How much money was awarded in case 5339363?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $785.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339363?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339363?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12793422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5339363?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $785.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339363?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339363?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12793422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339363 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339363 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339363 — net $1,489.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 11 June 2025	$785.71	Rent arrears (to 11 June 2025
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$103.50	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$1,489.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,489.21

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective As Agent For Deb-Bre Trust No1 $1,489.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The claims for compensation to remediate cat scratches on windowsills and repair to a hole in the wardrobe door is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

On 2 September 2025 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking an order for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. Ms Remmy Borrie, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

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. Background of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2020. The fixed term ended on 20 July 2020, thereafter the tenancy became periodic.

The tenancy ended on 11 June 2025. Order by consent

At the commencement of the hearing the parties advised the Tribunal that they had agreed to make an order by consent in the following terms: a. The tenants shall pay the landlord $785.71, being rent arrears to 11 June 2025. b. The tenants shall pay the landlord $360.00 compensation for cleaning the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition following the end of the tenancy. c. The tenants shall pay the landlord $240.00 compensation for professional carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy. d. The tenants shall pay the landlord $103.50 compensation for lawn mowing and garden tidying following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation of $748.19 for cat scratch marks on the windowsills and a hole in a wardrobe they say was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.

The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs. The report records the following: a. The walls in the lounge were marked and the condition of the windows was recorded as showing fair wear and tear. b. The hallway walls were recorded as showing fair wear and tear. c. Bedroom one - the door, window and wardrobe was recorded as showing fair wear and tear, and the walls were recorded as being aged/worn with scuff and gouge marks. d. Bedroom two – the door was recorded as being reasonably clean and tidy, the walls were recorded as being aged/worn and the windows were recorded as showing fair wear and tear. e. Bedroom three – the door, walls and windows were all recorded as showing fair wear and tear.

The landlord provided end of tenancy exit report with photographs. The Tribunal’s attention was directed to two close up photographs showing marks on the windowsill showing scratch marks.

The tenant denied being responsible for the damage to the windowsills stating that the cat scratches were pre-exiting at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant produced photographs dated 18 January 2020 showing marks on the walls they say are consistent with cat scratches. The tenant did not know about the hole in the wardrobe and denied responsibility for it. Analysis and decision

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 of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants are responsible for the damage claimed. There was no evidence showing the condition of the windowsills at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the pre-tenancy inspection report records that the walls, windows and doors were variously aged, worn, scuffed, gouged, and showing signs of fair wear and tear. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the door given the stated condition of the property as the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Costs

Because Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective As Agent For Deb- Bre Trust No1 has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression

Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.

The tenants seek name suppression. In the interests of fairness and privacy and given the tenant’s willingness to resolve the matter and having been partially successful, I consider it reasonable that the tenant’s name and identifying detailed be suppressed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339363 — net $1,489.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 11 June 2025	$785.71	Rent arrears (to 11 June 2025
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$103.50	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$1,489.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,489.21

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective As Agent For Deb-Bre Trust No1 $1,489.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The claims for compensation to remediate cat scratches on windowsills and repair to a hole in the wardrobe door is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. Ms Remmy Borrie, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

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.

The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2020. The fixed term ended on 20 July 2020, thereafter the tenancy became periodic.

The tenancy ended on 11 June 2025. Order by consent

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord provided end of tenancy exit report with photographs. The Tribunal’s attention was directed to two close up photographs showing marks on the windowsill showing scratch marks.

Because Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective As Agent For Deb- Bre Trust No1 has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339363 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339363 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions