What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339244 about?

The tribunal order states: Silverstone Property Group Limited T/A Blackstone Group Property Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5339244?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339244?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339244?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12850789-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339244 about?

The tribunal order states: Silverstone Property Group Limited T/A Blackstone Group Property Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5339244?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339244?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339244?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12850789-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 705, 70 Pitt Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339244 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Unit 705, 70 Pitt Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339244 — Tenancy dispute | 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 5339244 — net $38.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Remainder of parking bond	$10.00	Remainder of parking bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$38.00
Bond	$1,859.90
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$38.00

Claims and awards for application 5339244 — net $38.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Remainder of parking bond

Amount: $10.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Remainder of parking bond

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $38.00

Bond

Tenant $1,859.90

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $38.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

Silverstone Property Group Limited T/A Blackstone Group Property Limited As Agent For Reece & Sophie Hamon Dwayne Kemp must pay [The party] and [The party] $38.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $1,859.90 (5634584- 013) to [The party] and [The party] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The landlord claims had been partially settled during a Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment mediation in October 2025. This mediation related to the tenants claim for full refund of their bond.
I explained to the tenants that the amounts they agreed be deducted from their bond at mediation cannot be relitigated at today’s hearing. The $740.10 deduction from the bond was agreed by consent, as was the $130.00 deduction from the tenant’s $140.00 carparking bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of $558.90 from the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for refund of the remainder of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has withdrawn its claim for removal and disposal of excess items, being a cost of $45.00 plus GST.
The landlord has applied for administration costs of $402.50 for the time spent preparing for and attending the Tribunal hearing and the tenants’ sought compensation for stress, harassment, time wasting and costing them interest on the bond monies held for 5 months. There are no provisions in the RTA which I can see, nor which the parties have identified, from which these claims can be based. Because I cannot make any orders around these claims, these claims must be dismissed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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 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 landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that it had to have the kitchen bench, kitchen doors, cook top, inside of shower and bathroom windows, marks on walls and the television cabinet cleaned by professional cleaners to get it the premise/chattels to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. It is seeking reimbursement of $558.90 it has proven it paid to have this cleaning undertaken.
The tenants have provided photographs and videos that they say supports their defence to the landlord’s claim for $558.90 because they say this evidence shows the premise and chattels were left in a reasonably clean and tidy standard and in a far cleaner standard than when they took possession of the property.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. Cooktop and kitchen surfaces
The landlord has produced a photograph of the cooktop, kitchen cupboard doors and benches which show some smear marks from where the surfaces were cleaned with a light chemical and when the surfaces have dried it has left smear marks. These smear marks would only require a quick wipe and dry with a towel to remove. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
I am satisfied from the tenants’ evidence that they did wipe all these surfaces with cleaning products and that the surfaces were not dirty per say but slightly smeared from being wiped. While the surfaces were reasonably clean and tidy, they were not to a standard that allowed the landlord to relet the property without giving the surfaces another quick wipe and dry.
I find the landlord should expect to incur some cost to get the premise to a re- lettable or hotel or motel standard but find that the kitchen was at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. Additionally, the tenants say the premise was not clean and tidy when they took possession of it, and they should not be required to return it in a better condition than they received it. The landlord had no entry inspection photographs to disprove the tenants’ claims. However, the tenants had very few entry photographs either.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to support it on the balance of probabilities for the reasons set out above. Bathroom
The landlord has produced a photograph of the shower tray and bathroom windows which show some mould in the silicone around these areas. The landlord stated the cleaners used some janola to remove this mould that had accumulated in the silicone and had not been removed by the ajax the tenants had used to clean the bathroom.
I am satisfied from the tenants’ evidence that they did wipe these surfaces with cleaning products and that the surfaces were not dirty but had built up some mould in the silicone over time. As there were not entry inspection photographs of this silicone at the start of the tenancy, I had nothing to compare the landlord’s photographs too and could not ascertain whether the silicone was new and fresh at the start of the tenancy.
Again, I find the landlord should expect to incur some cost to get the premise to a re-lettable or hotel or motel standard but find that the kitchen was at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to support it on the balance of probabilities for the reasons set out above. Television cabinet
The landlord claims the tenants did not want to use the television cabinet and so they moved it into a cupboard during their tenancy and did not replace it back in the lounge nor did they clean it at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants state they found the television cabinet in the cupboard, and they left it as they didn’t have the room to use it. They say it was not dirty; but had a lack of lustre on a part of it. And that the rest of the cabinet is fine. Further, they say that the property manager found it in the cupboard and moved it into the lounge even though it was in the cupboard when the tenancy started.
The landlord could not confirm where the television cabinet was at the start of the tenancy, and it had no evidence of where this was when the tenants’ got possession of the property.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to support it on the balance of probabilities for the reasons set out above. Marks on the walls
The tenants produced photographs dated 7 September 2024 of the wall in the room with the boxes and vines that prove there were significant black marks on the wall at the start of the tenancy, before they had moved anything into that room. They say there were other marks on the walls when the tenancy commenced.
The landlord had no entry inspection photographs of these walls no evidence to prove they were not there before the tenancy commenced. Therefore the claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in its management of this tenancy.
The application for non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is dismissed.

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 5339244 — net $38.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Remainder of parking bond	$10.00	Remainder of parking bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$38.00
Bond	$1,859.90
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$38.00

Claims and awards for application 5339244 — net $38.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Remainder of parking bond

Amount: $10.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Remainder of parking bond

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $38.00

Bond

Tenant $1,859.90

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $38.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

Silverstone Property Group Limited T/A Blackstone Group Property Limited As Agent For Reece & Sophie Hamon Dwayne Kemp must pay [The party] and [The party] $38.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $1,859.90 (5634584- 013) to [The party] and [The party] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The landlord claims had been partially settled during a Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment mediation in October 2025. This mediation related to the tenants claim for full refund of their bond.
I explained to the tenants that the amounts they agreed be deducted from their bond at mediation cannot be relitigated at today’s hearing. The $740.10 deduction from the bond was agreed by consent, as was the $130.00 deduction from the tenant’s $140.00 carparking bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of $558.90 from the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for refund of the remainder of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has withdrawn its claim for removal and disposal of excess items, being a cost of $45.00 plus GST.
The landlord has applied for administration costs of $402.50 for the time spent preparing for and attending the Tribunal hearing and the tenants’ sought compensation for stress, harassment, time wasting and costing them interest on the bond monies held for 5 months. There are no provisions in the RTA which I can see, nor which the parties have identified, from which these claims can be based. Because I cannot make any orders around these claims, these claims must be dismissed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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 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 landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that it had to have the kitchen bench, kitchen doors, cook top, inside of shower and bathroom windows, marks on walls and the television cabinet cleaned by professional cleaners to get it the premise/chattels to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. It is seeking reimbursement of $558.90 it has proven it paid to have this cleaning undertaken.
The tenants have provided photographs and videos that they say supports their defence to the landlord’s claim for $558.90 because they say this evidence shows the premise and chattels were left in a reasonably clean and tidy standard and in a far cleaner standard than when they took possession of the property.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. Cooktop and kitchen surfaces
The landlord has produced a photograph of the cooktop, kitchen cupboard doors and benches which show some smear marks from where the surfaces were cleaned with a light chemical and when the surfaces have dried it has left smear marks. These smear marks would only require a quick wipe and dry with a towel to remove. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
I am satisfied from the tenants’ evidence that they did wipe all these surfaces with cleaning products and that the surfaces were not dirty per say but slightly smeared from being wiped. While the surfaces were reasonably clean and tidy, they were not to a standard that allowed the landlord to relet the property without giving the surfaces another quick wipe and dry.
I find the landlord should expect to incur some cost to get the premise to a re- lettable or hotel or motel standard but find that the kitchen was at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. Additionally, the tenants say the premise was not clean and tidy when they took possession of it, and they should not be required to return it in a better condition than they received it. The landlord had no entry inspection photographs to disprove the tenants’ claims. However, the tenants had very few entry photographs either.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to support it on the balance of probabilities for the reasons set out above. Bathroom
The landlord has produced a photograph of the shower tray and bathroom windows which show some mould in the silicone around these areas. The landlord stated the cleaners used some janola to remove this mould that had accumulated in the silicone and had not been removed by the ajax the tenants had used to clean the bathroom.
I am satisfied from the tenants’ evidence that they did wipe these surfaces with cleaning products and that the surfaces were not dirty but had built up some mould in the silicone over time. As there were not entry inspection photographs of this silicone at the start of the tenancy, I had nothing to compare the landlord’s photographs too and could not ascertain whether the silicone was new and fresh at the start of the tenancy.
Again, I find the landlord should expect to incur some cost to get the premise to a re-lettable or hotel or motel standard but find that the kitchen was at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to support it on the balance of probabilities for the reasons set out above. Television cabinet
The landlord claims the tenants did not want to use the television cabinet and so they moved it into a cupboard during their tenancy and did not replace it back in the lounge nor did they clean it at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants state they found the television cabinet in the cupboard, and they left it as they didn’t have the room to use it. They say it was not dirty; but had a lack of lustre on a part of it. And that the rest of the cabinet is fine. Further, they say that the property manager found it in the cupboard and moved it into the lounge even though it was in the cupboard when the tenancy started.
The landlord could not confirm where the television cabinet was at the start of the tenancy, and it had no evidence of where this was when the tenants’ got possession of the property.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to support it on the balance of probabilities for the reasons set out above. Marks on the walls
The tenants produced photographs dated 7 September 2024 of the wall in the room with the boxes and vines that prove there were significant black marks on the wall at the start of the tenancy, before they had moved anything into that room. They say there were other marks on the walls when the tenancy commenced.
The landlord had no entry inspection photographs of these walls no evidence to prove they were not there before the tenancy commenced. Therefore the claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in its management of this tenancy.
The application for non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339244 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 705, 70 Pitt Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339244 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 705, 70 Pitt Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions