Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5351202 — Rent arrears at 18A Greenmeadows Avenue, Manurewa East, Auckland
Decided 21 Jan 2026 · Published 21 Jan 2026 · Application 5351202
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $412.07 from the bond being rent arrears to 31 August 2025, calculated and shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $412.07 [The tenant/s]: $1,947.93
- I am dismissing the landlord claim for cleaning, carpet cleaning and repair, lawn mowing, damage to kitchen wall, laundry, carpet tear and damage to a curtain.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025 after the end of a 12-month fixed term tenancy. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $188.57 owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant does not dispute that she owes the rent arrears.
- The landlord has proven their claim for 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning and a pre let and exit inspection report and photos. The property was left in a very good clean condition. I do not accept that there was any need for further cleaning of the house nor the carpet.
- The landlord claimed for carpet cleaning and referred to stains on the carpet. However, the pre let photos clearly show stains and marks on the carpet. The tenant advised that she had to clean the carpets when she moved in because of the stains.
- The tenant sent emails to the landlord with attached photos showing stains on the carpets. The landlord confirmed that there were emails from the tenant at the start of the tenancy complaining of stains on the carpet and that she had to clean the carpet.
- The carpet was old and dated, the stains were on the carpet at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I am dismissing the carpet cleaning costs.
- The landlord claimed that the lawns were overgrown and needed mowing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided photos of the property at the end of the tenancy and the lawns were mown and tidy.
- I am dismissing the landlord claims for cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawn mowing for want of proof to support the claims.
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 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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) RTA.
- 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) RTA. 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) RTA.
- 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) RTA.
- 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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damage to a laundry wall. -Damage to a kitchen wall. -Damage to the carpet in bedroom. -Damage to a curtain hanging at the front door.
- The tenant provided proof that she advised the landlord at the start of the tenancy that there was damage to the kitchen wall. The tenant took a photo of the damage and sent it to the landlord. This was confirmed by the landlord, and they accept the damage was present before the tenancy commenced. The landlord withdrew the claim relating to the kitchen wall damage.
- The tenant claimed that the carpet tear was present at the start of the tenancy, but did not have proof of the tear. The landlord could not confirm nor deny that the tenant advised them of the tear.
- The laundry wall had a small dent in it from the back door hitting the wall. The tenant confirmed this had happened during the tenancy and was happy to pay for the repairs.
- The landlord provided a quote for the cost of the repair to the laundry wall and carpet repair.
- Even if I accepted that the tenant had damaged the laundry wall and caused a small tear in the carpet, the landlord has not carried out the repairs. The property has been re-tenanted without the work being done.
- In this case the landlord has not suffered any loss by paying for the repairs. In addition, the landlord accepted that the house was old and dated. She was unable to advise the age of the carpet and when the house had last been painted. This information is relevant when consideration is given for the depreciation costs.
- I am dismissing the claims for the cost of repairing wall damage in the laundry and carpet tear because the work has not been done and there is no evidence that the work will be done, now that the property has new tenants. Plus, it is likely that the carpet is old and beyond the normal life expectancy of carpet, despite it being servable at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord had intended to claim for the cost of a damaged curtain on the front door. The tenant claimed that it was sun damaged at the start of the tenancy and she took it down and put up her own curtains due to the poor condition of the existing curtain.
- The landlord withdrew that claim and accepted that this was normal wear and tear.
- While [The applicant/s] have been successful with their claim for rent arrears, all other claims have been dismissed. The rent arrears were never in dispute and therefore could have been sorted out without filing a claim in the Tribunal. For these reasons I am declining to award the filing fee to the landlord.
- For completeness I find the tenant to have been a good and careful tenant, who clearly cared for the property during the tenancy and who left the home in a more than reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The landlord applied for suppression of their name and details, and I will grant suppression. I am granting suppression to the tenant also. The tenant has successfully disputed the claims made against her with appropriate documentary evidence. There is no public interest in the name of the tenant being published.