What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330079 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 5330079?

Compensation: Removal of unauthorise…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,625.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cooktop: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330079?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330079 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 5330079?

Compensation: Removal of unauthorise…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,625.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cooktop: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330079?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 1A Becroft Drive, Forrest Hill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5330079 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5330079 — net $3,353.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 August 2025	$2,625.00	Rent arrears to 19 August 2025
Compensation: Removal of unauthorised structure	$300.00	y order a nominal amount of compensation to reflect the tenant’s breach. I find $300.00 to be reasonable.
Repairs: Cooktop	$200.00	Repairs: Cooktop
Repairs: Bedroom door	$200.00	Repairs: Bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,353.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,353.00

The landlord attended the hearing on 26 February 2026. The tenant did not.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation 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 19 August 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $5,145.00 up to this date. The bond of $2,520.00 has already been refunded to the landlord and credited towards the rent arrears. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $2,625.00. Should the tenant pay the landlord $800.00 to remove a shed? The law

A tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except: 1 a. In accordance with the tenancy agreement; or 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42(1). b. With the prior written consent of the landlord. Analysis

The landlord gave evidence the tenant built a makeshift shed at the premises without their permission. The landlord claims the Auckland Council have asked the landlord to remove the unauthorised structure. The landlord submitted a photograph of the shed and a WeChat message from a person quoting the removal costs as approximately $800.00 - $1,000.00.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence and find the tenant built a makeshift shed without the landlord’s written consent. This is a breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 42(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The makeshift shed is still present, and the landlord has not incurred any costs to remove it. The quote submitted is very informal and vague. It does not state the work to be done or provide a breakdown of costs. It just states “removal cost 4/1a becroft 800 – 1000.”

The landlord submitted a letter from the Auckland Council advising the landlord that the Council is investigating a potential breach of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to the shed. Therefore, I am convinced the landlord will organise for its removal in the very near future.

In the absence of an invoice and considering the vagueness of the quote for removal, I can only order a nominal amount of compensation to reflect the tenant’s breach. I find $300.00 to be reasonable.

The landlord’s claim in relation to the shed is granted for $300.00.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred 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 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. 2

Fair wear and tear has been described as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 3

The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. The landlord must not be any better or worse off. To achieve this, there may need to be a reduction to the total amount of compensation sought to reflect betterment and depreciation. This is particularly the case where full replacement or reinstatement has been undertaken. Analysis

The landlord gave evidence the cooktop was new and in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. The photograph taken at the end of the tenancy shows the cooktop has a large crack in it. On the balance of probabilities, I find cooktop was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $224.96 for the purchase of a new cooktop. The landlord gave evidence the cooktop was 4 years old at the end of the tenancy. A slight reduction in compensation needs to be made to reflect the age of the cooktop at the end of the tenancy.

Considering the principles of betterment and depreciation, the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the cooktop is granted for $200.00.

I now turn to consider the bedroom door. The landlord submitted a photograph of the bedroom door taken at the end of the tenancy. It is damaged at the top. It looks as though the top of the door has been cut. The landlord gave evidence the door was old, but in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence.

On the balance of probabilities, I find the door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $287.50 to replace the door. Considering its likely age, I grant the landlord’s claim for compensation for a reduced amount of $200.00 to reflect the principles of betterment and depreciation.

The amounts ordered are proved. 3 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. Filing fee & name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5330079 — net $3,353.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 August 2025	$2,625.00	Rent arrears to 19 August 2025
Compensation: Removal of unauthorised structure	$300.00	y order a nominal amount of compensation to reflect the tenant’s breach. I find $300.00 to be reasonable.
Repairs: Cooktop	$200.00	Repairs: Cooktop
Repairs: Bedroom door	$200.00	Repairs: Bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,353.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,353.00

The landlord attended the hearing on 26 February 2026. The tenant did not.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The landlord’s claim in relation to the shed is granted for $300.00.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

Considering the principles of betterment and depreciation, the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the cooktop is granted for $200.00.

On the balance of probabilities, I find the door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The amounts ordered are proved. 3 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. Filing fee & name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330079 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 1A Becroft Drive, Forrest Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330079 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 1A Becroft Drive, Forrest Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions