Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5333478 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2E, 18 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland
Published 20 January 2026 · Application 5333478
Tenant favoured
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Leaks
- Mould
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,778.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $1,778.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation: Fail to lodge bond | $250.00 | Fail to lodge bond | |
| Compensation | $28.00 | Compensation | |
| The | $1,500.00 | The | |
| Net award | $1,778.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $1,778.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5333478 — net $1,778.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation: Fail to lodge bond
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Fail to lodge bond
Compensation
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation
The
- Amount
- $1,500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- The
Net award
Tenant $1,778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $1,778.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- John David Nash and Wendy Yeong-ah Kim must pay Gi Ho Kim $1,778.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- This is a cross application. All parties attended the hearing.
- The parties agree the tenancy began on 5 May 2022 and ended after the tenant gave notice on 28 July 2025. The tenancy lasted a little over three years and two months.
- The landlord is claiming costs for cleaning and for damage to the property at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time, and is claiming full refund of their bond.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of a 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 landlord claims the tenant did not leave the glass screen in the bathroom, the curtain linings, or the deck reasonably clean and tidy. The glass screen
- The landlord said the glass screen in the bathroom had a calcified film on it at the end of the tenancy. The landlord cleaned this themselves which they said took six hours using specialised products. The landlord produced a photograph which shows the film on the screen at the end of the tenancy, and another photograph they said shows the glass screen at the beginning of the tenancy without the film on it. The photograph from the beginning of the tenancy is at an acute angle and it is not clear whether or not it has a calcified film on it. The landlord is claiming $100.00 for cleaning this screen.
- The tenant said at the beginning of the tenancy the glass screen was not immaculate. He accepts that at the end of the tenancy the glass screen had a film on it.
- I accept the landlord’s evidence that at the end of the tenancy the screen had more of a calcified film on it than at the beginning. Nonetheless I do not consider the screen was unreasonably dirty.
- The standard that a tenant must return the premises in is reasonably clean and tidy. This applies to the premises as a whole and not to every individual part. I do not consider that the film left on the glass screen in the bathroom means the premises was returned below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy.
- This claim is not proved. The curtain linings
- The landlord said at the beginning of the tenancy the curtain linings were clean, and at the end of the tenancy the curtain linings had mould on them.
- Rather than spend $249.00 to have the linings cleaned, the landlord chose to spend $400.00 to have the linings replaced and upgraded. The landlord is claiming the price of cleaning the lining of the curtains.
- The tenant said the curtain linings were not immaculate at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The landlord did not produce any photographs of the linings of the curtains from the beginning of the tenancy or the end of the tenancy.
- I do not discredit the landlord’s oral submissions, but they are different to the tenant’s oral submissions and in such situations it is usual for the party bringing the claim to bring corroborating information.
- I am therefore not in a position to determine either the cleanliness or the damage caused to the curtain linings during this tenancy.
- Because the landlord has not proved their loss, this claim is not proved. Cleaning the deck
- The landlord said the tenant did not leave the deck in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy, and is claiming $80.00 reimbursement for a water blaster they used to clean the deck at the end of the tenancy.
- As with the rest of the premises the standard that the tenant must return the outdoor area in is reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The tenant says at the end of the tenancy the deck had a lot of pigeon droppings on it and they attempted to clean it.
- The landlord has not produced any photographs in support of their claim that the deck was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The only photograph the landlord produced relating to this claim was a photograph that showed the deck after being waterblasted.
- In the absence of photographs showing that the deck was not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, I am unable to find this claim 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 landlord is claiming the tenant damaged the bench, bedroom wall, laminate floor under the dishwasher, water pipes in the kitchen, and a coat-stand. Kitchen bench
- The landlord said the tenant chipped the leading edge of the bench during the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $402.50 for the repair. The landlord is also claiming $402.50 to repair damage where water accessed a join in the bench laminate.
- The landlord produced a photograph of the kitchen at the beginning of the tenancy and a photograph of the two to three centimetre chip at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant said they hadn't noticed the chip at any stage during the tenancy.
- The tenancy agreement records “chips on the bench. repairs to cuts” at the start of the tenancy. Two photographs are included in the start of tenancy inspection: one of them showing the bench, a small portion of which has a repair to a cut.
- The landlord said the photographs represent all the damage that was noted at the start of the tenancy.
- When I look at the photograph in the tenancy agreement, I do not see any chips to the bench. I am not persuaded the one photograph of the bench represents all the damage to the bench that was present at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant has enlarged the photograph from the start of the tenancy. They say when enlarged, it is possible to see in the photograph the chip that the landlord is referring to.
- The landlord also produced a photograph of the join in the laminate which has been damaged by water ingress. The laminate has lifted along the seam adjacent to the sink. The landlord said the join hadn't been done well and a silicon bead had been used to seal it.
- When I look at the photographs of the bench top, I see an older style bench top that has begun to deteriorate. The laminate opening up on the join is unlikely to be the result of careless use by the tenant, so much as the products used failing due to age and/or poor workmanship in the installation.
- Similarly I determine if the chip in the leading edge of the bench occurred during this tenancy, I see no evidence of any careless use relating to it.
- This claim is not proved. Dent in bedroom wall
- The landlord is claiming $437.00 to repair a dent in the bedroom wall. The landlord has not undertaken the work yet. The room is wallpapered with an embossed wallpaper and the landlord said there is a difficulty fixing the dent without having to re-wallpaper the whole room.
- The tenant produced an enlargement of a photograph taken by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy, and from this photograph it appears that the damage to the wall already exists.
- The landlord said the damage they are claiming, is not mentioned in the start of tenancy inspection report.
- Whether or not the damage is mentioned in the start of tenancy inspection report, the photograph appears to show the damage on the wall, and the landlord does not dispute this.
- I find the visual evidence of the photograph more persuasive than the start of tenancy inspection report’s omission in recording the damage.
- This claim is not proved. Laminate flooring
- The landlord is claiming $300.00 to repair laminate flooring in front of the dishwasher which is failing.
- The landlord produced a photograph which shows some joins in the laminate flooring slightly curling. The damage is slight. The landlord said the damage must have been caused by water pooling on the floor in the kitchen during the tenancy.
- The tenant said that they had not ever left water pooling on the kitchen floor. The tenant said they usually used the sink near where the bench top laminate is failing, to wash their dishes rather than the dishwasher. The tenant showed an enlargement of a photograph from the start of the tenancy, but in my view the photograph is not clear enough to be determinative one way or the other.
- On the balance of probabilities I am not persuaded that what is visible in the photograph is the result of careless use in the kitchen by the tenant. I would expect to see discolouration of the laminate flooring if water had been left pooling for some time. I also would consider it unusual for a sufficient amount of water to cause damage to come from a dishwasher on such a regular basis.
- This claim is not proved. Steel water pipes
- The landlord is claiming $1,363.18 to replace steel water pipes that bring water into the kitchen. The steel pipes come from the false ceiling and penetrate the bench near the sink.
- Photographs provided by the landlord show that at the beginning of the tenancy these pipes were shining, and at the end of the tenancy they have a surface rust on them. The landlord said the rust is the result of the tenant not cleaning them regularly.
- This is therefore a claim that lack of cleaning is careless use and has caused damage.
- The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they sanded and painted the pipes but they wanted the tenant to pay for the replacement of them.
- The tenant said the rust had been an issue for a long time and the landlord had noted it when they visited in late 2023 or early 2024.
- The landlord did not dispute this.
- I note the sink and the taps are also stainless steel and they have not rusted. Presumably the pipes have rusted because they are a lower quality steel.
- The tenant produced photographs that show the rust being approximately a metre above the level of the bench.
- Being in the kitchen and being right next to the sink, I consider it inevitable that the pipes are going to be splashed with water, and have some condensation or other moisture from the atmosphere on them from time to time. I consider this is much more likely to cause rust than lack of cleaning.
- The landlord said the tenant did not advise them of the rust. However the pipes and the condition they were in would have been evident to the landlord anytime they visited or inspected the premises.
- I am not persuaded the rust has been caused by careless use by the tenants. This claim is not proved. The coat-stand
- The landlord is claiming $150.00 for corrosion to the base of a steel coat-stand in the lounge.
- The tenant said they only ever used the coat-stand for clothes and they didn't notice the corrosion on the bottom of the coat-stand.
- The landlord did not produce any photographs of the coat-stand.
- On the information before me today I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that any damage to the coat-stand has been caused by careless use by the tenants. This claim is not proved. The tenant’s claims
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenant said at the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant paid $1,500.00 as bond to the landlord and the landlord did not pay this to the Bond Centre.
- The landlord accepts this to be the case. The landlord said this was due to a misunderstanding between he and his partner, each believing the other had paid the money to the Bond Centre.
- This claim is proved.
- I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- Whereas I accept there was no malicious intention on the landlord’s part in not paying the bond to the Bond Centre, this is nonetheless a breach of the RTA.
- A landlord must be held to a high standard when they are dealing with a tenant’s money.
- In this case the landlord did not make a claim against the tenant for more than three months after the tenancy ended, by which time the tenant was entitled to have his bond refunded. Due to the bond not having been lodged at the Bond Centre, the tenant was unable to do this. Furthermore the landlord said they had been taken overseas for health reasons, which in the absence of a claim from the landlord would have added an extra layer of complexity to the tenant recovering their bond.
- I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord before.
- I consider this to be at the low end for breaches of this kind, and therefore a low amount of exemplary damages to be sufficient in this case.
- Because the tenant has been wholly successful in their claims and the landlord’s claims have been dismissed, I order the filing fee to be refunded to the tenant.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s12, s19(1), s19(2), s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s50, s65
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5333478?
The tribunal order states: John David Nash and Wendy Yeong-ah Kim must pay Gi Ho Kim $1,778.00
How much money was awarded in case 5333478?
Compensation: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fail To Lodge Bond: $250.00 awarded to tenant; The: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333478?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333478?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12998501-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.