What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316979 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Moq Limited $1,974.34

How much money was awarded in case 5316979?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $211.76 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $447.05 awarded to landlord; Replace Remote Control: $205.53 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $882.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13742069-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316979 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Moq Limited $1,974.34

How much money was awarded in case 5316979?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $211.76 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $447.05 awarded to landlord; Replace Remote Control: $205.53 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $882.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13742069-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29A Portage Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316979 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

29A Portage Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316979 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316979 — net $1,974.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$882.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning of fridge	$211.76	Cleaning of fridge
Lock/key replacement	$447.05	Lock/key replacement
Replace remote control	$205.53	Replace remote control
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,974.34
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,974.34

Claims and awards for application 5316979 — net $1,974.34 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $882.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning of fridge

Amount: $211.76
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning of fridge

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $447.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace remote control

Amount: $205.53
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace remote control

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Does the tenant owe the landlord for water rates?
Water Rates — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Moq Limited $1,974.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6419815-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Moq Limited: $1,974.34 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $625.66
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears, water arrears and damages are dismissed. 5316979 2

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place at Waitakere District Court on 06 May 2026. A further hearing took place via telephone on 12 June 2026. An employee of the landlord attended the first hearing for the landlord. A director of the landlord attended the second hearing.
Following the hearings, a copy of the bond lodgement form was sent to the parties via email for comment. The Tribunal did not receive any comments on this document.
The tenant did not attend either of the hearings. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearings in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (see below). The hearings proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had also claimed that the tenant had breached section 40(2)(b) of the RTA by carrying out an unlawful activity at the premises. However, this claim was withdrawn at the hearing on 06 May 2026. Preliminary issues – who is the tenant, when did the tenancy start and what tenancy(ies) does the bond cover? The background is as follows:
On 14 March 2024, the landlord entered into a tenancy agreement for the premises with Mr Mauri (the “First Tenancy Agreement”). Mr Mauri is not a party to these proceedings and the Tribunal does not have a copy of this document.
On 04 July 2024, the landlord and Ms Farrow signed a document which purports to amend the First Tenancy Agreement by adding Ms Farrow as a tenant with Mr Mauri (the “July 2024 Amendment”). The July 2024 Amendment has not been signed by Mr Mauri. I make no finding on whether this document was a binding amendment to the First Tenancy Agreement or not.
On 13 September 2024, the landlord and Ms Farrow signed a tenancy agreement (the “Second Tenancy Agreement”). Clause 4 of the Second Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenancy starts on 14 September 2024. Clause 25(l) of the Second Tenancy Agreement provides: This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties. Any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Lease will not be binding on either Party expect to the extent incorporated with in this lease. 5316979 3
On 14 September 2024, Ms Farrow and the landlord signed a bond lodgement form (the “Bond Lodgement Form”) to accompany the bond of $2,600.00, which was lodged with the Bond Centre. The Bond Lodgement Form records the tenant as Ms Farrow and the landlord as MOQ Limited. It states that the tenancy started on 14 September 2024,
On 20 September 2024, the parties to the Second Tenancy Agreement and Mr RJ Spencer signed an Amendment to Residential Tenancy Agreement (the “Second Amendment”). The Second Amendment provides that Mr Spencer is a tenant from 20 September 2024.
On 31 July 2025, the landlord lodged an application with the Tribunal. In the application form the landlord states that the tenant is Ms Farrow and Mr RJ Spencer and that the tenancy started on 14 September 2024.
The Second Tenancy Agreement makes no reference to the First Tenancy Agreement or the July 2024 Amendment. The effect of clause 25(l) of the Second Tenancy Agreement (see paragraph 8 above) is that it replaced all previous arrangements between the parties. This means that it was a new tenancy.
I find that the tenancy for the purpose of these proceedings is the tenancy that started on 14 September 2024 and is governed by the Second Tenancy Agreement. This was a new tenancy. I further find that the bond which was paid to the Bond Centre is for this tenancy and cannot be used to pay any debts that occurred prior to its start date of 14 September 2026.
The parties for these proceedings are Ms Farrow and, from 20 September 2024, Ms Farrow and Mr Spencer as the “tenant” and MOQ Limited as the “landlord”. Preliminary issues: Was the tenant served notice of these proceedings in accordance with section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?
The tenancy ended on 03 March 2025. The landlord lodged the application to the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, which is more than 2 months after the tenancy terminated.
Section 91A of the RTA provides that where an application is filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual service rules no longer apply.
Section 91A(2) provides that in those circumstances, the application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. 5316979 4
However, on 20 March 2025, section 91A(2) was amended by, among other changes, the addition of section 91A(2)(e) which provides: (2)If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— … (e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; or
Clause 23 of the Second Tenancy Agreement provides an email address for service for Ms Farrow. The Bond Lodgement Form also records the same email address as an address for service for Ms Farrow.
The Second Amendment provides an email address for Mr Spencer. It does not state that this is an email address for service. However, section 136(4) of the RTA provides that where two or more persons are tenants or landlords under a tenancy agreement, notice may be served on either one of the landlords or tenants.
Notice of the hearing was served on Ms Farrow via the email address provided as an email address for service in the Second Tenancy Agreement and the Bond Lodgement Form.
I am satisfied that the tenant (Ms Farrow and Mr Spencer) was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the RTA. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim 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 Kaipo 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 or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the 5316979 5 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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the tenant owe money for rent arrears?

The landlord provided a rent summary in advance of the hearing. However, it was not provided in the format required by the Tribunal.
The landlord was given some time after the hearing to provide the rent summary in the correct format. The landlord did so. The updated rent ledger starts from 04 July 2024. The landlord was asked to provide a rent ledger from the start of the tenancy, 14 September 2024 (see paragraph 13 above). The landlord has not done so.
It is clear from the rent ledger provided that the rent arrears relate to the period prior to the start of the tenancy and not to the tenancy governed by the Second Tenancy Agreement, which is the subject of these proceedings.
I find that the tenant is not in rent arrears in respect of this tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Does the tenant owe the landlord for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 03 March 2025. In the landlord’s application, the landlord states they are seeking $69.07 in unpaid water rates.
During the hearing, the landlord explained that the premises did not have a separate water metre reading. The landlord said that the metre covered the premises and the warehouse. The landlord said that they deducted the amount of water charges that they would usually receive for the warehouse alone and ask the tenant to pay the difference.
Section 39(3) of the RTA provides that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy. The water rates were not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the premises.
I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because 5316979 6 there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities:
The tenant resided at the premises from 14 September 2024 to 03 March 2025. The tenant paid water rates as requested during this time apart from the amount the landlord is seeking of $69.00.
In this case, where the landlord has received payment apart from a small amount throughout the tenancy despite the charges not being exclusively attributable to the tenant, I consider a fair approach is to dismiss the claim for water rates of $69.07.
The landlord’s claim for unpaid water rates is dismissed.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. 5316979 7
The landlord is seeking $800 plus GST for the cleaning of the carpet in the two- bedroom unit. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. At the first hearing the landlord provided a video of the unit at the end of the tenancy which showed that the carpet was not clean and was stained.
$800 plus GST is a significant amount of money for carpet cleaning. The landlord did not provide any photographic or video evidence of the carpet from the start of the tenancy. It is best practice for landlords to conduct an inspection of the premises at the start of the tenancy, ideally with photographs. The report should be provided to the tenant to ensure the parties agree on the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s director attended the first hearing by telephone and said that he walked around the premises at the start of the tenancy and that the stain was not there.
I am satisfied that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy. However, in the absence of photographic evidence or a detailed report showing that the stain was not present at the start of the tenancy, I am not satisfied that it was caused during the tenancy. I consider the sum claimed to be excessive for simply cleaning of the carpets in a two-bedroom unit. I award $200 inclusive of GST for cleaning of the carpet.
The landlord is claiming $750 plus GST to remove of rubbish left at the premises including leftover furniture. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. The landlord’s exit report provides that there was a significant needed to be disposed of. This claim is proved, and I award $882.35 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord is claiming $180.00 plus GST to clean the interior and exterior of the fridge. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. The landlord’s exit report provides that the fridge and freezer had not been cleaned at all. This claim is proved, and I award $211.76 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys and is claiming $380.00 plus GST to replace the locks. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. This claim is proved, and I award $447.05 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord is claim $198.95 for a missing remote control for the air conditioning unit. The landlord has provided an invoice showing the remote control has been replaced. The exit report provides that the remote control was not left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Clause 3f of the Second Tenancy Agreement records that the chattels provided includes two heat pumps. While specific reference is not made to the remote 5316979 8 controls for the heat pumps, I take judicial notice that the majority of heat pumps come with remote controls.
I am satisfied that the tenant was provided with remote control for the heat pump and that it was removed at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved, and I award $203.53 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the shower tray; damage to the windows; damage to the paintwork; and damage to the floor in the kitchen area.
The damage the landlord says was caused during the tenancy is recorded in the exit report. The issue I have is that I do not have any photographs or detailed report proving the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord has not satisfied me that the damage was caused during this tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the premises are dismissed. 5316979 9 Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316979 — net $1,974.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$882.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning of fridge	$211.76	Cleaning of fridge
Lock/key replacement	$447.05	Lock/key replacement
Replace remote control	$205.53	Replace remote control
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,974.34
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,974.34

Claims and awards for application 5316979 — net $1,974.34 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $882.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning of fridge

Amount: $211.76
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning of fridge

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $447.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace remote control

Amount: $205.53
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace remote control

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Does the tenant owe the landlord for water rates?
Water Rates — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Moq Limited $1,974.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6419815-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Moq Limited: $1,974.34 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $625.66
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears, water arrears and damages are dismissed. 5316979 2

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place at Waitakere District Court on 06 May 2026. A further hearing took place via telephone on 12 June 2026. An employee of the landlord attended the first hearing for the landlord. A director of the landlord attended the second hearing.
Following the hearings, a copy of the bond lodgement form was sent to the parties via email for comment. The Tribunal did not receive any comments on this document.
The tenant did not attend either of the hearings. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearings in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (see below). The hearings proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had also claimed that the tenant had breached section 40(2)(b) of the RTA by carrying out an unlawful activity at the premises. However, this claim was withdrawn at the hearing on 06 May 2026. Preliminary issues – who is the tenant, when did the tenancy start and what tenancy(ies) does the bond cover? The background is as follows:
On 14 March 2024, the landlord entered into a tenancy agreement for the premises with Mr Mauri (the “First Tenancy Agreement”). Mr Mauri is not a party to these proceedings and the Tribunal does not have a copy of this document.
On 04 July 2024, the landlord and Ms Farrow signed a document which purports to amend the First Tenancy Agreement by adding Ms Farrow as a tenant with Mr Mauri (the “July 2024 Amendment”). The July 2024 Amendment has not been signed by Mr Mauri. I make no finding on whether this document was a binding amendment to the First Tenancy Agreement or not.
On 13 September 2024, the landlord and Ms Farrow signed a tenancy agreement (the “Second Tenancy Agreement”). Clause 4 of the Second Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenancy starts on 14 September 2024. Clause 25(l) of the Second Tenancy Agreement provides: This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties. Any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Lease will not be binding on either Party expect to the extent incorporated with in this lease. 5316979 3
On 14 September 2024, Ms Farrow and the landlord signed a bond lodgement form (the “Bond Lodgement Form”) to accompany the bond of $2,600.00, which was lodged with the Bond Centre. The Bond Lodgement Form records the tenant as Ms Farrow and the landlord as MOQ Limited. It states that the tenancy started on 14 September 2024,
On 20 September 2024, the parties to the Second Tenancy Agreement and Mr RJ Spencer signed an Amendment to Residential Tenancy Agreement (the “Second Amendment”). The Second Amendment provides that Mr Spencer is a tenant from 20 September 2024.
On 31 July 2025, the landlord lodged an application with the Tribunal. In the application form the landlord states that the tenant is Ms Farrow and Mr RJ Spencer and that the tenancy started on 14 September 2024.
The Second Tenancy Agreement makes no reference to the First Tenancy Agreement or the July 2024 Amendment. The effect of clause 25(l) of the Second Tenancy Agreement (see paragraph 8 above) is that it replaced all previous arrangements between the parties. This means that it was a new tenancy.
I find that the tenancy for the purpose of these proceedings is the tenancy that started on 14 September 2024 and is governed by the Second Tenancy Agreement. This was a new tenancy. I further find that the bond which was paid to the Bond Centre is for this tenancy and cannot be used to pay any debts that occurred prior to its start date of 14 September 2026.
The parties for these proceedings are Ms Farrow and, from 20 September 2024, Ms Farrow and Mr Spencer as the “tenant” and MOQ Limited as the “landlord”. Preliminary issues: Was the tenant served notice of these proceedings in accordance with section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?
The tenancy ended on 03 March 2025. The landlord lodged the application to the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, which is more than 2 months after the tenancy terminated.
Section 91A of the RTA provides that where an application is filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual service rules no longer apply.
Section 91A(2) provides that in those circumstances, the application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. 5316979 4
However, on 20 March 2025, section 91A(2) was amended by, among other changes, the addition of section 91A(2)(e) which provides: (2)If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— … (e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; or
Clause 23 of the Second Tenancy Agreement provides an email address for service for Ms Farrow. The Bond Lodgement Form also records the same email address as an address for service for Ms Farrow.
The Second Amendment provides an email address for Mr Spencer. It does not state that this is an email address for service. However, section 136(4) of the RTA provides that where two or more persons are tenants or landlords under a tenancy agreement, notice may be served on either one of the landlords or tenants.
Notice of the hearing was served on Ms Farrow via the email address provided as an email address for service in the Second Tenancy Agreement and the Bond Lodgement Form.
I am satisfied that the tenant (Ms Farrow and Mr Spencer) was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the RTA. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim 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 Kaipo 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 or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the 5316979 5 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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the tenant owe money for rent arrears?

The landlord provided a rent summary in advance of the hearing. However, it was not provided in the format required by the Tribunal.
The landlord was given some time after the hearing to provide the rent summary in the correct format. The landlord did so. The updated rent ledger starts from 04 July 2024. The landlord was asked to provide a rent ledger from the start of the tenancy, 14 September 2024 (see paragraph 13 above). The landlord has not done so.
It is clear from the rent ledger provided that the rent arrears relate to the period prior to the start of the tenancy and not to the tenancy governed by the Second Tenancy Agreement, which is the subject of these proceedings.
I find that the tenant is not in rent arrears in respect of this tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Does the tenant owe the landlord for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 03 March 2025. In the landlord’s application, the landlord states they are seeking $69.07 in unpaid water rates.
During the hearing, the landlord explained that the premises did not have a separate water metre reading. The landlord said that the metre covered the premises and the warehouse. The landlord said that they deducted the amount of water charges that they would usually receive for the warehouse alone and ask the tenant to pay the difference.
Section 39(3) of the RTA provides that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy. The water rates were not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the premises.
I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because 5316979 6 there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities:
The tenant resided at the premises from 14 September 2024 to 03 March 2025. The tenant paid water rates as requested during this time apart from the amount the landlord is seeking of $69.00.
In this case, where the landlord has received payment apart from a small amount throughout the tenancy despite the charges not being exclusively attributable to the tenant, I consider a fair approach is to dismiss the claim for water rates of $69.07.
The landlord’s claim for unpaid water rates is dismissed.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. 5316979 7
The landlord is seeking $800 plus GST for the cleaning of the carpet in the two- bedroom unit. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. At the first hearing the landlord provided a video of the unit at the end of the tenancy which showed that the carpet was not clean and was stained.
$800 plus GST is a significant amount of money for carpet cleaning. The landlord did not provide any photographic or video evidence of the carpet from the start of the tenancy. It is best practice for landlords to conduct an inspection of the premises at the start of the tenancy, ideally with photographs. The report should be provided to the tenant to ensure the parties agree on the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s director attended the first hearing by telephone and said that he walked around the premises at the start of the tenancy and that the stain was not there.
I am satisfied that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy. However, in the absence of photographic evidence or a detailed report showing that the stain was not present at the start of the tenancy, I am not satisfied that it was caused during the tenancy. I consider the sum claimed to be excessive for simply cleaning of the carpets in a two-bedroom unit. I award $200 inclusive of GST for cleaning of the carpet.
The landlord is claiming $750 plus GST to remove of rubbish left at the premises including leftover furniture. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. The landlord’s exit report provides that there was a significant needed to be disposed of. This claim is proved, and I award $882.35 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord is claiming $180.00 plus GST to clean the interior and exterior of the fridge. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. The landlord’s exit report provides that the fridge and freezer had not been cleaned at all. This claim is proved, and I award $211.76 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys and is claiming $380.00 plus GST to replace the locks. The landlord has provided an invoice showing this work has been done. This claim is proved, and I award $447.05 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord is claim $198.95 for a missing remote control for the air conditioning unit. The landlord has provided an invoice showing the remote control has been replaced. The exit report provides that the remote control was not left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Clause 3f of the Second Tenancy Agreement records that the chattels provided includes two heat pumps. While specific reference is not made to the remote 5316979 8 controls for the heat pumps, I take judicial notice that the majority of heat pumps come with remote controls.
I am satisfied that the tenant was provided with remote control for the heat pump and that it was removed at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved, and I award $203.53 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the shower tray; damage to the windows; damage to the paintwork; and damage to the floor in the kitchen area.
The damage the landlord says was caused during the tenancy is recorded in the exit report. The issue I have is that I do not have any photographs or detailed report proving the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord has not satisfied me that the damage was caused during this tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the premises are dismissed. 5316979 9 Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316979 — Property damage at 29A Portage Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316979 — Property damage at 29A Portage Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe money for rent arrears?

Does the tenant owe the landlord for water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe money for rent arrears?

Does the tenant owe the landlord for water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions