What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352403 about?

The tribunal order states: Darcy Pona must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5352403?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,698.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352403?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12874276-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352403 about?

The tribunal order states: Darcy Pona must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5352403?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,698.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352403?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12874276-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 806B, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352403 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352403 — net $86.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31.08.2025	$1,698.67	Rent arrears to 31.08.2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$86.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$86.67

Order

Darcy Pona must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Woy Kwun Nugent C/O Duval Portfolio Management $86.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (6412212-010) to Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Woy Kwun Nugent C/O Duval Portfolio Management immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Odedra, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 162, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The onus is on the party making the claim to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
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.”

How much is owed for rent and power?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 31 August 2025, the end of the tenancy, which is $1,698.67.
The landlord claimed $473.18 initially for outgoings, power bills, then amended their claim for power bills to $524.06 during the hearing.
The landlord did not provide any power company invoices and provided one ledger of power transactions that did not start at the beginning of the tenancy and went to 4 September 2025, past the end of the tenancy and indicated a balance owing of $473.18 in that ledger, but did not explain why the amount claimed by the landlord for power rose to $524.06 during the hearing.
Given the landlord has not provided any power company invoices at all, nor have they explained the differences in amounts claimed for power with a ledger indicating the last invoice went past the end of the tenancy in any event, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for power bills and so dismiss this claim.

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. Broken tile
The landlord said the tenant dropped something on the shower floor in the bathroom and broke one of the tiles on the shower floor. The landlord provided photographs of a damaged tile and a photograph they said was taken on 15 December 2023, just before the tenancy began, where there was no damage on the shower floor.
The landlord claimed the insurance excess they said was $2,500.00 for the damage to the shower floor. Weekly rent was $410.00 so 4 weeks’ rent comes to $1,640.00.
From the photographs provided by the landlord, the entry inspection photograph being emailed in during the hearing, I find it is likely careless damage on the part of the tenant to a tile on the shower floor. As such, the tenant is liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord did not provide any quote or invoice as to the cost of repairing the damage to the shower floor tile, however. Nor did the landlord provide any written confirmation from a tradesperson, for example, of the repair work that would be required to fix the damage, as the property manager believed the whole floor would need to be replaced, when only one tile was broken.
As such, there was no additional supporting evidence of the extent of the required repairs that would have to be undertaken, nor was there any evidence of the cost of any such repair. Providing the insurance excess amount confirmation is insufficient evidence, as the repair cost could differ greatly from the insurance excess amount of $2,500.00. Further, as I find it to be careless damage, any award would have been the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent, which here would have been $1,640.00 at the most.
In any event, as the landlord did not provide additional supporting evidence of the extent of the required repairs nor of the cost of any such repairs, I find the landlord has not proved the amount claimed by them for compensation and so dismiss this claim. Filling fee
Because Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Woy Kwun Nugent C/O Duval Portfolio Management has been partly successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352403 — net $86.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31.08.2025	$1,698.67	Rent arrears to 31.08.2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$86.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$86.67

Order

Darcy Pona must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Woy Kwun Nugent C/O Duval Portfolio Management $86.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (6412212-010) to Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Woy Kwun Nugent C/O Duval Portfolio Management immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Odedra, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 162, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The onus is on the party making the claim to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
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.”

How much is owed for rent and power?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 31 August 2025, the end of the tenancy, which is $1,698.67.
The landlord claimed $473.18 initially for outgoings, power bills, then amended their claim for power bills to $524.06 during the hearing.
The landlord did not provide any power company invoices and provided one ledger of power transactions that did not start at the beginning of the tenancy and went to 4 September 2025, past the end of the tenancy and indicated a balance owing of $473.18 in that ledger, but did not explain why the amount claimed by the landlord for power rose to $524.06 during the hearing.
Given the landlord has not provided any power company invoices at all, nor have they explained the differences in amounts claimed for power with a ledger indicating the last invoice went past the end of the tenancy in any event, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for power bills and so dismiss this claim.

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. Broken tile
The landlord said the tenant dropped something on the shower floor in the bathroom and broke one of the tiles on the shower floor. The landlord provided photographs of a damaged tile and a photograph they said was taken on 15 December 2023, just before the tenancy began, where there was no damage on the shower floor.
The landlord claimed the insurance excess they said was $2,500.00 for the damage to the shower floor. Weekly rent was $410.00 so 4 weeks’ rent comes to $1,640.00.
From the photographs provided by the landlord, the entry inspection photograph being emailed in during the hearing, I find it is likely careless damage on the part of the tenant to a tile on the shower floor. As such, the tenant is liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord did not provide any quote or invoice as to the cost of repairing the damage to the shower floor tile, however. Nor did the landlord provide any written confirmation from a tradesperson, for example, of the repair work that would be required to fix the damage, as the property manager believed the whole floor would need to be replaced, when only one tile was broken.
As such, there was no additional supporting evidence of the extent of the required repairs that would have to be undertaken, nor was there any evidence of the cost of any such repair. Providing the insurance excess amount confirmation is insufficient evidence, as the repair cost could differ greatly from the insurance excess amount of $2,500.00. Further, as I find it to be careless damage, any award would have been the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent, which here would have been $1,640.00 at the most.
In any event, as the landlord did not provide additional supporting evidence of the extent of the required repairs nor of the cost of any such repairs, I find the landlord has not proved the amount claimed by them for compensation and so dismiss this claim. Filling fee
Because Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Woy Kwun Nugent C/O Duval Portfolio Management has been partly successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352403 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 806B, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352403 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 806B, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and power?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and power?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions