What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336802 about?

The tribunal order states: Hardik Daruwala and Karan Joshi to pay Crystal Realty Limited Trading As

How much money was awarded in case 5336802?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Waterblasting: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336802?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13821363-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336802 about?

The tribunal order states: Hardik Daruwala and Karan Joshi to pay Crystal Realty Limited Trading As

How much money was awarded in case 5336802?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Waterblasting: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336802?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13821363-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Parfitt Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336802 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336802 — net $998.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$680.00	Rubbish removal
Waterblasting	$90.00	Waterblasting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$998.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$998.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336802 — net $998.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$680.00	Rubbish removal
Waterblasting	$90.00	Waterblasting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$998.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$998.00

Order

Hardik Daruwala and Karan Joshi to pay Crystal Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts Mt Roskill $998.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The landlord’s claim that the tenancy breached the tenancy agreement and/or section 44 of the (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims that the tenant is responsible for damages to the carpet, the garage door and the paint work are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (3199865-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Crystal Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts Mt Roskill: $998.00 Hardik Daruwala and Karan Joshi: $1,482.00

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place via video / telephone conference on 05 June 2026. A representative of the landlord attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant attended the hearing.
The first hearing for this matter took place on 25 February 2026 at Auckland District Court. At the start of the hearing, the tenant advised that they intended to lodge a claim against the landlord. The matter was adjourned, and the tenant was advised that if they wanted their claims to be heard at the next hearing with the landlord’s claims, they would need to lodge their claims by 13 March 2026.
The tenant has not lodged a claim. The hearing on 05 June 2026 proceeded to hear the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims that the tenant breached clause 2.25 of the second schedule of the tenancy agreement and section 44(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by subletting the premises without the landlord’s consent. The landlord is seeking exemplary damages of $1500 for this alleged breach.
During the hearing the landlord advised that it wished to withdraw the claim for damage to the vertical blinds. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim 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 Kaipo 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 or 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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has provided an exit inspection report which shows that there was a significant amount of mould on various areas of the premises at the end of the tenancy including the walls, and the ceiling. The report also shows that the tenant did not leave other areas of the premises reasonably clean and tidy including the kitchen, failing to clean skirting boards and other areas.
On several occasions, the Tribunal, along with the District Court, have recognised that mould and condensation are difficult issues and that it is often not easy to point to a single cause or allocate responsibility to one party only when mould is present.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, the Tribunal found that a tenant can be responsible for mould problems if they fail to air and heat premises sufficiently, and a landlord can be responsible if they do not provide sufficient means to air and heat the premises or if the premises are damp.
In Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011, the District Court recognised that the presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says they are not responsible for the mould. The tenant says they used the heat pump in the evenings and ventilated the premises by opening windows and a sliding door during the day. The tenant says the ventilation in the bathroom was not working. The landlord says that it was working.
In this case, the amount of mould is excessive. The landlord was aware of the mould during the tenancy. The photographs from the inspection reports in 2021 and 2022 show excessive mould on the ceilings.
I consider a prudent landlord on becoming aware of such a significant amount of mould would have investigated to determine whether there were any issues with the premises that were causing or contributing to this level of mould. The landlord has provided a healthy homes report of 13 March 2020. This report and invoices show that the premises was compliant with the HHS around the date of the report. The fact that a premises has been certified as compliant does not mean the landlord should not investigate when a tenant complains of an issue. In the absence of any evidence that such an investigation took place, I decline to award compensation for cleaning costs for the mould.
I do accept that the tenant did not leave other areas of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and award $200 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord claims that the outside of the premises was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The exit report shows that there was a significant amount of rubbish left on the lawns and around the exterior of the house; that work was required on the lawns and garden; that Christians lights had been left at the premises and what an area where the rubbish bins were stored needed to be cleaned.
The landlord is claiming $680.00 rubbish removal and $180 to water blast the front and back concrete to clean the dirt. I accept that the sums charged for rubbish removal are reasonable. However, I consider the sum for water blasting the small area where the rubbish bins were to be excess. I award $90 (including GST) for water blasting and $680 (including GST) for rubbish removal costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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.)
Damage to the carpet: a. The landlord is claiming $250 to repair damage to the carpet. The tenant agrees that the damage was caused during the tenancy, but it says was caused by a rats that were entering the premises via a hole which he had advised the landlord about. The tenant provided a photograph from 2022 showing a small hole in the living area. The landlord acknowledged that he had been advised of a rat issue but said he did not believe the rat had caused the damage. The tenant said the damage developed over time as it was a high traffic area. b. The landlord has provided evidence showing that the carpet was laid on or about 22 August 2018. This means that at the end of the tenancy on 24 June 2025, the carpet was around 7 years and 4 months old. The Inland Revenue in its General Depreciation Rates, IR 265, August 2024 provides that carpet in a residential rent property has a useful lifespan of 8 years. The carpet was nearing the end of its useful life. I take judicial notice that older carpet is more likely to be easily damaged. c. Given the age of the carpet, I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the damage to the carpet intentionally or carelessly. d. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to the garage door: a. The landlord says the tenant damaged the garage door and it had to be replaced. The exit photographs provided by the landlord show a significant bend in the garage door. The landlord provided an entry inspection report photograph; however, it did not contain of a photograph of the garage door down. Following the tenancy, the landlord provided a photograph of the garage door from a valuation report taken in September 2018, around one year before the tenancy started. The landlord said that the photograph represents the door as at the start of the tenancy. b. The tenant says that from the start of the tenancy, they told the landlord that the garage door was difficult to operate. The tenant says that it stopped working in 3 years before the end of the tenancy and that they advised the landlord of this. c. The tenant was referred to the photograph of the garage from the exit report. They said that garage door was old and that one of the two bars supporting the garage door was rusty. They said the bend occurred because the rusty supporting bar broke. d. The landlord has proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy. However, the tenant has provided a plausible explanation as why the bend in the door occurred. In the absence of expert evidence regarding how the damage would likely have occurred, I am not satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant either intentionally or carelessly. e. Even if I had found the tenant was liable for the damage, I would not have awarded the replacement costs. I am obliged to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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. f. The landlord did not know how old the garage door was. This and the photographs of the door suggest to me that the door was between 10-20 years of age. Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates, IR 265, August 2024 gives garage (roller) doors a lifespan of 10 years. I accept this is for shops and other commercial entities which are likely to have greater usage that residential properties. However, there would have been a substantial deduction for betterment and depreciation.
Replaster and painting of walls and ceiling: a. The landlord is claiming $5,500 to repaint and plaster the walls and ceiling in the premises. The landlord said the damage was caused by the mould. b. This claim is dismissed for the following reasons: i. The premises was due to be repainted. The tenancy started on 18 September 2019 and ended on 24 June 2025 a period of almost six years. The premises was not repainted during that time. I take judicial notice that residential rental properties do require interior repainting every 5-7 years. ii. I am not satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the mould. As set out above, the mould on the ceiling was present in the inspection reports from early in the tenancy. The landlord’s response was to issue a 14-day notice requiring the tenant to clean the mould. The mould was such that I consider a prudent landlord would have carried out investigations to see if there was a moisture or other issue with the premises causing this level of mould. The landlord did not do so. Did the tenant breach the Tenancy Agreement and/or the RTA by subletting the premises?
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the tenant told him that they had moved out six months earlier and sublet the premises to their employee.
Section 44(1) of the RTA provides: There may be included in a tenancy agreement a provision that expressly and unconditionally prohibits the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises during the term of the tenancy.
Clause 2.25 of the Tenancy Agreement provides: The TENANT shall not assign, sublet, or part with possession, or of the occupation of the PREMISES, or any part thereof, or of any item including in the inventory or chattels supplied during the term of this Agreement.
Section 44(2A) of the RTA provides: A tenant commits an unlawful act if he or she sublets or otherwise parts with possession of the premises— (a) in contravention of a provision of the kind described in subsection (1); (b) in any other case, without the prior written consent of the landlord.
Subsection 44(3) of the RTA provides that a landlord must not withhold consent for subletting unreasonably or insist on unreasonable conditions.
The tenant denies subletting the premises or telling the landlord that they were doing so.
This is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden to prove it. I am not satisfied that the tenant did sublet the premises. This claim is dismissed. Suppression and the filing fee:
The landlord has been partly successful with their claims. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.
While the landlord has had some success with their claims, I do not consider they have been wholly or substantially successful. For this reason, the landlord’s application for suppression of the landlord’s name is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336802 — Cleanliness at 19 Parfitt Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336802 — Cleanliness at 19 Parfitt Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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