What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324203 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5324203?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324203?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13097432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324203 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5324203?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324203?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13097432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Butterworth Drive, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324203 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lavinia Fahina Katalina Valu must pay [The landlord/s] $15,206.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord represented the hearing. The landlord was represented by his sister, [name redacted], who has been managing this tenancy.
There was no appearance by the tenant. I delayed the start of the hearing by 5 minutes in case the tenant was running late. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application and so the hearing 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.
This tenancy of a standalone 1970’s house on a large section in Glendene began on 6 August 2022. The rent was $650 per week.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 August 2025 when the tenant told the landlord that she could no longer afford the rent and left.
The landlord claims rent arrears in the amount of $18,300.
The landlord produced rent summary showing all rent payments made by the tenant during the tenancy. The rent was paid reasonably reliably throughout 2022 and 2023 but by 2024 there were frequent missed payments. The tenant stopped paying rent and the arrears increased from $600 in January 2025 to $18,300 by the end of the tenancy on 15 August 2025.
The rent is significantly in arrears (28 weeks) and so the Tribunal must consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable steps to mitigate their loss 1 .
The landlord’s sister said that the landlord did not take steps to terminate the tenancy because the tenant kept telling her that she would make a Kiwisaver withdrawal to pay the arrears, which she believed for a time, and then the tenant became difficult to contact and was often unavailable. She had her own health and personal difficulties which left her with little time extra time.
A landlord is entitled to an order for termination of a tenancy if the rent is 21 days in arrears at the time the application is made 2 . Even so, in my view it was reasonable for the landlord to delay making an application to terminate the tenancy at this stage in an effort to sustain this tenancy, particularly as the tenant was living there with her children. She was also entitled to take the tenant at her word that she would access her Kiwisaver to pay the arrears. 1 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 2 Section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
However the landlord should have taken steps to mitigate their loss when no payment was forthcoming after a reasonable period of time and the tenant stopped communicating.
In my view the landlord should have taken steps by the end of March 2025 at the very latest to mitigate their loss. I appreciate that the termination process does take some time, and so I have awarded rent arrears up to 18 April 2024 ($7,550.00 – just over 11 weeks of rent arrears)

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
[The landlord’s sister] conducted the final inspection of the property and explained that the tenant left rubbish in the house, garage, shed, and garden. She said that the carpet was covered in stains and burns and was smelly, the property had not been cleaned and the kitchen was left very dirty with cooking utensils left covered in food. The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also produced photos of the outside of the property which showed areas that had become very overgrown and covered in weeds.
The landlord claimed the following invoices for cleaning, rubbish removal, garden tidy and carpet cleaning: a. Cleaning house and garage: $460.00 b. Rubbish removal: $730.00 c. Garden tidy: $250.00 d. Carpet cleaning: $194.35
I consider all of the above invoices to be reasonable based on the condition of the property and the work required to restore it to a “reasonably clean and tidy” condition.
These claims are proved.

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 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 said that at the beginning of the tenancy they made a careful inventory of all areas of the tenancy, noted their condition, and took the tenant through this list which the tenant confirmed and signed. Repairs to walls
The landlord said that the property was newly painted at the start of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy the walls in the lounge and one of the bedrooms had many small holes in them that needed to be filled and the walls had to be plastered and painted.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $2,990 for repairing and painting the lounge and the bedroom together with photos from the start and end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved. I have not ordered the full amount however as it is fairly usual for landlords to paint in between tenancies, particularly in high use areas such as the lounge. The landlord in this case has had to paint this area before they otherwise would have.
I consider that compensation of $1,500 is reasonable in all the circumstances. Replacing doors, glass, door frame and shelving unit
The landlord said that: a. four internals had holes/damage at the end of the tenancy as did two wardrobe doors. The landlord said that the tenant admitted the damage had been caused by a family member. b. the glass in one of the front door panels was broken (and had been replaced with cardboard and tape) and that the glass panel by the front door was broken/cracked also. c. The framing to one door was broken. d. A shelving unit was missing.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $6,093.85 for repair of all of the above items. They said that they had in fact replaced the front door with a solid wooden door to avoid breakage in the future, but their builder had estimated the cost of replacement glass and had provided a separate invoice on that basis.
All of the above claims are proven. When ordering compensation I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the position that they would have been if the tenant had not breached their obligations and not better or worse off. In the circumstances I have taken into account the fact that the landlord now has brand new doors. I consider that a slightly reduced award of $5,093.85 is appropriate in such circumstances. Kitchen
The landlord said that the silicone had come away where the benchtop meets the wall but the tenant did not tell them and so water got behind that area and caused the particle board benchtop to swell and the cupboards were damaged. All the drawers were dirty and in poor condition.
The landlord was not sure of the age of the kitchen at the start of the tenancy but estimated that it was less than 10 years old.
The landlord explained that no kitchen company would replace only the damaged parts of the kitchen and so they had to replace the entire kitchen. The landlord seeks to claim the sum of $4,025.00 from the tenant being the cost of replacing the kitchen benchtop and drawers.
In reviewing the photos before and after I am not satisfied that it would have been obvious to the tenant that water was able to get between the bench and the wall as this area has some tile detailing. There were no photos showing damage to the benchtop so this part of the claim is not proved.
I do however consider that the tenant would have been aware that damage was occurring to the drawers. This would have been obvious. The tenant was under and obligation to tell the landlord that damage was occurring. In the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be liable for the damage to the doors, but again, I must take into account betterment and depreciation and the fact that this was not a new kitchen at the outset.
In the circumstances I consider compensation of $800.00 to be reasonable. Carpet
The landlord said that even after cleaning the carpet was in terrible condition as some of the stains remained and there were multiple holes and burn marks.
The landlord has not yet replaced the carpet due to cost but has a quote to do so in the amount of $3,903.10.
The landlord was not sure of the age of the carpet at the start of the tenancy so I have had to use my best estimate based on the photos.
I note that the Inland Revenue IR265 Depreciation Schedules (Residential Chattels) estimate carpet to have a useful life of 8 years. The photos from the start of the tenancy show the carpet to be in reasonable condition but it is certainly not new and there are some marks and what appears to be a patch in one corner. I consider compensation in the amount of $1,500 to be reasonable in all the circumstances. Insurance
The landlord said that they had not claimed against their insurance policy as they have an excess of $2,500 (as noted in the Tenancy Agreement) and they were told that the painting would result in at least two excesses as two rooms were damaged, and the other repairs would have had multiple excesses as each room would have been on event.
I consider that the landlord has quite reasonably not claimed against their insurance given the excesses that would have been imposed. Had they done so, the tenant’s position would not have been improved.
The only area that I am not certain of is the kitchen, as it is possible that only one excess would have been applied. However, as I have made an award well below the landlord’s excess, the issue of how many excesses that might have been applied is not relevant. Bond
The landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre (as required under the RTA). I have therefore included the bond as a sum retained by the landlord in this order. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has sought, and is entitled to, and order for name suppression as the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324203 — Rent arrears at 28 Butterworth Drive, Glendene, Auckland 0602

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324203 — Rent arrears at 28 Butterworth Drive, Glendene, Auckland 0602

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?