How much money was awarded in case 5305283?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $54.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305283?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13866768-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5305283?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $54.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305283?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13866768-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Bluewater Place, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305283 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305283 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5305283 — net $1,069.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$690.00	claim for cleaning was $1,035.00. The landlord’s insurers have paid out $345.00 towards the cleaning costs leaving a balance of $690.00 owing.
Carpet repair	$375.47	Carpet repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace heat pump remote	$54.95	Replace heat pump remote
Net award	$1,069.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,069.92

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,069.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $78.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.

The tenancy commenced on 13 October 2023 and ended on 14 May 2025. The burden of proof

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The original claim for cleaning was $1,035.00. The landlord’s insurers have paid out $345.00 towards the cleaning costs leaving a balance of $690.00 owing. The claim is reasonable and is proven.

The heat pump remote was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of $54.95.

The landlord applied for compensation for lock replacement. The evidence provided by the landlord was such that it was not clear if the landlord had already been compensated for the lock replacement as part of an insurance claim. The burden of proof remains with the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven an entitlement to compensation on the evidence provided. The claim is dismissed.

The amounts ordered are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant. The landlord filed a “schedule” provided by their insurers. The schedule did not provide a break down of the claims made, nor the insurance excess applicable to each claim. The figures were provided on a global basis.

The landlord was given the opportunity to adjourn the matter further to obtain the necessary detail. The landlord did not wish to have the matter adjourned and I proceed on the basis of the evidence at hand at the hearing.

The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The evidence is such that I have no precise idea of which claims the landlord has been compensated for under the policy of insurance.

I explained to the landlord that I would not be accepting any claims for compensation for methamphetamine contamination related costs as the test results did not indicate that the premises were contaminated with the highest level shown to be 3.7 micrograms per 100cm2. (see Gluckman Report levels).

The claims for compensation are dismissed.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claims over the two hearings, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The outcome of the two hearings is such that I consider the landlord to have been substantially successful. The landlord’s name is suppressed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5305283 — net $1,069.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$690.00	claim for cleaning was $1,035.00. The landlord’s insurers have paid out $345.00 towards the cleaning costs leaving a balance of $690.00 owing.
Carpet repair	$375.47	Carpet repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace heat pump remote	$54.95	Replace heat pump remote
Net award	$1,069.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,069.92

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,069.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $78.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 13 October 2023 and ended on 14 May 2025. The burden of proof

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The heat pump remote was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of $54.95.

The amounts ordered are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The evidence is such that I have no precise idea of which claims the landlord has been compensated for under the policy of insurance.

The claims for compensation are dismissed.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claims over the two hearings, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The outcome of the two hearings is such that I consider the landlord to have been substantially successful. The landlord’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305283 — Cleanliness at 5 Bluewater Place, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305283 — Cleanliness at 5 Bluewater Place, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions