What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327234 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5327234?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $256.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $202.57 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Curtain Roller: $256.83 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $256.83 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $432.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327234?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12666764-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327234 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5327234?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $256.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $202.57 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Curtain Roller: $256.83 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $256.83 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $432.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327234?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12666764-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Dunstan Place, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327234 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

1 Dunstan Place, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327234 — 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 5327234 — net $1,353.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2025	$202.57	Rent arrears to 7 July 2025
Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025	$432.60	Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025
Rubbish removal	$256.83	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$256.83	Lock/key replacement
Replace broken curtain roller	$256.83	Replace broken curtain roller
Repairs: Walls and doors	$2,000.00	Repairs: Walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,353.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,353.66

Claims and awards for application 5327234 — net $1,353.66 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 7 July 2025

Amount: $202.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 7 July 2025

Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025

Amount: $432.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025

Rubbish removal

Amount: $256.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $256.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace broken curtain roller

Amount: $256.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace broken curtain roller

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Key/Lock replacement
Property Damage — Curtain and holder replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

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

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Yp Chin $1,353.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3477218-010) to Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Yp Chin immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 4 November 2025. The tenant did not attend, but submitted some written submissions, which I have considered as part of this decision. The tenant referred to the fact that they are able to pay $50.00 per week towards any order made against them. Whilst the order states the tenant must pay $1,353.66 to the landlord immediately, it remains open to them to discuss and agree upon a payment plan directly with the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, 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 rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $202.57 up to this date.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and grant their claim for rent arrears for $202.57.

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

The landlord submitted a water invoice summary, together with copies of original invoices from Watercare. These documents prove the tenant owes $432.60 in outstanding water rates invoices accrued during the tenancy.

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 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.” 7 The tenant’s obligations relate to the inside and outside of the premises. Rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show wooden pellets, a large blue bucket and metal firepit were left outside the premises. A small amount of rubbish is also present near the entrance to the subfloor. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,541.00. The invoice lists six separate jobs completed but does not specify the amount for each job. To determine the amount of compensation payable, I have divided the total by six, which is $256.83 per job.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $256.83. Carpet cleaning
The inside of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The surfaces have been wiped down and the kitchen appears to 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]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. have been cleaned. The landlord claims the carpets were stained, however, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy do not clearly show this. Further, only two photographs were submitted from the beginning of the tenancy. Even if stains were present at the end, the lack of documentary evidence showing the state of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities any staining occurred during the tenancy. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Key/Lock replacement
The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the locks and keys is granted for $256.83.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

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 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. 8
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. 9 Cracked glass panes
The landlord claims two panes of glass were cracked during the tenancy. Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy were submitted. These show a small crack in the window of one of the bedrooms and a larger crack in the glass pane of the back door. Only two photographs of the premises from the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. These do not depict the door or window in question. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The lack of evidence regarding the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the glass panes in the door or window occurred during the tenancy.
The Tribunal deals with numerous applications in respect of tenancies. It is not unusual for landlords to rent premises with cracked windows. Although a cracked window may not be visually appealing, it is generally easy to live with and does not present any significant problem. It is reasonably possible that the glass pane in the back door and bedroom window were cracked at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord bares the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that this was not the case. They have not done this, because they have not submitted enough photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the glass panes in the backdoor and bedroom window is dismissed. Curtain and holder replacement
The landlord submitted a photograph of a curtain taken at the end of the tenancy. It has come completely off its holder and is askew. It also appears to be held up by a piece of rope. No photographs of the curtain from the beginning of the tenancy were submitted however, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the curtain was not in this condition at the beginning. The broken curtain does not look nice, nor does it look like it works. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it unlikely the landlord would have rented the premises to the tenant with a broken curtain and holder.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the curtain and holder were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The replacement of the curtain and holder is included as one of the six items in the landlord’s invoice for $1,541.00. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the curtain and holder is granted for $256.83. Walls and doors
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show holes in the walls in the lounge. There are also large cracks and dents to the walls in some of the bedrooms. Some of the bedroom doors have also been dented, scratched or split down the side. One of the doors has decal stickers on it, which the landlord claims were not present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord only submitted two photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. No damage to the walls or doors is apparent. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the walls and doors in the house did not have holes, dents or large scratches in them at the beginning of the tenancy. It is unlikely a landlord would rent premises with walls and doors in this condition.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the walls and doors inside the premises were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has had the lounge and three bedrooms entirely repainted at a cost of $3,000.00. They submitted an invoice for this amount.
There needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in, had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be any better or worse off. The internal paint job was at least 5 years old by the end of this tenancy and the walls and doors showed signs of fair wear and tear. For example, small scratches, scuff marks and discolouration to parts of the walls. This is the position the landlord must be returned to. I consider a reduction of $1,000.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair and paint the walls and doors is granted for $2,000.00. Filing fee
Because Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Yp Chin has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 5327234 — net $1,353.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2025	$202.57	Rent arrears to 7 July 2025
Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025	$432.60	Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025
Rubbish removal	$256.83	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$256.83	Lock/key replacement
Replace broken curtain roller	$256.83	Replace broken curtain roller
Repairs: Walls and doors	$2,000.00	Repairs: Walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,353.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,353.66

Claims and awards for application 5327234 — net $1,353.66 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 7 July 2025

Amount: $202.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 7 July 2025

Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025

Amount: $432.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 06/12/2024 – 07/07/2025

Rubbish removal

Amount: $256.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $256.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace broken curtain roller

Amount: $256.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace broken curtain roller

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Key/Lock replacement
Property Damage — Curtain and holder replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

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

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Yp Chin $1,353.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3477218-010) to Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Yp Chin immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 4 November 2025. The tenant did not attend, but submitted some written submissions, which I have considered as part of this decision. The tenant referred to the fact that they are able to pay $50.00 per week towards any order made against them. Whilst the order states the tenant must pay $1,353.66 to the landlord immediately, it remains open to them to discuss and agree upon a payment plan directly with the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, 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 rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $202.57 up to this date.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and grant their claim for rent arrears for $202.57.

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

The landlord submitted a water invoice summary, together with copies of original invoices from Watercare. These documents prove the tenant owes $432.60 in outstanding water rates invoices accrued during the tenancy.

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 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.” 7 The tenant’s obligations relate to the inside and outside of the premises. Rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show wooden pellets, a large blue bucket and metal firepit were left outside the premises. A small amount of rubbish is also present near the entrance to the subfloor. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,541.00. The invoice lists six separate jobs completed but does not specify the amount for each job. To determine the amount of compensation payable, I have divided the total by six, which is $256.83 per job.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $256.83. Carpet cleaning
The inside of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The surfaces have been wiped down and the kitchen appears to 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]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. have been cleaned. The landlord claims the carpets were stained, however, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy do not clearly show this. Further, only two photographs were submitted from the beginning of the tenancy. Even if stains were present at the end, the lack of documentary evidence showing the state of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities any staining occurred during the tenancy. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Key/Lock replacement
The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the locks and keys is granted for $256.83.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

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 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. 8
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. 9 Cracked glass panes
The landlord claims two panes of glass were cracked during the tenancy. Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy were submitted. These show a small crack in the window of one of the bedrooms and a larger crack in the glass pane of the back door. Only two photographs of the premises from the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. These do not depict the door or window in question. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The lack of evidence regarding the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the glass panes in the door or window occurred during the tenancy.
The Tribunal deals with numerous applications in respect of tenancies. It is not unusual for landlords to rent premises with cracked windows. Although a cracked window may not be visually appealing, it is generally easy to live with and does not present any significant problem. It is reasonably possible that the glass pane in the back door and bedroom window were cracked at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord bares the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that this was not the case. They have not done this, because they have not submitted enough photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the glass panes in the backdoor and bedroom window is dismissed. Curtain and holder replacement
The landlord submitted a photograph of a curtain taken at the end of the tenancy. It has come completely off its holder and is askew. It also appears to be held up by a piece of rope. No photographs of the curtain from the beginning of the tenancy were submitted however, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the curtain was not in this condition at the beginning. The broken curtain does not look nice, nor does it look like it works. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it unlikely the landlord would have rented the premises to the tenant with a broken curtain and holder.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the curtain and holder were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The replacement of the curtain and holder is included as one of the six items in the landlord’s invoice for $1,541.00. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the curtain and holder is granted for $256.83. Walls and doors
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show holes in the walls in the lounge. There are also large cracks and dents to the walls in some of the bedrooms. Some of the bedroom doors have also been dented, scratched or split down the side. One of the doors has decal stickers on it, which the landlord claims were not present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord only submitted two photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. No damage to the walls or doors is apparent. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the walls and doors in the house did not have holes, dents or large scratches in them at the beginning of the tenancy. It is unlikely a landlord would rent premises with walls and doors in this condition.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the walls and doors inside the premises were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has had the lounge and three bedrooms entirely repainted at a cost of $3,000.00. They submitted an invoice for this amount.
There needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in, had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be any better or worse off. The internal paint job was at least 5 years old by the end of this tenancy and the walls and doors showed signs of fair wear and tear. For example, small scratches, scuff marks and discolouration to parts of the walls. This is the position the landlord must be returned to. I consider a reduction of $1,000.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair and paint the walls and doors is granted for $2,000.00. Filing fee
Because Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Yp Chin has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327234 — Property damage at 1 Dunstan Place, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327234 — Property damage at 1 Dunstan Place, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions