What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345425 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5345425?

Cleaning: $189.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,420.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $567.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345425?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345425?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12859827-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345425 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5345425?

Cleaning: $189.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,420.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $567.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345425?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345425?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12859827-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 16 Gaye Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345425 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 16 Gaye Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345425 — 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 5345425 — net $5,239.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025	$3,420.00	Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025
Water rates	$567.86	Water rates
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$189.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$460.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,239.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,239.86

Claims and awards for application 5345425 — net $5,239.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025

Amount: $3,420.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025

Water rates

Amount: $567.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $189.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Compensation — __________________________________________________________________________________ 53454256

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates Compensation

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited $5,239.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 16 September 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Yu, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in her absence. 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 21 September 2024 with the fixed term due to expire on 20 September 2025.
The tenant sought early termination of the tenancy after their flatmate moved out.
The tenant vacated the property on 5 July 2025.
The landlord states that they were unable to secure a new tenant for the property until 23 August 2025.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord seeks rent arrears to 22 August 2025 and an up-to-date rent summary was provided.
The landlord states the tenant is liable for the rent payments until the date the new tenant moved into the property as agreed under the terms of the early termination.
The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord seeks outstanding water rates following the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that despite being properly demanded, the tenant had failed to pay the water rates since moving into the property. Water rates bills for the following periods were provided: a. 8 Nov – 9 Dec 2024 - $91.20 b. 9 Dec – 10 Jan 2025 – $86.14 c. 10 Jan – 11 Feb 2025 - $76.00 d. 12 Feb – 10 Mar 2025 - $60.80 e. 10 mar – 7 Apr 2025 - $55.75 f. 7 Apr – 9 May 2025 - $81.07 g. 9 May - 10 Jun 2025 - $70.94 h. 10 Jun – 8 Jul 2025 - $40.54 i. 8 Jul – 8 Aug 2025 - $5.42
The Tribunal was satisfied the amounts claimed were properly demanded and did not include fixed charges. The amount claimed is.
The landlord seeks water rates totalling $21.72 for the period 8 to 22 August 2025. No tenant invoice or water rates bill was provided. Given the lack of evidence in support of the sum claimed, the Tribunal declines to make an award for that period and that portion of the claim is dismissed.

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.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks $575.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which prove the property was provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs which show the following: a. The walls were soiled and marked. b. The shower tray was soiled with mould and mildew. c. The shower door was marked with soap scum and was dirty. d. The bathroom floors had not been swept or mopped. e. The carpets had not been vacuumed and there was evidence of cigarette burns. f. The bathroom sink was marked and had not been cleaned. g. The skirting boards were visibly dusty. h. There were marks on the window joinery. i. Some rubbish including cigarette butts and a chari chair had been left at the property.
The landlord said the curtains needed to be washed and rehung due to a lingering cigarette odour and the oven and rangehood needed to be cleaned.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and the end of the tenancy. After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $189.00 after paying a contractor to professionally clean the carpet at the end of the tenancy to remove the strong smell of cigarette smoke. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord produced photographs which evidenced the tenants had smoked during their tenancy. There were cigarette butts on the ground outside and a cigarette butt on the inside windowsill. In addition, the landlord provided evidence of cigarette scorch marks on the carpet that were not present at the commencement of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the carpet required professionally cleaning at the end of the tenancy to remove cigarette odour and the amount claimed is ordered.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49Bof 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.
The landlord seeks compensation of $690.00 after paying a contractor to patch repair and paint a large hole in the staircase wall and reinstate two window security locks.
The landlord provided a photograph showing damage to the staircase wall following the end of the tenancy. There was no evidence provided to show the damaged or missing window security locks.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the staircase wall at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal finds that the wall was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount of $460.00 is ordered.
The Tribunal was not able to make a proper before an after comparison of the window security locks at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Given the lack of evidence proving the window security locks were damaged by the tenant during the tenancy the claim for compensation is dismissed.
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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Costs
Because Greenmount Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 5345425 — net $5,239.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025	$3,420.00	Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025
Water rates	$567.86	Water rates
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$189.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$460.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,239.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,239.86

Claims and awards for application 5345425 — net $5,239.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025

Amount: $3,420.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 22/08/2025

Water rates

Amount: $567.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $189.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Compensation — __________________________________________________________________________________ 53454256

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates Compensation

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited $5,239.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 16 September 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Yu, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in her absence. 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 21 September 2024 with the fixed term due to expire on 20 September 2025.
The tenant sought early termination of the tenancy after their flatmate moved out.
The tenant vacated the property on 5 July 2025.
The landlord states that they were unable to secure a new tenant for the property until 23 August 2025.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord seeks rent arrears to 22 August 2025 and an up-to-date rent summary was provided.
The landlord states the tenant is liable for the rent payments until the date the new tenant moved into the property as agreed under the terms of the early termination.
The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord seeks outstanding water rates following the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that despite being properly demanded, the tenant had failed to pay the water rates since moving into the property. Water rates bills for the following periods were provided: a. 8 Nov – 9 Dec 2024 - $91.20 b. 9 Dec – 10 Jan 2025 – $86.14 c. 10 Jan – 11 Feb 2025 - $76.00 d. 12 Feb – 10 Mar 2025 - $60.80 e. 10 mar – 7 Apr 2025 - $55.75 f. 7 Apr – 9 May 2025 - $81.07 g. 9 May - 10 Jun 2025 - $70.94 h. 10 Jun – 8 Jul 2025 - $40.54 i. 8 Jul – 8 Aug 2025 - $5.42
The Tribunal was satisfied the amounts claimed were properly demanded and did not include fixed charges. The amount claimed is.
The landlord seeks water rates totalling $21.72 for the period 8 to 22 August 2025. No tenant invoice or water rates bill was provided. Given the lack of evidence in support of the sum claimed, the Tribunal declines to make an award for that period and that portion of the claim is dismissed.

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.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks $575.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which prove the property was provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs which show the following: a. The walls were soiled and marked. b. The shower tray was soiled with mould and mildew. c. The shower door was marked with soap scum and was dirty. d. The bathroom floors had not been swept or mopped. e. The carpets had not been vacuumed and there was evidence of cigarette burns. f. The bathroom sink was marked and had not been cleaned. g. The skirting boards were visibly dusty. h. There were marks on the window joinery. i. Some rubbish including cigarette butts and a chari chair had been left at the property.
The landlord said the curtains needed to be washed and rehung due to a lingering cigarette odour and the oven and rangehood needed to be cleaned.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and the end of the tenancy. After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $189.00 after paying a contractor to professionally clean the carpet at the end of the tenancy to remove the strong smell of cigarette smoke. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord produced photographs which evidenced the tenants had smoked during their tenancy. There were cigarette butts on the ground outside and a cigarette butt on the inside windowsill. In addition, the landlord provided evidence of cigarette scorch marks on the carpet that were not present at the commencement of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the carpet required professionally cleaning at the end of the tenancy to remove cigarette odour and the amount claimed is ordered.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49Bof 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.
The landlord seeks compensation of $690.00 after paying a contractor to patch repair and paint a large hole in the staircase wall and reinstate two window security locks.
The landlord provided a photograph showing damage to the staircase wall following the end of the tenancy. There was no evidence provided to show the damaged or missing window security locks.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the staircase wall at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal finds that the wall was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount of $460.00 is ordered.
The Tribunal was not able to make a proper before an after comparison of the window security locks at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Given the lack of evidence proving the window security locks were damaged by the tenant during the tenancy the claim for compensation is dismissed.
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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Costs
Because Greenmount Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345425 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 16 Gaye Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345425 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 16 Gaye Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions