What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346462 about?

The tribunal order states: Tyela Stewart must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Rasmita

How much money was awarded in case 5346462?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,908.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346462?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12887773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346462 about?

The tribunal order states: Tyela Stewart must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Rasmita

How much money was awarded in case 5346462?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,908.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346462?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12887773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346462 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346462 — net $1,369.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1.10.2025	$2,908.57	Rent arrears to 1.10.2025
Lock/key replacement	$290.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,369.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,369.57

Order

Tyela Stewart must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Rasmita Kanji $1,369.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (5993130-008) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Rasmita Kanji immediately.

Reasons

Ms Brockie and Mr Suri, representing the landlord, and Ms Stewart, the tenant, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 1 October 2025.
During the hearing, the landlord sought to pursue claims for outgoings (water bills) and compensation for a Chorus box. As these claims were not included in the landlord’s application form and there was not sufficient hearing time scheduled to hear additional claims, I told the landlord I would not hear these claims. The landlord can make a separate application for these claims, if they wish to. Burden of proof and evidence
The onus of proving the claim is on the party making the claim and is on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
When parties dispute a claim, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence to support their own position.

How much rent is owed?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 1 October 2025, the end of the tenancy, which is $2,908.57. The tenant said she refused to make some rent payments because of the condition of the house. The tenant’s issue with the condition of the house is a separate matter and does not relate to rent arrears owing. The tenant can make her own claim about the property’s condition, if need be.
As the tenant did not provide any evidence to the contrary about the amount of rent arrears claimed by the landlord, I award the landlord $2,908.57 for rent arrears to 1 October 2025.

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. Cleaning
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs they said were taken at the end of the tenancy showing the condition of the property. The photographs show cobwebs, food on the floor, spills on cupboards, dirty cupboards and drawers, rubbish and pet hair on the carpets and more areas that needed cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $450.00.
The tenant said she would not touch the walls at the property as they had mould so that is why there were cobwebs. She said she had photographs and videos of cleaning the house at the end of the tenancy and invoices from her cleaners. The tenant had not provided any of these photographs, videos or invoices for the hearing. The tenant said she did not have access to wifi, only text, but could go to the public library to access wifi there, so the tenant could have provided this evidence before the hearing.
As the landlord provided additional supporting evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, but the tenant did not, I find the landlord has proved the tenant likely left the property in a condition that was not reasonably clean and tidy. Given the evidence provided of the property’s condition and the cleaning required, I find the cleaning invoice cost of $450.00 to be reasonable and so award this to the landlord for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Carpet cleaning
The landlord also claimed $253.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord said the tenant had 2 dogs kept inside the property during the tenancy and provided photographs of pet hair left on the carpet at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for carpet cleaning for $253.00. The carpet cleaning invoice noted extra time was required to remove dog fur from the carpet during their visit.
The tenant said she had had her own carpet cleaning done professionally the Saturday before the tenancy ended. The tenant did not provide any invoice for this or any photographs or other evidence to provide additional supporting evidence of her position about this.
As such, and given the additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord about the requirement for carpet cleaning, I find the landlord has proved this claim and so award the landlord $253.00 for carpet cleaning. Locks
The landlord said the tenant was provided with 11 keys at the start of the tenancy but only returned 5 keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed this indicating she was provided with 7 keys at the start of the tenancy and said she returned 5 keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed having a front door key or garage key given to her. The landlord said the tenant had emailed them to say her front door key was in her handbag that was stolen.
The landlord said they had sent in photographs of the 11 keys provided at the start of the tenancy and the 5 keys returned at the end of the tenancy. These were received after the hearing.
The landlord provided an invoice from a locksmith in the amount of $437.00 and said they had had to replace 3 different types of locks with multiple keys being cut for each type of lock. From the invoice, these were locks for the front door, back door and garage door.
The landlord’s photographs of the keys provided at the start of the tenancy and the keys returned at the end of the tenancy do not specify which keys belong to which lock in which room, however. It appears from the photographs that there were multiple copies of keys for some locks.
The landlord said the tenant failed to return 7 of the keys provided to her at the start of the tenancy, requiring 3 different types of locks to be changed, with multiple copies of keys for these 3 different locks.
The tenant acknowledged she failed to return 2 keys and said these were to the front door and bedroom door.
Even if the landlord’s photographs of the keys provided at the start of the tenancy and returned at the end of the tenancy were to be considered, and I am mindful here that the tenant did not see them during the hearing, though the number of keys provided at the start and returned at the end of the tenancy was raised and discussed during the hearing, I find the landlord has fallen short of proving which particular keys were not returned by the tenant. However, given the tenant acknowledged failing to return 2 keys, I find a reasonable cost to replace those 2 locks to be $290.00. Therefore, I award the landlord $290.00 for replacing 2 locks at the property at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression but was not successful with the claim, nor did she provide any evidence as to why her interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenant. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346462 — net $1,369.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1.10.2025	$2,908.57	Rent arrears to 1.10.2025
Lock/key replacement	$290.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,369.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,369.57

Order

Tyela Stewart must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Rasmita Kanji $1,369.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (5993130-008) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Rasmita Kanji immediately.

Reasons

Ms Brockie and Mr Suri, representing the landlord, and Ms Stewart, the tenant, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 1 October 2025.
During the hearing, the landlord sought to pursue claims for outgoings (water bills) and compensation for a Chorus box. As these claims were not included in the landlord’s application form and there was not sufficient hearing time scheduled to hear additional claims, I told the landlord I would not hear these claims. The landlord can make a separate application for these claims, if they wish to. Burden of proof and evidence
The onus of proving the claim is on the party making the claim and is on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
When parties dispute a claim, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence to support their own position.

How much rent is owed?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 1 October 2025, the end of the tenancy, which is $2,908.57. The tenant said she refused to make some rent payments because of the condition of the house. The tenant’s issue with the condition of the house is a separate matter and does not relate to rent arrears owing. The tenant can make her own claim about the property’s condition, if need be.
As the tenant did not provide any evidence to the contrary about the amount of rent arrears claimed by the landlord, I award the landlord $2,908.57 for rent arrears to 1 October 2025.

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. Cleaning
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs they said were taken at the end of the tenancy showing the condition of the property. The photographs show cobwebs, food on the floor, spills on cupboards, dirty cupboards and drawers, rubbish and pet hair on the carpets and more areas that needed cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $450.00.
The tenant said she would not touch the walls at the property as they had mould so that is why there were cobwebs. She said she had photographs and videos of cleaning the house at the end of the tenancy and invoices from her cleaners. The tenant had not provided any of these photographs, videos or invoices for the hearing. The tenant said she did not have access to wifi, only text, but could go to the public library to access wifi there, so the tenant could have provided this evidence before the hearing.
As the landlord provided additional supporting evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, but the tenant did not, I find the landlord has proved the tenant likely left the property in a condition that was not reasonably clean and tidy. Given the evidence provided of the property’s condition and the cleaning required, I find the cleaning invoice cost of $450.00 to be reasonable and so award this to the landlord for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Carpet cleaning
The landlord also claimed $253.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord said the tenant had 2 dogs kept inside the property during the tenancy and provided photographs of pet hair left on the carpet at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for carpet cleaning for $253.00. The carpet cleaning invoice noted extra time was required to remove dog fur from the carpet during their visit.
The tenant said she had had her own carpet cleaning done professionally the Saturday before the tenancy ended. The tenant did not provide any invoice for this or any photographs or other evidence to provide additional supporting evidence of her position about this.
As such, and given the additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord about the requirement for carpet cleaning, I find the landlord has proved this claim and so award the landlord $253.00 for carpet cleaning. Locks
The landlord said the tenant was provided with 11 keys at the start of the tenancy but only returned 5 keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed this indicating she was provided with 7 keys at the start of the tenancy and said she returned 5 keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed having a front door key or garage key given to her. The landlord said the tenant had emailed them to say her front door key was in her handbag that was stolen.
The landlord said they had sent in photographs of the 11 keys provided at the start of the tenancy and the 5 keys returned at the end of the tenancy. These were received after the hearing.
The landlord provided an invoice from a locksmith in the amount of $437.00 and said they had had to replace 3 different types of locks with multiple keys being cut for each type of lock. From the invoice, these were locks for the front door, back door and garage door.
The landlord’s photographs of the keys provided at the start of the tenancy and the keys returned at the end of the tenancy do not specify which keys belong to which lock in which room, however. It appears from the photographs that there were multiple copies of keys for some locks.
The landlord said the tenant failed to return 7 of the keys provided to her at the start of the tenancy, requiring 3 different types of locks to be changed, with multiple copies of keys for these 3 different locks.
The tenant acknowledged she failed to return 2 keys and said these were to the front door and bedroom door.
Even if the landlord’s photographs of the keys provided at the start of the tenancy and returned at the end of the tenancy were to be considered, and I am mindful here that the tenant did not see them during the hearing, though the number of keys provided at the start and returned at the end of the tenancy was raised and discussed during the hearing, I find the landlord has fallen short of proving which particular keys were not returned by the tenant. However, given the tenant acknowledged failing to return 2 keys, I find a reasonable cost to replace those 2 locks to be $290.00. Therefore, I award the landlord $290.00 for replacing 2 locks at the property at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression but was not successful with the claim, nor did she provide any evidence as to why her interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenant. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346462 — Rent arrears at 28 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346462 — Rent arrears at 28 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owed?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owed?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions