What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337362 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 5337362?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $35.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $405.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337362?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337362 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 5337362?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $35.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $405.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337362?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 444 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337362 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337362 — net $468.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as of 4.7.25	$35.57	Rent arrears as of 4.7.25
Water rates as of 4.7.25	$405.32	Water rates as of 4.7.25
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$468.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$468.89

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Brandon And Ashleigh Cullum $468.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 1 , 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 2 The tenancy ended on 4 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $35.57. This amount is ordered by consent.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 3 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 3 See section 39 RTA.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the amount below is ordered by consent – Water rates 8 Jan 2025 - 4 July 2025 - $405.32

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Blocked drain: 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says that during the tenancy, in January 2025, the toilet drain was blocked with sanitary products and other material and says the tenants are liable for the cost to remove the blockage.
The landlord said that this was the second time during the tenancy that there was a blocked pipe. The same pipe was blocked in October 2024. The landlord paid the first plumbing invoice as they could not be certain the blockage was caused by these tenants given the short period of 6 weeks between the commencement of the tenancy and the first blockage. The landlord provided invoices and a written report from the plumber in respect of both blockages. The landlord says the first blockage was cleared and therefore the second blockage could only have occurred during this tenancy.
The tenants dispute causing the second blockage. The tenants said that the plumber did not remedy the first blockage completely in October 2025, implying the second blockage was caused by items present when the first blockage occurred.
The owner of the plumbing firm was phoned to give evidence. He did not undertake the work in relation to the claims and was only able to review the documentation his firm had provided to the landlord. He said that if there were items from the first blockage that had not been cleared that the drain would have blocked within two to three days thereafter. The tenants responded to this saying there was an ongoing issue with the plumbing, and they could not use the bathroom for about two months. This was not verified at the hearing with copies of the correspondence to the landlord. The property manager that attended the hearing was not the usual property manager and suggested that if the tenants had raised the concern shortly after the first blockage was cleared then they would have responded promptly to the issue, and it would not have been left until late January 2025 to be given attention.
On reviewing the evidence, I consider it more likely than not that the second blockage was in large part the result of the material located in the pipe which I consider may have been present at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider this to be a possibility because documentation from the plumber said they were only able to retrieve a small portion of the original blockage, which indicates the drain was not completely cleared in October 2024 (and which the landlord accepted may not necessarily have been caused by the tenants).
It is also relevant that the plumbers invoice noted grout in the drain, indicating this has also contributed to the blockage. I do not consider the tenant can be liable for a blockage in part caused by grout, which can be considered fair wear and tear.
I therefore find that the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the second blockage is attributable to this tenancy. The claim for the plumber’s invoice is dismissed. Filing fee and Suppression
As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 12
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been successful in defending the substantive claim therefore name suppression for the tenants is ordered. 13

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337362 — net $468.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as of 4.7.25	$35.57	Rent arrears as of 4.7.25
Water rates as of 4.7.25	$405.32	Water rates as of 4.7.25
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$468.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$468.89

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Brandon And Ashleigh Cullum $468.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 1 , 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 2 The tenancy ended on 4 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $35.57. This amount is ordered by consent.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 3 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 3 See section 39 RTA.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the amount below is ordered by consent – Water rates 8 Jan 2025 - 4 July 2025 - $405.32

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Blocked drain: 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says that during the tenancy, in January 2025, the toilet drain was blocked with sanitary products and other material and says the tenants are liable for the cost to remove the blockage.
The landlord said that this was the second time during the tenancy that there was a blocked pipe. The same pipe was blocked in October 2024. The landlord paid the first plumbing invoice as they could not be certain the blockage was caused by these tenants given the short period of 6 weeks between the commencement of the tenancy and the first blockage. The landlord provided invoices and a written report from the plumber in respect of both blockages. The landlord says the first blockage was cleared and therefore the second blockage could only have occurred during this tenancy.
The tenants dispute causing the second blockage. The tenants said that the plumber did not remedy the first blockage completely in October 2025, implying the second blockage was caused by items present when the first blockage occurred.
The owner of the plumbing firm was phoned to give evidence. He did not undertake the work in relation to the claims and was only able to review the documentation his firm had provided to the landlord. He said that if there were items from the first blockage that had not been cleared that the drain would have blocked within two to three days thereafter. The tenants responded to this saying there was an ongoing issue with the plumbing, and they could not use the bathroom for about two months. This was not verified at the hearing with copies of the correspondence to the landlord. The property manager that attended the hearing was not the usual property manager and suggested that if the tenants had raised the concern shortly after the first blockage was cleared then they would have responded promptly to the issue, and it would not have been left until late January 2025 to be given attention.
On reviewing the evidence, I consider it more likely than not that the second blockage was in large part the result of the material located in the pipe which I consider may have been present at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider this to be a possibility because documentation from the plumber said they were only able to retrieve a small portion of the original blockage, which indicates the drain was not completely cleared in October 2024 (and which the landlord accepted may not necessarily have been caused by the tenants).
It is also relevant that the plumbers invoice noted grout in the drain, indicating this has also contributed to the blockage. I do not consider the tenant can be liable for a blockage in part caused by grout, which can be considered fair wear and tear.
I therefore find that the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the second blockage is attributable to this tenancy. The claim for the plumber’s invoice is dismissed. Filing fee and Suppression
As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 12
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been successful in defending the substantive claim therefore name suppression for the tenants is ordered. 13

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337362 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 444 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337362 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 444 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions