What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343362?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1340.00 (5208780-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5343362?

Electricity Reconnection: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $991.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $388.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343362?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13029212-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343362?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1340.00 (5208780-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5343362?

Electricity Reconnection: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $991.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $388.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343362?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13029212-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 7 Hobson Drive, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343362 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343362. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock replacement	$189.75	Lock replacement
Painting and wall repair	$991.88	Painting and wall repair
Deck Repair	$388.13	Deck Repair
Electricity reconnection	$258.75	Electricity reconnection
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1340.00 (5208780-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland Property Management Limited As Agents For Cynthia Lam: $936.22 Kiisponi (Borne) Ahokava: $403.78

This tenancy commenced on 20 July 2019 and concluded approximately five years later, on 20 February 2025.
The applicant tells me that the tenancy ended when the applicant issued a seven- day notice pursuant to section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act, on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable due to a wastewater leak that could not be rectified other than through extensive renovations.
The tenancy continued for a short period thereafter, at the request of the tenant, with the tenant ultimately vacating the premises on 21 February 2025. The applicant states, however, that rent is charged only up to 20 February 2025.
The applicant seeks compensation for vacated costs they say are the respondents liability, namely: a) $189.75 for replacement of locks b) $1,322.50 for painting of ceilings and walls c) $517.50 for repairs to the deck and trellis d) $1,092.50 for replacement of the kitchen benchtop e) $258.75 for an electrician’s invoice for reconnection of electricity, which the landlord alleges was disconnected by the tenant and unlawfully connected to a neighbouring property in order to bypass electricity charge. f) $28.00 for the application filing fee.

Is the respondent liable for the costs of the replacement of the locks?

The applicant tells me that the respondent, at some point during the tenancy, changed the front door, this seems to be the case from the photos. It is not clear on the evidence why this was done, and no explanation was provided by the applicant. However, the applicant states that at the conclusion of the tenancy, only one of the two keys provided to the respondent at the commencement of the tenancy was returned, and that key did not operate the front door lock.
As a result, the applicant incurred costs to replace the locks so that the premises could be properly secured by key. cost of this work was $189.75.
The tenant is responsible, at the conclusion of a tenancy, under section 40(1)(e)(iv), to return to the landlord all keys to the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with this obligation.
This cost is awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the painting and deck repair costs?

The applicant seeks $1,322.50 for painting of the ceilings and walls, and $517.50 for repairs to the deck and trellis.
In support of the painting claim, the applicant has provided photographs showing the condition of the interior of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, together with comparative photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy. Those photographs show graffiti drawn on the walls, paint applied to the ceiling, and damage to the walls consistent with panels having been affixed using liquid nails and later removed.
The applicant also seeks $517.50 for repairs to the deck and trellis. The applicant states that this damage was caused by the tenant lighting some form of fire on the deck, which resulted in several deck slats being burnt and requiring repair at the conclusion of the tenancy. The photographic evidence supports the existence of this damage and I am satisfied from the applicants evidence that this was caused by the respondent.
Under section 40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage the tenancy premises during the course of the tenancy and is liable for the reasonable costs of repair where such damage occurs. Conversely, under section 49 of the Act, a landlord is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss so as to limit the tenant’s liability.
These claims must be considered in the context of the tenancy as a whole, which endured for approximately five years. The applicant gave evidence that there were people frequently coming and going from the premises and that the activity occurring there was undesirable. She also stated that although four inspections per year were scheduled, she was, on average, only able to conduct two inspections annually because she did not feel safe entering the premises and the applicant should reasonably have been aware of the deterioration to the premises as a result and taken action to mitigate the loss. Rather the applicant seemed content to tolerate these factors due to the nature and condition of the home which was aged and put together roughly.
The nature of the damage, together with the applicant’s own description of events at the property, indicates that the deterioration for which compensation is sought occurred progressively over an extended period. In those circumstances, it appears that the landlord was, to some extent, tolerant of these conditions during the tenancy, and an allowance must therefore be made to reflect contribution and fair wear over time.
Having regard to all of these factors, it is appropriate to award only 75 per cent of the costs sought. Accordingly, I award: a) $991.88 for painting of ceilings and walls; and b) $388.13 for repairs to the deck and trellis.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of the cost of replacing the benchtop?

The applicant seeks $1,092.50 for replacement of the kitchen benchtop.
The applicant has provided a report from a plumber stating that the wastewater damage which rendered the premises uninhabitable required the removal of the entire kitchen. The applicant also gave evidence that she was not aware of any damage to the benchtop until she reviewed the entry condition photographs, and that until that point the condition of the benchtop had not caused her concern.
The photographic evidence indicates that the benchtop was already aged and in a condition that would likely have required repair or replacement in any event. Although the evidence suggests that the respondent painted the benchtop, I am not satisfied that this action necessitated its replacement in these circumstances.
In this context, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the replacement of the benchtop was required as a result of any intentional or careless act or omission of the respondent. Rather, the evidence indicates that the benchtop would have required replacement regardless of the respondent’s conduct and due to the extensive repairs required to the kitchen as a result of the leak which rendered the property uninhabitable..
Accordingly, the claim for $1,092.50 is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of reconnecting the electricity?

The applicant seeks $258.75 for the reconnection of electricity to the meter serving the tenancy premises.
The applicant states that the respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the premises and connected it to a neighbouring property. In support of this claim, the applicant has provided an electrician’s invoice dated 2 July 2025. That invoice includes a report from the tradesperson recording that the revenue meter was found to have been illegally bypassed, that the bypass was removed, and that the meter was reinstalled to its original connections.
The applicant has also provided a report from MovingHub indicating that the electricity supply at the tenancy address had been disconnected since 2022.
The applicant gave evidence that, at the conclusion of the tenancy, she established a new electricity account in the landlords name and that the bills received were unusually high. Upon investigating this discrepancy, she discovered that she was being billed for electricity consumed at a neighbouring property. The neighbouring address was identified as 7A Hobson Street, whereas the tenancy premises are known as 7/1 Hobson Street.
Further investigation confirmed that the electricity supply for the tenancy premises had been connected to the neighbouring property and that the charges being incurred related to that neighbouring address. The applicant then engaged an electrician to rectify the connection, and the cost of that work is the subject of this claim.
Having regard to the documentary evidence and the applicant’s oral evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was responsible for the unlawful bypass of the electricity meter and that the reconnection costs were reasonably incurred. Accordingly, the amount of $258.75 is awarded. Credits:
The applicant tells me that, at the conclusion of the tenancy, the respondent held a rent credit of $907.14 and an invoice credit of $13.15. The applicant seeks that these amounts be credited against any award made, in addition to the bond of $1,340.00. Filing fee:
As the applicant has been substantially successful in the application, I award the application filing fee. H Ben Fayed 27 January 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343362. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock replacement	$189.75	Lock replacement
Painting and wall repair	$991.88	Painting and wall repair
Deck Repair	$388.13	Deck Repair
Electricity reconnection	$258.75	Electricity reconnection
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1340.00 (5208780-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland Property Management Limited As Agents For Cynthia Lam: $936.22 Kiisponi (Borne) Ahokava: $403.78

This tenancy commenced on 20 July 2019 and concluded approximately five years later, on 20 February 2025.
The applicant tells me that the tenancy ended when the applicant issued a seven- day notice pursuant to section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act, on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable due to a wastewater leak that could not be rectified other than through extensive renovations.
The tenancy continued for a short period thereafter, at the request of the tenant, with the tenant ultimately vacating the premises on 21 February 2025. The applicant states, however, that rent is charged only up to 20 February 2025.
The applicant seeks compensation for vacated costs they say are the respondents liability, namely: a) $189.75 for replacement of locks b) $1,322.50 for painting of ceilings and walls c) $517.50 for repairs to the deck and trellis d) $1,092.50 for replacement of the kitchen benchtop e) $258.75 for an electrician’s invoice for reconnection of electricity, which the landlord alleges was disconnected by the tenant and unlawfully connected to a neighbouring property in order to bypass electricity charge. f) $28.00 for the application filing fee.

Is the respondent liable for the costs of the replacement of the locks?

The applicant tells me that the respondent, at some point during the tenancy, changed the front door, this seems to be the case from the photos. It is not clear on the evidence why this was done, and no explanation was provided by the applicant. However, the applicant states that at the conclusion of the tenancy, only one of the two keys provided to the respondent at the commencement of the tenancy was returned, and that key did not operate the front door lock.
As a result, the applicant incurred costs to replace the locks so that the premises could be properly secured by key. cost of this work was $189.75.
The tenant is responsible, at the conclusion of a tenancy, under section 40(1)(e)(iv), to return to the landlord all keys to the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with this obligation.
This cost is awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the painting and deck repair costs?

The applicant seeks $1,322.50 for painting of the ceilings and walls, and $517.50 for repairs to the deck and trellis.
In support of the painting claim, the applicant has provided photographs showing the condition of the interior of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, together with comparative photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy. Those photographs show graffiti drawn on the walls, paint applied to the ceiling, and damage to the walls consistent with panels having been affixed using liquid nails and later removed.
The applicant also seeks $517.50 for repairs to the deck and trellis. The applicant states that this damage was caused by the tenant lighting some form of fire on the deck, which resulted in several deck slats being burnt and requiring repair at the conclusion of the tenancy. The photographic evidence supports the existence of this damage and I am satisfied from the applicants evidence that this was caused by the respondent.
Under section 40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage the tenancy premises during the course of the tenancy and is liable for the reasonable costs of repair where such damage occurs. Conversely, under section 49 of the Act, a landlord is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss so as to limit the tenant’s liability.
These claims must be considered in the context of the tenancy as a whole, which endured for approximately five years. The applicant gave evidence that there were people frequently coming and going from the premises and that the activity occurring there was undesirable. She also stated that although four inspections per year were scheduled, she was, on average, only able to conduct two inspections annually because she did not feel safe entering the premises and the applicant should reasonably have been aware of the deterioration to the premises as a result and taken action to mitigate the loss. Rather the applicant seemed content to tolerate these factors due to the nature and condition of the home which was aged and put together roughly.
The nature of the damage, together with the applicant’s own description of events at the property, indicates that the deterioration for which compensation is sought occurred progressively over an extended period. In those circumstances, it appears that the landlord was, to some extent, tolerant of these conditions during the tenancy, and an allowance must therefore be made to reflect contribution and fair wear over time.
Having regard to all of these factors, it is appropriate to award only 75 per cent of the costs sought. Accordingly, I award: a) $991.88 for painting of ceilings and walls; and b) $388.13 for repairs to the deck and trellis.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of the cost of replacing the benchtop?

The applicant seeks $1,092.50 for replacement of the kitchen benchtop.
The applicant has provided a report from a plumber stating that the wastewater damage which rendered the premises uninhabitable required the removal of the entire kitchen. The applicant also gave evidence that she was not aware of any damage to the benchtop until she reviewed the entry condition photographs, and that until that point the condition of the benchtop had not caused her concern.
The photographic evidence indicates that the benchtop was already aged and in a condition that would likely have required repair or replacement in any event. Although the evidence suggests that the respondent painted the benchtop, I am not satisfied that this action necessitated its replacement in these circumstances.
In this context, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the replacement of the benchtop was required as a result of any intentional or careless act or omission of the respondent. Rather, the evidence indicates that the benchtop would have required replacement regardless of the respondent’s conduct and due to the extensive repairs required to the kitchen as a result of the leak which rendered the property uninhabitable..
Accordingly, the claim for $1,092.50 is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of reconnecting the electricity?

The applicant seeks $258.75 for the reconnection of electricity to the meter serving the tenancy premises.
The applicant states that the respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the premises and connected it to a neighbouring property. In support of this claim, the applicant has provided an electrician’s invoice dated 2 July 2025. That invoice includes a report from the tradesperson recording that the revenue meter was found to have been illegally bypassed, that the bypass was removed, and that the meter was reinstalled to its original connections.
The applicant has also provided a report from MovingHub indicating that the electricity supply at the tenancy address had been disconnected since 2022.
The applicant gave evidence that, at the conclusion of the tenancy, she established a new electricity account in the landlords name and that the bills received were unusually high. Upon investigating this discrepancy, she discovered that she was being billed for electricity consumed at a neighbouring property. The neighbouring address was identified as 7A Hobson Street, whereas the tenancy premises are known as 7/1 Hobson Street.
Further investigation confirmed that the electricity supply for the tenancy premises had been connected to the neighbouring property and that the charges being incurred related to that neighbouring address. The applicant then engaged an electrician to rectify the connection, and the cost of that work is the subject of this claim.
Having regard to the documentary evidence and the applicant’s oral evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was responsible for the unlawful bypass of the electricity meter and that the reconnection costs were reasonably incurred. Accordingly, the amount of $258.75 is awarded. Credits:
The applicant tells me that, at the conclusion of the tenancy, the respondent held a rent credit of $907.14 and an invoice credit of $13.15. The applicant seeks that these amounts be credited against any award made, in addition to the bond of $1,340.00. Filing fee:
As the applicant has been substantially successful in the application, I award the application filing fee. H Ben Fayed 27 January 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343362 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Hobson Drive, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343362 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Hobson Drive, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the respondent liable for the costs of the replacement of the locks?

Is the respondent liable for the painting and deck repair costs?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of the cost of replacing the benchtop?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of reconnecting the electricity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Is the respondent liable for the costs of the replacement of the locks?

Is the respondent liable for the painting and deck repair costs?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of the cost of replacing the benchtop?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of reconnecting the electricity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions