What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331907 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5331907?

Cleaning: $891.25 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,813.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $199.58 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $76.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331907?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331907?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13013121-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331907 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5331907?

Cleaning: $891.25 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,813.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $199.58 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $76.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331907?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331907?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13013121-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Orville Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331907 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331907 — net $2,259.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 July 2025	$2,813.71	Rent arrears to 28 July 2025
Water rates sent to tenants during tenancy	$199.58	Water rates sent to tenants during tenancy
Water rates: final reading	$76.03	Water rates: final reading
Rubbish removal: exterior and inside garage	$575.00	Rubbish removal: exterior and inside garage
Pest control: German cockroach treatment	$205.00	Pest control: German cockroach treatment
Cleaning inside of property	$891.25	Cleaning inside of property
Ceramic cooktop replacement	$499.00	Ceramic cooktop replacement
Net award	$2,259.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,259.57

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Hee Jung Jun immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Hee Jung Jun $2,259.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Loretta Dale. Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] attended but there was no appearance by [Tenant 3].
This tenancy of a property in Mangere began on 5 March 2022.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, 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 28 July 2025.
The landlord produced rent records proving that rent was in arrears in the amount of $2,813.00 at the end of the tenancy. The two tenants who were present accepted that this amount was owing.
The landlord produced evidence proving that water was in arrears in the amount of $199.71 at the end of the tenancy and that the final reading was $76.03. these claims are proved. The two tenants who were present accepted that the amounts claimed were owing.

Did the tenants 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos proving that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that rubbish was left behind.
The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning (including carpet cleaning) in the amount of $891.25 and rubbish removal in the amount of $575.00.
These claims are proved. The two tenants who were present accepted the cleaning and rubbish removal as claimed.
The landlord said that there were cockroaches present at the end of the tenancy. The property manager tried to deal with these using spray but this was not effective and it became clear that pest control was required. The landlord produced some photos and an invoice in the amount of $205.00. This claim is proved. The two tenants who were present accepted the landlord’s claim for pest control.
The landlord also claimed the amount of $30.00 plus GST for replacement of the heat lamp bulb but I do not consider the tenants to be responsible for this as it is not a standard lightbulb (and is therefore a maintenance matter for the landlord).

Are the tenants 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 claimed for the following damage: a. Cooktop replacement - $499.00 b. Garage door repair - $428.65 c. Toilet roll holder replacement - $70.00 plus GST d. Towel rail replacement - $270.00 plus GST e. Heat pump remote battery - $8.00 plus GST.
The landlord provided before and after photos of the cooktop which became cracked during the tenancy. The tenants who were present accepted that the crack in the cooktop happened during the tenancy. The landlord produced an invoice for a replacement cooktop in the amount of $499.00. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is proved.
The landlord provided photos of the missing toilet roll holder and towel rail, together with an invoice for repairs. The tenants said that the toilet roll holder and towel rail were only fixed into the plaster and came off during the tenancy. They said that they told the property manager (who is no longer in the employ of the landlord) but that they were not repaired.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s claims in respect of the toilet roll holder and towel rail are proved. These claims are dismissed.
The landlord said that the garage door which they said had become misaligned and provided and invoice for repairs. The tenants said that the remote didn’t work and although the door did open, it required two people to open it as one person had to hold the door due to the misalignment.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s claim in respect of the garage door is proved. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed for a replacement heat pump remote battery but I consider this to be a maintenance matter for the landlord at the end of a tenancy. This claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Hee Jung Jun has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Two of the tenants attended the hearing today. They readily accepted the bulk of the landlord’s claims and were clear in their position in relation to the other claims. The hearing proceeded more in the manner of a mediation and the landlord took a very reasonable position in relation to the contested claims on the basis that the tenants had accepted the claims that they did. If the third tenant had attended the hearing today it is very likely that all orders could have been made by consent.
In the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate for me to exercise my discretion pursuant to section 95A RTA to suppress the tenants’ names. There was no objection by the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331907 — net $2,259.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 July 2025	$2,813.71	Rent arrears to 28 July 2025
Water rates sent to tenants during tenancy	$199.58	Water rates sent to tenants during tenancy
Water rates: final reading	$76.03	Water rates: final reading
Rubbish removal: exterior and inside garage	$575.00	Rubbish removal: exterior and inside garage
Pest control: German cockroach treatment	$205.00	Pest control: German cockroach treatment
Cleaning inside of property	$891.25	Cleaning inside of property
Ceramic cooktop replacement	$499.00	Ceramic cooktop replacement
Net award	$2,259.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,259.57

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Hee Jung Jun immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Hee Jung Jun $2,259.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Loretta Dale. Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] attended but there was no appearance by [Tenant 3].
This tenancy of a property in Mangere began on 5 March 2022.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, 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 28 July 2025.
The landlord produced rent records proving that rent was in arrears in the amount of $2,813.00 at the end of the tenancy. The two tenants who were present accepted that this amount was owing.
The landlord produced evidence proving that water was in arrears in the amount of $199.71 at the end of the tenancy and that the final reading was $76.03. these claims are proved. The two tenants who were present accepted that the amounts claimed were owing.

Did the tenants 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos proving that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that rubbish was left behind.
The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning (including carpet cleaning) in the amount of $891.25 and rubbish removal in the amount of $575.00.
These claims are proved. The two tenants who were present accepted the cleaning and rubbish removal as claimed.
The landlord said that there were cockroaches present at the end of the tenancy. The property manager tried to deal with these using spray but this was not effective and it became clear that pest control was required. The landlord produced some photos and an invoice in the amount of $205.00. This claim is proved. The two tenants who were present accepted the landlord’s claim for pest control.
The landlord also claimed the amount of $30.00 plus GST for replacement of the heat lamp bulb but I do not consider the tenants to be responsible for this as it is not a standard lightbulb (and is therefore a maintenance matter for the landlord).

Are the tenants 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 claimed for the following damage: a. Cooktop replacement - $499.00 b. Garage door repair - $428.65 c. Toilet roll holder replacement - $70.00 plus GST d. Towel rail replacement - $270.00 plus GST e. Heat pump remote battery - $8.00 plus GST.
The landlord provided before and after photos of the cooktop which became cracked during the tenancy. The tenants who were present accepted that the crack in the cooktop happened during the tenancy. The landlord produced an invoice for a replacement cooktop in the amount of $499.00. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is proved.
The landlord provided photos of the missing toilet roll holder and towel rail, together with an invoice for repairs. The tenants said that the toilet roll holder and towel rail were only fixed into the plaster and came off during the tenancy. They said that they told the property manager (who is no longer in the employ of the landlord) but that they were not repaired.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s claims in respect of the toilet roll holder and towel rail are proved. These claims are dismissed.
The landlord said that the garage door which they said had become misaligned and provided and invoice for repairs. The tenants said that the remote didn’t work and although the door did open, it required two people to open it as one person had to hold the door due to the misalignment.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s claim in respect of the garage door is proved. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed for a replacement heat pump remote battery but I consider this to be a maintenance matter for the landlord at the end of a tenancy. This claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Hee Jung Jun has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Two of the tenants attended the hearing today. They readily accepted the bulk of the landlord’s claims and were clear in their position in relation to the other claims. The hearing proceeded more in the manner of a mediation and the landlord took a very reasonable position in relation to the contested claims on the basis that the tenants had accepted the claims that they did. If the third tenant had attended the hearing today it is very likely that all orders could have been made by consent.
In the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate for me to exercise my discretion pursuant to section 95A RTA to suppress the tenants’ names. There was no objection by the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331907 — Rent arrears at 4 Orville Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331907 — Rent arrears at 4 Orville Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions