What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328744 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5328744?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328744?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328744 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5328744?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328744?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 104 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328744 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed. Attendance:
The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend or answer the phone when contacted. Background:
The history of the relationship between the landlord and tenant in respect of these premises is summarised as follows: a) In June 2021 the respondent’s daughter entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord to rent the premises. Sometime during the tenancy, the respondent also moved into the premises. b) In March 2022 the respondent’s daughter vacated the premises. The landlord subsequently entered into a new tenancy agreement with the respondent. This agreement included a clause stating: Taking over tenancy - [The tenant/s] is living at 1/104 Pakuranga Road before taking over the tenancy from Ashlee Harrison (Daughter), thus [The tenant/s] will be taking over the responsibility of maintaining the property in the same condition as when Ashlee moved in, which is identified in Ashlee’s ingoing inspection report. c) In May 2024 [The tenant/s] vacated the premises. The landlord offered the tenancy to the respondent’s daughter, who entered into a new tenancy agreement. The agreement contained the following clause: Taking over of tenancy - Ashlee is taking over the tenancy from [The tenant/s]; thus, Hoye’s ingoing condition report will be used as Harrison’s ingoing inspection report, and the rent increase will continue as was planned under [The tenant/s]’s tenancy. d) The landlord did not conduct an end-of-tenancy inspection and refunded the bond to [The tenant/s], less an agreed amount for carpet cleaning. e) The tenancy of Ashlee Harrison ended on 10 February 2025. The landlord subsequently filed an application for vacated compensation, naming both Ashlee Harrison and [The tenant/s] as tenants. f) At a hearing held on 27 June 2025 the Tribunal determined that Ashlee Harrison and [The tenant/s] each held separate tenancy agreements with the landlord for distinct periods. g) Ashlee Harrison was a tenant from June 2021 to March 2022, and again from May 2024 to February 2025. h) [The tenant/s] was a tenant from March 2022 to May 2024.

What is the applicant seeking?

The applicant seeks an award of compensation in relation to the condition of the property at the end of the respondent’s tenancy which ended in May 2024.
Specifically, the applicant claims the following amounts: a) $920.00 for cleaning b) $230.00 for pest control and treatment for cockroaches c) $6,612.50 for the replacement of carpet d) $805.00 for wall repair

Is the tenant liable for these costs?

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. This means that the party bringing the application bears the onus of proving their claims on the balance of probabilities. They must satisfy the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the matters alleged are the liability of the respondent.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that any person bringing an application before a Tribunal or Court is required to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so, their application will be dismissed, whether or not it may otherwise have merit, because it is for the applicant to present the necessary evidence. It is not the responsibility of the respondent, and certainly not of the Tribunal, to extract or supply that evidence.
The applicant expressed frustration that the Tribunal has not agreed to assess the claims relating to the two separate and distinct tenancies together. The applicant’s view is that, had the Tribunal done so, certain claims could have been attributed to the previous tenant and others to the tenant who is the subject of this application for the benefit of the applicant.
The parties made a considered decision to contract in a specific way. Had they entered into a single tenancy agreement that endured for the entire period from 2021 to 2025, they would have been jointly and severally liable. Instead, the parties chose to enter into separate tenancy agreements for distinct periods. Consequently, they are not jointly and severally liable.
It is not for the Tribunal to combine or join separate cases for the benefit of the applicant. It remains the applicant’s responsibility to present each claim in relation to the specific tenancy to which it applies and to meet their burden of proof.
The applicant’s claim relates to the conclusion of the respondent’s tenancy in 2024 and to the point at which the respondent’s daughter took over the tenancy. The applicant contends that the damages for which compensation is now sought were present at that time. However, the photographs and other evidence provided by the applicant are from the conclusion of the respondent’s daughter’s tenancy, which commenced immediately after the respondent’s tenancy ended and continued for a year, concluding in 2025.
Accordingly, it is impossible, without drawing significant inferences and making assumptions, as the applicant has asked me to do, to reach the conclusion that the claimed damages arose during the respondent’s tenancy. While it is not impossible that some of the damages may be caused by the respondent that has not been established by the respondent.
The applicant sought compensation at that time for carpet cleaning, which was deducted from the bond, and the balance of the bond was refunded to the respondent. The most likely inference is that the condition of the property at the conclusion of the respondent’s tenancy was accepted by the applicant.
The applicant, having subsequently received the property at the end of the later tenancy in 2025, now seeks to attribute some of the damages present at that time to the respondent. However, it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine which, if any, of those damages were caused by the respondent, and whether they were caused carelessly or intentionally because no evidence has been presented that establishes that.
The applicant has presented circumstantial evidence, including a photograph depicting a dog, the presence of what appears to be mould in the underlay after the carpet was removed, and hearsay evidence alleging that the respondent urinated on the carpet and spilled juice, based on statements the applicant attributed to the respondent’s daughter. None of this evidence is documented or independently verified, and no substantive proof has been provided to establish these allegations.
The applicant submits that this allegations and circumstantial evidence proves that the respondent is responsible for the damages claimed and the corresponding compensation sought. However, in the absence of reliable and contemporaneous evidence, the Tribunal cannot make such a finding. Outcome: a) Cleaning
The claim for cleaning is not proven. The applicant accepted the condition of the property at the conclusion of the respondent’s tenancy and made a claim for carpet cleaning at that time. A new tenancy then commenced and continued for a further year. The respondent cannot be held liable for cleaning costs arising at the end of a subsequent tenancy. The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. b) Pest Control
The claim for pest control and the treatment of cockroaches relates to the condition of the property at the conclusion of the subsequent tenancy. There is no evidence before me to show that this issue was attributable to the respondent. The claim is dismissed. c) Carpet replacement
The claim for carpet replacement is supported by photographs showing extensive staining and widespread moisture damage. These photographs were taken when the carpet had already been removed. The applicant also advised that the property was flooded in 2021 and that the carpet was replaced as a result. The photographs further show condensation and what appears to be moisture damage to the walls and doors in other parts of the property. The applicant confirmed that a claim for carpet cleaning was made and accepted at the end of the respondent’s tenancy, which suggests that the applicant had already addressed staining at that time.
On the balance of probabilities, the extensive moisture and mould damage evident in the photographs is more likely to relate to ongoing moisture issues within the property, which are not the liability of the tenant. In any event, even if damage were caused by a tenant, there is no reliable basis to distinguish whether it occurred during the respondent’s tenancy or during her daughter’s subsequent tenancy. For these

Reasons

, the claim for carpet replacement is dismissed. d) wall damage

In relation to wall repair, the applicant has provided photographs showing that one of the walls and doors was damaged at the conclusion of the respondent’s daughter’s tenancy. There is no evidence indicating that this occurred during the respondent’s tenancy. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Concluding remark:
For completeness, I note that this decision does not conclude that none of the damage could have been caused by the respondent. Rather, the finding is that the applicant has not met the evidentiary burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the damages are attributable to the respondent rather than to her daughter. Furthermore, even if the damage were proven, the claim for carpet replacement would still have been unlikely to succeed, as the evidence suggests that on the balance of probabilities the carpet required replacement due to moisture issues within the property rather than tenant damage.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328744 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 104 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328744 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 104 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

What is the applicant seeking?

Is the tenant liable for these costs?

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

What is the applicant seeking?

Is the tenant liable for these costs?

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions