What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322900 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Slpm Limited $2,353.86 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5322900?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Back Door: $627.00 awarded to landlord; Bathtub: $707.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Lounge Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $6.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322900?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12748934-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322900 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Slpm Limited $2,353.86 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5322900?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Back Door: $627.00 awarded to landlord; Bathtub: $707.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Lounge Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $6.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322900?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12748934-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 James Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322900 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322900 — net $2,353.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: 04.06.2025 – 28.06.2025	$6.36	Water rates: 04.06.2025 – 28.06.2025
Rubbish removal	$598.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Bathtub	$707.00	Repairs: Bathtub
Lawns and Garden work	$287.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Paint lounge walls	$100.00	ches and marks. Considering the size of the scribble, I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the repair costs.
Repairs: Back door	$627.00	Repairs: Back door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,353.86
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,353.86

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Slpm Limited $2,353.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (BN-00059408) immediately apportioned as follows: Slpm Limited: $2,353.86 [The tenant/s]: $426.14

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 20 November 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of 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 landlord submitted a copy of an original invoice from Watercare dated 3 July 2025. It covers the period from 4 June 2025 – 2 July 2025. The tenancy ended on 28 June 2025 and the landlord submitted a photograph of the water meter taken on this date. The landlord claims $6.36 is owing on the invoice, which I accept.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $6.36.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” Therefore, the obligation to remove all rubbish, belongings and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Oven
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the oven reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the inside of the oven taken at the end of the tenancy. It looks reasonably clean and tidy. There is minimal residue on the glass door and inside the oven. I cannot see any food deposits on the trays or bottom of the oven. The exit report notes that the oven smells bad however, I have some doubts about the reliability of this statement. This is because the oven appears to be reasonably clean and tidy, and not in a condition that would be likely to create a bad smell.
The landlord has not proven the tenant left the oven in an unreasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. For this reason, their claim for $115.00 to clean the oven is dismissed. Lawns
The landlord submitted photographs of the lawns taken at the end of the tenancy. The grass is overgrown and full of weeds. I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord submitted an invoice for $287.00 for lawnmowing. The amount sought is reasonable considering the relatively large size of the section.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $287.50. Disposal of goods and rubbish
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all of their goods and rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted photographs of the subfloor, which show lots of children’s toys stored away. A plastic toy car, children’s bikes and other miscellaneous items are present. The landlord gave evidence the subfloor was empty at the beginning of the tenancy, which I accept. The tenant sent the landlord an email on 8 July 2025 asking the landlord to throw away the abandoned goods.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not remove all of their goods and rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted an invoice for $598.00 to dispose of the items left by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

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 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. 7
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. 8
Where a tenant damages the premises during the tenancy, the landlord has an obligation to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. 9 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. Bath
The landlord submitted photographs of the bath taken at the beginning of the tenancy. It appears clean and no cracks or damage are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show an attempted repair to a crack in the bath. The landlord submitted an email from the tenant sent on 26 April 2025 advising about the crack and stating that it was most likely caused by their children.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the bath was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,207.50 to replace the bath. The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer for the bath, which his puzzling. This is because the landlord’s excess is $400.00, which is less than the repair cost. The landlord did not provide a good reason as to why they did not make a claim with their insurer. In failing to make a claim with their insurer, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be a reduction to the amount of compensation to reflect this.
There also needs to be a reduction to reflect the principles of betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. The landlord is unsure how old the bath is, which indicates it most likely has some age. The photographs of the bath taken at the beginning of the tenancy support this conclusion, as it does not look new.
I find a reduction of $500.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $707.50. Lounge walls
The landlord submitted photographs of the lounge taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No obvious marks to the walls are present, although the walls are not fully visible. The entry photographs were taken shortly after the tenant moved in and items of furniture are stored in the lounge.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some minor scratches to the walls and a scribble on the wall under the window.
I find the small scratches to be fair wear and tear. It is reasonably foreseeable that walls may suffer some minor deterioration in condition as a result of everyday living, especially where young children are living in the premises.
I find the scribble on the wall to be careless damage, most likely caused by the tenant’s children.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $575.00 to repaint the lounge walls. The tenant is only responsible for repairing the scribble on the wall, not the other minor scratches and marks. Considering the size of the scribble, I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the repair costs. Exterior walls
The landlord gave evidence the exterior of the premises was freshly painted just before the tenancy began. The landlord submitted photographs of the front door taken from the external entrance at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the walls in the alcove are damaged however, I cannot see any damage in the photographs. There might be some slight discolouration to the paint, consistent with fair wear and tear, but there are certainly no signs of obvious damage.
This claim is dismissed. Back door
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The back door looks to be in good condition. The landlord gave evidence it was newly purchased and installed at the beginning of the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the door has been damaged. There is a crack down the side of the door where the lock is. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,127.00 to replace the door. The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer for the back door, which is puzzling. This is because the landlord’s excess is $400.00, which is less than the repair cost. The landlord did not provide a good reason as to why they did not make a claim with their insurer. In failing to make a claim with their insurer, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be a reduction to the amount of compensation claimed to reflect this.
The landlord gave evidence they purchased the door just before the tenancy began. The tenancy was only 3 months long. Therefore, I do not consider there needs to be a reduction for betterment and depreciation considering how old the door was.
I find a reduction of $500.00 to be reasonable to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $627.00. Carport pole
The landlord submitted a photograph of the carport taken at the beginning of the tenancy. All of the poles are intact. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show one of the poles has cracked. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carport pole was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a quote for $437.00 (including GST) to replace the pole. The landlord did not submit an invoice or any evidence of the repair work being completed.
I am not convinced the landlord has incurred a cost of $437.00 to repair the pole. Therefore, their claim for compensation is granted for $100.00, which I think fairly reflects the extent of the breach committed by the tenant, as well as the likely diminution in value to the pole. Filing fee
Because Slpm Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322900 — net $2,353.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: 04.06.2025 – 28.06.2025	$6.36	Water rates: 04.06.2025 – 28.06.2025
Rubbish removal	$598.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Bathtub	$707.00	Repairs: Bathtub
Lawns and Garden work	$287.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Paint lounge walls	$100.00	ches and marks. Considering the size of the scribble, I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the repair costs.
Repairs: Back door	$627.00	Repairs: Back door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,353.86
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,353.86

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Slpm Limited $2,353.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (BN-00059408) immediately apportioned as follows: Slpm Limited: $2,353.86 [The tenant/s]: $426.14

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 20 November 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of 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 landlord submitted a copy of an original invoice from Watercare dated 3 July 2025. It covers the period from 4 June 2025 – 2 July 2025. The tenancy ended on 28 June 2025 and the landlord submitted a photograph of the water meter taken on this date. The landlord claims $6.36 is owing on the invoice, which I accept.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $6.36.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” Therefore, the obligation to remove all rubbish, belongings and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Oven
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the oven reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the inside of the oven taken at the end of the tenancy. It looks reasonably clean and tidy. There is minimal residue on the glass door and inside the oven. I cannot see any food deposits on the trays or bottom of the oven. The exit report notes that the oven smells bad however, I have some doubts about the reliability of this statement. This is because the oven appears to be reasonably clean and tidy, and not in a condition that would be likely to create a bad smell.
The landlord has not proven the tenant left the oven in an unreasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. For this reason, their claim for $115.00 to clean the oven is dismissed. Lawns
The landlord submitted photographs of the lawns taken at the end of the tenancy. The grass is overgrown and full of weeds. I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord submitted an invoice for $287.00 for lawnmowing. The amount sought is reasonable considering the relatively large size of the section.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $287.50. Disposal of goods and rubbish
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all of their goods and rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted photographs of the subfloor, which show lots of children’s toys stored away. A plastic toy car, children’s bikes and other miscellaneous items are present. The landlord gave evidence the subfloor was empty at the beginning of the tenancy, which I accept. The tenant sent the landlord an email on 8 July 2025 asking the landlord to throw away the abandoned goods.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not remove all of their goods and rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted an invoice for $598.00 to dispose of the items left by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

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 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. 7
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. 8
Where a tenant damages the premises during the tenancy, the landlord has an obligation to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. 9 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. Bath
The landlord submitted photographs of the bath taken at the beginning of the tenancy. It appears clean and no cracks or damage are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show an attempted repair to a crack in the bath. The landlord submitted an email from the tenant sent on 26 April 2025 advising about the crack and stating that it was most likely caused by their children.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the bath was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,207.50 to replace the bath. The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer for the bath, which his puzzling. This is because the landlord’s excess is $400.00, which is less than the repair cost. The landlord did not provide a good reason as to why they did not make a claim with their insurer. In failing to make a claim with their insurer, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be a reduction to the amount of compensation to reflect this.
There also needs to be a reduction to reflect the principles of betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. The landlord is unsure how old the bath is, which indicates it most likely has some age. The photographs of the bath taken at the beginning of the tenancy support this conclusion, as it does not look new.
I find a reduction of $500.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $707.50. Lounge walls
The landlord submitted photographs of the lounge taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No obvious marks to the walls are present, although the walls are not fully visible. The entry photographs were taken shortly after the tenant moved in and items of furniture are stored in the lounge.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some minor scratches to the walls and a scribble on the wall under the window.
I find the small scratches to be fair wear and tear. It is reasonably foreseeable that walls may suffer some minor deterioration in condition as a result of everyday living, especially where young children are living in the premises.
I find the scribble on the wall to be careless damage, most likely caused by the tenant’s children.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $575.00 to repaint the lounge walls. The tenant is only responsible for repairing the scribble on the wall, not the other minor scratches and marks. Considering the size of the scribble, I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the repair costs. Exterior walls
The landlord gave evidence the exterior of the premises was freshly painted just before the tenancy began. The landlord submitted photographs of the front door taken from the external entrance at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the walls in the alcove are damaged however, I cannot see any damage in the photographs. There might be some slight discolouration to the paint, consistent with fair wear and tear, but there are certainly no signs of obvious damage.
This claim is dismissed. Back door
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The back door looks to be in good condition. The landlord gave evidence it was newly purchased and installed at the beginning of the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the door has been damaged. There is a crack down the side of the door where the lock is. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,127.00 to replace the door. The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer for the back door, which is puzzling. This is because the landlord’s excess is $400.00, which is less than the repair cost. The landlord did not provide a good reason as to why they did not make a claim with their insurer. In failing to make a claim with their insurer, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be a reduction to the amount of compensation claimed to reflect this.
The landlord gave evidence they purchased the door just before the tenancy began. The tenancy was only 3 months long. Therefore, I do not consider there needs to be a reduction for betterment and depreciation considering how old the door was.
I find a reduction of $500.00 to be reasonable to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $627.00. Carport pole
The landlord submitted a photograph of the carport taken at the beginning of the tenancy. All of the poles are intact. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show one of the poles has cracked. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carport pole was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a quote for $437.00 (including GST) to replace the pole. The landlord did not submit an invoice or any evidence of the repair work being completed.
I am not convinced the landlord has incurred a cost of $437.00 to repair the pole. Therefore, their claim for compensation is granted for $100.00, which I think fairly reflects the extent of the breach committed by the tenant, as well as the likely diminution in value to the pole. Filing fee
Because Slpm Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322900 — Property damage at 2 James Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322900 — Property damage at 2 James Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions