Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5310079 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Harbutt Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland
Decided 25 March 2026 · Published 25 March 2026 · Application 5310079
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Kan
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 15 June 2025 | $440.00 | Rent arrears to 15 June 2025 | |
| Repairs: Damage to the doors | $345.00 | Repairs: Damage to the doors | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement |
Claims and awards for application 5310079. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 15 June 2025
- Amount
- $440.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 15 June 2025
Repairs: Damage to the doors
- Amount
- $345.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Damage to the doors
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $813.00 (3494654-013) to Fahey Property Management Limited immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $827.00 (3494654-013) to Jyoti Chaudhary immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted face-to-face on 25 March 2026. Introduction
- This proceeding concerns a tenant’s application and a landlord’s cross- application arising out of a residential tenancy. The tenant, Ms Chaudhary, seeks a refund of the bond and raises claims relating to the condition of the premises, including mould, moisture, and alleged non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
- The landlord, Fahey Property Management Limited, seeks payment of rent arrears, compensation for damage to two internal doors, and retention of part of the bond.
- I heard evidence and submissions from Ms Chaudhary, who was supported by her husband Mr Choudhary, and from Ms Fahey on behalf of the landlord. I have considered the oral evidence together with the documents filed, including inspection reports, photographs, emails, and messages. Background
- The tenancy commenced in October 2022 and ended in June 2025. The weekly rent was $440 and the bond held is $1,640.
- There is a dispute as to when vacant possession was returned, as well as disputes concerning alleged damage to the property and the condition of the premises during the tenancy. Issues
- The issues for determination are: a. Whether the tenant is liable for rent arrears; b. Whether the tenant is liable for damage to the front bedroom door and kitchen door; c. Whether the tenant has established claims relating to maintenance, mould, or Healthy Homes compliance; d. The appropriate allocation of the bond
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord submits that rent was paid only up to 8 June 2025 and that although the tenancy was due to end on or about 10 June 2025, the tenant did not return the keys until 15 June 2025. Ms Fahey relies on email correspondence from 15 June 2025 showing that the tenant was instructed to return the keys and had not done so until that later date. She also states that when she attended the property, it had not been fully vacated or cleaned.
- The tenant submits that she vacated the property by 12 June 2025 and returned the keys on that date by placing them in the mailbox. She explains that there was confusion about instructions and concern about the condition of the mailbox. She accepts that there may have been a short delay but says it amounted to only two days.
- There is a clear conflict in the evidence!
- I prefer the landlord’s evidence. The landlord relies on contemporaneous email communications, which I consider more reliable. The tenant accepts that she did not follow the landlord’s instructions immediately and that there was some delay in returning the keys.
- In tenancy matters, possession is not fully returned until the keys are returned and the landlord regains control. The tenant was instructed to leave the keys, including in the mailbox if necessary, and ought to have complied with those instructions.
- On the balance of probabilities, I find that the keys were not returned until 15 June 2025. The tenant therefore remained in possession of the premises until that date and is liable for rent for that period.
- The landlord’s claim for one week’s rent arrears in the sum of $440 is made out.
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. Damage to Doors Landlord’s position
- The landlord claims $575 for damage to two internal doors, being a front bedroom door and a kitchen door. Ms Fahey relies on inspection reports, including reports dated 3 August 2023 and 24 October 2024, and associated photographs. She submits that the damage was not present at the start of the tenancy and was identified during inspections. She states that the landlord chose to repair the doors rather than replace them in order to minimise cost. Tenant’s position
- The tenant denies liability for the damage. She submits that the property had pre-existing issues at the commencement of the tenancy and refers to a message sent on 9 October 2022 raising concerns about the condition of the property, including damage. She says the hole in the front bedroom door was not caused by her and that any damage to the kitchen door was consistent with fair wear and tear, particularly cracking in timber. She also states that stickers were placed over areas to make them appear tidy rather than to conceal damage. Front bedroom door
- The inspection report dated 24 October 2024 records a hole in the front bedroom door, and photographs show the damage clearly. Earlier inspection material does not show such damage.
- The tenant relies on an early complaint made shortly after the tenancy began. However, that complaint is general in nature and does not clearly establish that a hole of the type later observed existed at the commencement of the tenancy.
- On the balance of probabilities, I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy. While I am not satisfied that the damage was intentional, the nature of the hole is not consistent with fair wear and tear and is more likely the result of careless use.
- I find the tenant liable for the damage to the front bedroom door. Kitchen door
- The tenant submits that the damage to the kitchen door was a crack consistent with normal wear and tear.
- While I accept that timber doors may develop minor cracking over time, the evidence in this case indicates damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. The photographs show a defect that appears deeper and more localised than a superficial crack. The presence of a sticker placed over the area also suggests that the damage was more significant.
- The inspection reports do not support the existence of this damage at earlier stages of the tenancy.
- Taking all of the evidence into account, I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused damage to the kitchen door through careless use and that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. Tenant’s Claims Maintenance and condition
- The tenant submits that the property was in poor condition from the outset, including mould, moisture, and general disrepair. She relies on photographs and an early message from October 2022 raising concerns about damage, cleanliness, and insects. She says that promised repairs were not carried out and that the condition of the property affected her child’s health.
- The landlord submits that any issues raised at the start of the tenancy were addressed and that routine inspections throughout the tenancy did not identify ongoing problems.
- The difficulty with the tenant’s claim is that the evidence primarily relates to the commencement of the tenancy in early October 2022. There is no persuasive evidence that the landlord failed to take remedial action at that time or that the issues persisted throughout the tenancy.
- The inspection reports dated 3 August 2023 and 24 October 2024 do not record the issues now alleged. Healthy Homes and mould
- The tenant alleges that the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards and that mould and moisture were ongoing issues.
- The landlord submits that the property was compliant and had appropriate heating and ventilation. It also submits that mould can arise for various reasons, including environmental humidity and tenant use of ventilation.
- I accept that mould may arise for a range of reasons and that it is not, of itself, proof of non-compliance. There is insufficient evidence before me to establish that any mould was caused by a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards or by a failure of the landlord to meet its obligations. Findings on tenant’s claims
- On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached its maintenance obligations or that the property was non-compliant with Healthy Homes Standards.
- The tenant’s claims are therefore dismissed. Conclusion
- The landlord has established its claims for rent arrears and damage.
- The tenant has not established her claims. They are dismissed.
- The landlord is entitled to $440 for rent arrears and a reduced amount of $345 for damage, resulting in a total award of $785.
- In assessing the appropriate amount for damage, I have taken into account the principles of betterment and depreciation. The landlord repainted the doors white, whereas they were originally timber in appearance. The reason for this change is not explained. The applicable principle is that the landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not to a better position.
- In this case, repainting the doors white was a decision made by the landlord and went beyond what was required to repair, replaster, and paint the damaged areas. I am not satisfied that this work was necessary to remedy the damage caused by the tenant. Accordingly, an adjustment for betterment is appropriate. Filing fee
- Because Fahey Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
- Ms Chaudharry has applied for an order suppressing her name and identifying particulars. No reasons have been provided in support of that application.
- She has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claim. The onus is on her to satisfy me that an order for suppression ought to be made.
- In the absence of any evidence or submissions supporting the application, I am not satisfied that the statutory threshold for suppression has been met. The application for name suppression is therefore declined.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s38, s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s7
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- FAHEY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5310079?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $813.00 (3494654-013) to Fahey
How much money was awarded in case 5310079?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310079?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310079?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346272-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.