What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340243 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5340243?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,869.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340243?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12784492-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340243 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5340243?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,869.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340243?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12784492-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Houkura Way, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340243 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

9 Houkura Way, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340243 — Rent arrears | 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 5340243 — net $3,220.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311	$1,869.51	Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet damage	$287.50	Repairs: Carpet damage
Repairs: Wall damage	$690.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,220.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,220.01

Claims and awards for application 5340243 — net $3,220.01 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311

Amount: $1,869.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Carpet damage

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Carpet damage

Repairs: Wall damage

Amount: $690.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall damage

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Nigel Spratt $3,220.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order sealed on 27 May 2025 under application 5223311.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenants were telephoned on the phone numbers provided but the phone calls went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, 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.”

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 June 2025.
On 27 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 2 June 2025. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The rent arrears ordered in this order is the full amount 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 of rent arrears owed by the tenants and not in addition to the rent arrears previously ordered.
The landlord provided rent records. $800 ($400x2) had been paid by the tenant which had been paid towards the cleaning and damage invoice. As discussed at the hearing, I consider these payments reflected the agreed payments for rent arrears recorded in the previous order and I have deducted these payments from the rent arrears.

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. 2
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 5
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Carpet cleaning was required. However, I am dismissing the claim for general cleaning because the claim relates to one wall that required cleaning in the kitchen. The landlord has not proven that overall the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy (aside from the carpet requiring cleaning), only that one wall required cleaning to remove a mark.
The amount ordered is proved with oral evidence, photographs and an invoice. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

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. 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
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The carpet was burnt in two rooms and the walls had minor damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved with an invoice, photographs of the damage and oral evidence.
I have taken 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. The amounts claimed are for isolated repairs of the carpet and walls only. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 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. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not apply for name suppression

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 5340243 — net $3,220.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311	$1,869.51	Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet damage	$287.50	Repairs: Carpet damage
Repairs: Wall damage	$690.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,220.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,220.01

Claims and awards for application 5340243 — net $3,220.01 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311

Amount: $1,869.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 June 2025 (incorporating previous order dated 27 May 2025 application 5223311

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Carpet damage

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Carpet damage

Repairs: Wall damage

Amount: $690.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall damage

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Nigel Spratt $3,220.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order sealed on 27 May 2025 under application 5223311.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenants were telephoned on the phone numbers provided but the phone calls went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, 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.”

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 June 2025.
On 27 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 2 June 2025. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The rent arrears ordered in this order is the full amount 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 of rent arrears owed by the tenants and not in addition to the rent arrears previously ordered.
The landlord provided rent records. $800 ($400x2) had been paid by the tenant which had been paid towards the cleaning and damage invoice. As discussed at the hearing, I consider these payments reflected the agreed payments for rent arrears recorded in the previous order and I have deducted these payments from the rent arrears.

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. 2
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 5
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Carpet cleaning was required. However, I am dismissing the claim for general cleaning because the claim relates to one wall that required cleaning in the kitchen. The landlord has not proven that overall the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy (aside from the carpet requiring cleaning), only that one wall required cleaning to remove a mark.
The amount ordered is proved with oral evidence, photographs and an invoice. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

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. 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
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The carpet was burnt in two rooms and the walls had minor damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved with an invoice, photographs of the damage and oral evidence.
I have taken 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. The amounts claimed are for isolated repairs of the carpet and walls only. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 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. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not apply for name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340243 — Rent arrears at 9 Houkura Way, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340243 — Rent arrears at 9 Houkura Way, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.