What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331184 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5331184?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $660.26 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,981.43 awarded to landlord; Walls (Depreciated At 25: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $526.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331184?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12794479-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331184 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5331184?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $660.26 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,981.43 awarded to landlord; Walls (Depreciated At 25: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $526.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331184?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12794479-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13B Kopara Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331184 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

13B Kopara Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331184 — Rent arrears | 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 5331184 — net $1,726.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,981.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$526.69	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$155.25	Cleaning
Lawn repairs	$660.26	Lawn repairs
Repairs: Walls (depreciated at 25	$1,125.00	Repairs: Walls (depreciated at 25
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,726.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,726.63

Claims and awards for application 5331184 — net $1,726.63 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,981.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $526.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $155.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawn repairs

Amount: $660.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn repairs

Repairs: Walls (depreciated at 25

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent For Lamns Enterprises Ltd $1,726.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (3733374-018) to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent For Lamns Enterprises Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference. Simon Edge represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered. The tenant accepted this and had expected the bond to help fund these costs. That is now the case.

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 leave most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but some areas were missed and the landlord sought 50% of the cleaning invoice provided. This apportionment aligns with the evidenced need in the exit photos and $155.25 is awarded.
The carpet required commercial cleaning at a cost of $170.00. An invoice established the cost, and photos evidenced the need. This claim is awarded in full.
The amounts ordered 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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Lawns
One side section of lawn, and the large back lawn had extensive areas of dead grass evidence at exit. The tenancy finished during winter. The dead grass was not due to natural causes.
The landlord submitted the tenant had a large tent up in the backyard during the tenancy. Once removed, the floor of the tent had meant all underlying grass had died.
Damage to the side lawn appears to have been caused by wind-blown weed spray. This is consistent with the photos of this area that show more dispersed damage than at the back.
The landlord had both areas remediated at an invoiced cost of $1,320.52.
I accept the damage was caused during the tenancy and more than likely for the two reasons submitted.
I signalled at the hearing my need to consider the ingoing condition of the lawn as well as any duty to mitigate the loss (see s 49 RTA) – both prior by instructing the tenant to move the tent that was prominent and afterwards in the repair strategy adopted. For lawns, there can be cheaper repair approaches allowing time and nature to do more of the “heavy lifting” – this has an attractive cost saving but assumes someone will manage this over time, and that the next tenants would not suffer from reasonable use of large tracts of outdoor space being curtailed during recovery. It was equally open to the tenant to anticipate the damage and an earlier removal of the tent and a repair during the tenancy might have mitigated the need for later landlord action.
I have considered the invoice details of tasks completed and entry/exit photos, as well as the respective actions during the damage, and afterwards. I consider the landlord was entitled to adopt a more aggressive repair strategy given the future occupancy of the premises. That said, I still struggle to see how the extensive addition of up to eight cubic meters of topsoil before any reseeding, and the new lawn once in place, do represent some betterment when compared to the entry photos.
Balancing the respective factors above, I have determined a cost sharing of the invoice is appropriate with the tenant to contribute 50% of the incurred cost. The balance remains with the owner. Walls
A number of walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more careless than intentional, but the landlord undertook repair and repainting. The actual invoice incurred was $4,500.00 but that included areas beyond the damaged areas.
The landlord had proposed a 75% reduction of the invoice as tenant liability, reflecting the more extensive week and considering depreciation. Having reviewed the entry and exit photos this seems a reasonable apportionment and close to any parallel calculation I might have concluded. I award the $1,125.00 as claimed as tenant liability for the repairs costs incurred.
The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation, as had the landlord already regarding the wall repairs. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent For Lamns Enterprises Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Payment of the debt
A healthy discussion regarding the pending monetary order took place at the end of the hearing. The tenant committed to working with the landlord to arrange an appropriate payment plan. He is aware of the possible alternative enforcement pathway if no arrangement is reached.

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 5331184 — net $1,726.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,981.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$526.69	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$155.25	Cleaning
Lawn repairs	$660.26	Lawn repairs
Repairs: Walls (depreciated at 25	$1,125.00	Repairs: Walls (depreciated at 25
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,726.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,726.63

Claims and awards for application 5331184 — net $1,726.63 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,981.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $526.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $155.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawn repairs

Amount: $660.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn repairs

Repairs: Walls (depreciated at 25

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent For Lamns Enterprises Ltd $1,726.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (3733374-018) to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent For Lamns Enterprises Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference. Simon Edge represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered. The tenant accepted this and had expected the bond to help fund these costs. That is now the case.

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 leave most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but some areas were missed and the landlord sought 50% of the cleaning invoice provided. This apportionment aligns with the evidenced need in the exit photos and $155.25 is awarded.
The carpet required commercial cleaning at a cost of $170.00. An invoice established the cost, and photos evidenced the need. This claim is awarded in full.
The amounts ordered 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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Lawns
One side section of lawn, and the large back lawn had extensive areas of dead grass evidence at exit. The tenancy finished during winter. The dead grass was not due to natural causes.
The landlord submitted the tenant had a large tent up in the backyard during the tenancy. Once removed, the floor of the tent had meant all underlying grass had died.
Damage to the side lawn appears to have been caused by wind-blown weed spray. This is consistent with the photos of this area that show more dispersed damage than at the back.
The landlord had both areas remediated at an invoiced cost of $1,320.52.
I accept the damage was caused during the tenancy and more than likely for the two reasons submitted.
I signalled at the hearing my need to consider the ingoing condition of the lawn as well as any duty to mitigate the loss (see s 49 RTA) – both prior by instructing the tenant to move the tent that was prominent and afterwards in the repair strategy adopted. For lawns, there can be cheaper repair approaches allowing time and nature to do more of the “heavy lifting” – this has an attractive cost saving but assumes someone will manage this over time, and that the next tenants would not suffer from reasonable use of large tracts of outdoor space being curtailed during recovery. It was equally open to the tenant to anticipate the damage and an earlier removal of the tent and a repair during the tenancy might have mitigated the need for later landlord action.
I have considered the invoice details of tasks completed and entry/exit photos, as well as the respective actions during the damage, and afterwards. I consider the landlord was entitled to adopt a more aggressive repair strategy given the future occupancy of the premises. That said, I still struggle to see how the extensive addition of up to eight cubic meters of topsoil before any reseeding, and the new lawn once in place, do represent some betterment when compared to the entry photos.
Balancing the respective factors above, I have determined a cost sharing of the invoice is appropriate with the tenant to contribute 50% of the incurred cost. The balance remains with the owner. Walls
A number of walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more careless than intentional, but the landlord undertook repair and repainting. The actual invoice incurred was $4,500.00 but that included areas beyond the damaged areas.
The landlord had proposed a 75% reduction of the invoice as tenant liability, reflecting the more extensive week and considering depreciation. Having reviewed the entry and exit photos this seems a reasonable apportionment and close to any parallel calculation I might have concluded. I award the $1,125.00 as claimed as tenant liability for the repairs costs incurred.
The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation, as had the landlord already regarding the wall repairs. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As The Agent For Lamns Enterprises Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Payment of the debt
A healthy discussion regarding the pending monetary order took place at the end of the hearing. The tenant committed to working with the landlord to arrange an appropriate payment plan. He is aware of the possible alternative enforcement pathway if no arrangement is reached.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331184 — Rent arrears at 13B Kopara Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331184 — Rent arrears at 13B Kopara Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions