Tenant’S Belo…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; (ranch slider door, floorboards, dec…: $4,138.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304781?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12307919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 55C Springs Road, Parakai, Parakai 0830 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304781 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304781 — net $13,346.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 11 August 2025	$9,160.00	By consent: Rent arrears to 11 August 2025
By consent: Rent difference to end of fixed-term	$667.85	By consent: Rent difference to end of fixed-term
By consent: Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$362.99	By consent: Cleaning and carpet cleaning
By consent: Trade Me advertisement	$329.00	By consent: Trade Me advertisement
By consent: Lawns	$40.00	By consent: Lawns
Rubbish removal	$500.00	ir and reasonable, having regard to the nature and extent of the breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable.
Removal and storage of tenant’s belongings	$500.00	ir and reasonable, having regard to the nature and extent of the breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable.
Repairs: (ranch slider door, floorboards, deck and walls	$4,138.56	Repairs: (ranch slider door, floorboards, deck and walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,346.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,346.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304781 — net $13,346.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 11 August 2025	$9,160.00	By consent: Rent arrears to 11 August 2025
By consent: Rent difference to end of fixed-term	$667.85	By consent: Rent difference to end of fixed-term
By consent: Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$362.99	By consent: Cleaning and carpet cleaning
By consent: Trade Me advertisement	$329.00	By consent: Trade Me advertisement
By consent: Lawns	$40.00	By consent: Lawns
Rubbish removal	$500.00	ir and reasonable, having regard to the nature and extent of the breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable.
Removal and storage of tenant’s belongings	$500.00	ir and reasonable, having regard to the nature and extent of the breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable.
Repairs: (ranch slider door, floorboards, deck and walls	$4,138.56	Repairs: (ranch slider door, floorboards, deck and walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,346.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,346.40

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay Fiona Katherine Mary McLaren $13,346.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 to Fiona Katherine Mary McLaren immediately.
The parties agree that if [the tenant] does not collect the goods stored by Fiona Katherine Mary McLaren by 5:00pm, Sunday 24 August 2025, then Fiona Katherine Mary McLaren may dispose of the goods in any way she sees fit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 August 2025.
The tenant entered into a fixed-term tenancy with the landlord from 6 October 2024 – 5 October 2025. Unfortunately, the tenant experienced some hardship during this time, which meant they had to end the tenancy early. The tenant returned the keys to the landlord on 29 July 2025 and the premises were re- tenanted on 12 August 2025. To try to secure a new tenant quickly, the landlord reduced the rent from $595.00 per week to $510.00 per week. The tenant agrees to pay the landlord rent arrears of $9,160.00 up to 11 August 2025. The tenant also agrees to pay the landlord $667.85, which represents the loss incurred in having to rent the premises out at $510.00 per week, instead of $595.00 per week, from 12 August 2025 – 5 October 2025.
The landlord claims the premises needed to be readvertised on Trade Me, cleaned and repaired before they could be re-tenanted. The landlord seeks to recover these costs from the tenant. The tenant agrees to pay the landlord the following amounts: a. Trade Me advertisement:$329.00 b. Cleaning and carpet cleaning:$362.99 c. Lawns:$40.00
The landlord seeks a further $750.00 for removal and storage of the tenant’s belongings, as well as $5,638.56 for rubbish removal and repairs.
The parties agreed on what should happen to the tenant’s goods in storage. The tenant says they will retrieve the items over the weekend on 23 and 24 August 2025 and agrees the landlord may dispose of them if this does not occur.
This decision only discusses the contentious issues, not the issues the parties have agreed upon.
The issues I must determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Did the tenant remove all of their goods at the end of the tenancy? c. Did the tenant remove all of their rubbish at the end of the tenancy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy? e. If so, how much should the tenant pay the landlord as compensation for repairs?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

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.

Did the tenant remove all of their goods from the premises?

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove all of their goods from the premises. 1
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 29 July 2025, which is the date the tenant returned the keys. These show a number of personal belongings have been left behind such as, clothing, kitchen utensils, a drier and other miscellaneous household items. The landlord gave evidence that a laptop and heater were also left behind. On the basis of these photographs, I find the tenant did not remove all of their goods at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims they took a day off work to pack the tenant’s belongings. The landlord claims they filled approximately 15 rubbish bags, which they transported and stored in private storage. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii).
The landlord claims they paid cash for someone to assist them with packing and transporting the tenant’s belongings. The landlord also claims they have paid to store the tenant’s goods. The landlord claims the cost incurred is $750.00 but did not submit any invoices.
The absence of invoices means I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord has incurred a cost of $750.00 to pack, transport and store the tenant’s goods. In these circumstances, I can only order compensation for an amount I consider fair and reasonable, having regard to the nature and extent of the breach. I find $500.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the fact that there were a lot of personal belongings left behind by the tenant, including a drier, which is a large item.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to pack, transport and store the tenant’s goods is granted for $500.00.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove all rubbish. 2
The photographs taken on 29 July 2025 show a number of food items in the kitchen and a large Auckland Council recycling bin with non-recyclable rubbish in it. There is also a bin in the bathroom that is full of rubbish and small amounts of rubbish scattered on the lawn. Based on these photographs, I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $5,638.56. The invoice is mostly for repairs but includes rubbish removal. Unfortunately, it is not itemised, which means I cannot discern the specific cost for rubbish removal. In these circumstances, I must order compensation for a fair and reasonable amount, having regard to the amount of rubbish left at the premises and likely cost to remove it.
The landlord gave evidence that the tradespeople advised that the cost to dispose of the rubbish with Auckland Waste was $224.10. To this figure, I must make allowance for time and labour charged. In all the circumstances, I consider $500.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $500.00. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii).

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

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 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. 3
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. 4
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). 5
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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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 applied to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 8
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. 9
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage that occurred in the following areas during the tenancy: a. Ranch slider door and floorboards b. Deck 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 4 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. c. Hole in wall d. Dog scratches on walls e. Carpet
The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer, as the excess would have exceeded the repair costs.
I discuss each claim for damage individually below. Ranch slider door and floorboards
The landlord claims the lock mechanism on the ranch slider door and framing were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claims the framing and floorboards suffered water damage as a result of the door being left open.
The tenant claims the lock mechanism was broken when their ex-partner forced their way into the premises.
The tenant accepts they left the door open at times for their dog to get in and out of the house.
In the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, the property appears to be in good condition. It is not a new build but looks to have been recently renovated.
There is no close up photograph of the ranch slider door at the beginning of the tenancy. It can be seen in photographs of the living room, but only at a slight distance. In these photographs, the painting on the framing appears to be in good condition.
The photographs taken on 29 July 2025, include a close up photograph of the base of the ranch slider door. The paint is cracked and peeling, and parts of wood are chipping off.
The tenant accepts that they kept the ranch slider door open to let their dog in and out of the house. This evidence, together with the photographs of the ranch slider, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the wooden framing of the ranch slider door was damaged during the tenancy. I consider the damage most likely occurred as a result of carelessness on behalf of the tenant in leaving the door open when it was raining.
The landlord gave evidence that the builder advised that the floorboards that join the ranch slider door were also water damaged and needed to be replaced.
The photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy do not show the floorboards, which are carpeted.
The first quote given to the builder includes a bullet point stating “remove and repair water damaged flooring.” This evidence, together with the fact that the floorboards are close to the ranch slider door, means I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the floorboards were also water damaged during the tenancy.
I consider the damage to be more than fair wear and tear. Whilst small amounts of water might be expected to enter the premises when entry doors are opened for short periods of time, the fact that the floorboards were water damaged indicates that the ranch slider door was left open for extended periods of time, including when it was raining. In other words, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities there was unreasonable use of the ranch slider door by the tenant.
The tenant accepts that the lock on the ranch slider door was broken during the tenancy and gave evidence this was caused by their ex-partner forcing their way into the premises.
Where a third party damages the premises while the tenant is in them, it is presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves they took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or to eject them. 10
Insufficient evidence was provided by the tenant for me to be convinced that they are not responsible. No Police report was submitted and the landlord was not informed of the incident when it occurred. The tenant was quite upset during the hearing and did not go into much detail about what happened.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $5,638.56 for rubbish removal and repairs. Unfortunately, the invoice does not itemise the repair costs for each item, which makes it difficult for me to discern the cost incurred to repair the ranch slider door and floorboards. Rather than estimate the likely repair costs for these items, I intend to make a global order for compensation at the end, which reflects the need for any adjustments.
In respect of the ranch slider door and floorboards, there needs to be an adjustment for betterment and depreciation. Whilst the premises appear to have been recently renovated in the entry photographs, it is unlikely the renovation included installation of new timber reveals or floorboards, as the flooring is carpeted and vinyl. 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. Deck
The landlord submitted photographs of the deck taken at the beginning of the tenancy. It appears to be in good condition but is obviously quite dated. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42(1).
The landlord submitted photographs taken on 29 July 2025, which show the tenant has replaced half the decking with different timber.
The tenant claims they replaced the decking because the original decking was unsafe. The tenant claims they raised this issue with the landlord, but nothing was done about it. The landlord denies this.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the deck was in a poor state of repair as claimed by the tenant. No evidence to support this such as, photographs or written correspondence from the tenant to the landlord was submitted.
By replacing half the deck with new timber, which does not match the original timber and in the absence of the landlord’s permission, I find the tenant damaged the deck.
The landlord gave evidence that the builder advised that the new decking had not been laid properly. The first quote provided by the builder states “remove and replace decking laid improper by tenant.”
The landlord claims that the invoice submitted by them only includes the cost of removing all of the timber from the deck and not the installation of a new deck, which the landlord claims was a big expense. I am uncertain about this however, because the quote upon which the invoice is based refers to replacing the decking laid improperly by the tenant. No separate invoice for the installation of a new deck was submitted.
In these circumstances, there needs to be an adjustment for betterment and depreciation to repair the deck. The deck was approximately 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. 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. Hole in the wall
The landlord claims the tenant poorly repaired a hole in the wall under the heat pump.
The tenant claims the patch repair was pre-existing.
The landlord submitted photographs of the wall where the heat pump is situated at the beginning of the tenancy. No marks or patch repairs are apparent, and the wall is in good condition. In contrast, there is a poorly attempted patch repair to the wall in the photographs taken on 29 July 2025. A comparison of these sets of photographs convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the wall was damaged during the tenancy and a patch repair attempted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The invoice submitted by the landlord includes the cost to repair the hole. The first quote provided by the landlord confirms that only a patch repair was completed and therefore, there does not need to be an adjustment for betterment and depreciation. Dog claw marks on the walls
The landlord claims the lower part of the walls had small scratches on them throughout the premises that were touched up by the builder. The landlord believes the tenant’s dog caused the damage.
The tenant denies the scratches were throughout the premises. The tenant claims their dog is small and elderly and unlikely to have scratched the walls as claimed by the landlord.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy are taken at a distance and show the walls to be in good condition. No marks or scratches are apparent.
The landlord only submitted one photograph of scratches to the wall taken on 29 July 2025. It shows a section of the wall in the living room. Lots of small scratches and marks are present. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that this area of the wall was damaged during the tenancy, but not the rest of the walls as claimed by the landlord. The tenant denies this was the case and the landlord has not submitted photographs showing the state of the walls in the rest of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The marks and scratches to the section of the wall in the living are beyond fair wear and tear. This tenancy was only 9 months long. Whilst some marks and scratches to the walls are expected due to everyday living, significant amounts are not, which is the case here.
The invoice submitted by the landlord includes the cost to repair the walls throughout the premises however, the landlord has only proven their claim in relation to damage to a portion of the wall in the living room. Therefore, any order for compensation must be adjusted to reflect this.
The landlord gave evidence the walls were not repainted, but merely touched up by the builder. Therefore, I do not consider there needs to be an adjustment for betterment and depreciation.

How much should the tenant pay the landlord as compensation for repairs?

The landlord submitted an invoice for $5,638.56 for rubbish removal and repairs. I have granted the landlord $500.00 for rubbish removal, which leaves a balance of $5,138.56 for repairs.
The landlord has proven the tenant is responsible for the following damage that occurred during the tenancy: a. Ranch slider door and floorboards b. Deck c. Hole in the wall d. Dog claw marks to a section of the living room wall
I must make an adjustment to the total amount sought by the landlord to reflect betterment and depreciation in respect of the ranch slider door, floorboards and deck. There also needs to be an adjustment to reflect the fact that the invoice includes time spent patching up walls throughout the house however, the landlord has only proven the tenant damaged a lower part of the wall in the living room and under the heat pump.
In these circumstances, I consider an adjustment of $1,000.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for repairs is granted for $4,138.56. Filing fee
The landlord has been wholly successful in their claim. Therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression, but the tenant did.
This decision discusses an instance of alleged family violence of which the tenant was a victim. Therefore, I consider the tenant’s interests in suppression outweigh the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, I grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304781 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 55C Springs Road, Parakai, Parakai 0830

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304781 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 55C Springs Road, Parakai, Parakai 0830

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Did the tenant remove all of their goods from the premises?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

How much should the tenant pay the landlord as compensation for repairs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Did the tenant remove all of their goods from the premises?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

How much should the tenant pay the landlord as compensation for repairs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions