Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5353508 — Rent arrears
Decided 18 Feb 2026 · Published 18 Feb 2026 · Application 5353508
- 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 parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
- By consent, the parties agree that the bond of $2,400.00 has already been released to the landlord prior to the hearing, and that the rent arrears up to 24 April 2025 of $1,640.00 and car parking charges to the end of the tenancy totalling $562.22, both agreed as owed by the tenant to the landlord, are to be deducted from the bond.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- [The property manager/s], representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], all attended the video conference/teleconference hearing.
- At the start of the hearing, the landlord agreed to change the name of the company as landlord in the application to reflect the same company name as the landlord in the tenancy agreement. The property manager said these companies are related.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- During the hearing, the landlord withdrew their compensation claims for maintenance costs and for painting the walls. Burden of proof and evidence
- The onus is on the party making a claim to prove the claim 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.”
- Where the parties differ about an issue, each party must provide additional supporting evidence of their own position. Background
- The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 24 April 2025.
- The landlord acknowledged they have already received the full bond of $2,400.00 prior to the hearing. As such, the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond is dismissed.
- The landlord claimed rent arrears of $1,640.15 to 24 April 2025 and provided rent records to this effect. The tenant agreed that he owed this amount in rent arrears to the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord also claimed a total of $562.22 to the end of the tenancy for two car park fees, which the tenant also agreed he owed the landlord for the two car park fees.
- As such, by consent, the parties agree that the bond of $2,400.00 has already been released to the landlord prior to the hearing, and that the rent arrears up to 24 April 2025 of $1,640.00 and car parking charges to the end of the tenancy totalling $562.22, both agreed as owned by the tenant to the landlord, are to be deducted from the bond.
- The tenant said that, in emails with the property manager at the time he left the tenancy, dated 22 May 2025, he understood that the landlord was to receive the full bond of $2,400.00 and that he was then told he had to pay an additional $647.93 to cover additional outstanding charges that exceeded the bond. [The tenant/s] said the additional outstanding charges of $647.93 not covered by the bond were not detailed or specified to him. He understood that the bond itself would cover all his rent arrears and car parking charges.
- The tenant said he paid the additional $647.93 requested of him by the landlord in addition to giving the landlord the full bond and he provided a screenshot that he paid $647.93 on 26 May 2025 to the landlord’s account. The tenant believed that, in paying this, he had covered all outstanding issues with the landlord at the end of the tenancy. He said that 4 months after the tenancy ended, he received more correspondence from the landlord saying they were making further claims against him. The tenant said there was no final inspection carried out at the end of his tenancy. He believed the invoices provided for cleaning and cleaning a sofa were backdated, as he said he left the property reasonable clean and tidy. Cleaning and sofa clean
- The landlord claimed $224.25 to steam clean a sofa and $885.50 to clean the apartment at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord did not provide an Entry Inspection Report with photographs, nor did they provide an Exit Inspection Report. However, the landlord provided some photographs and invoices.
- The landlord pointed to photographs provided of the sofa showing stains on the sofa. However, there were no photographs provided of the same sofa at the start of the tenancy to show the condition of the sofa then to indicate that the steam cleaning of the sofa was required. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of this claim and so dismiss this claim.
- The landlord also highlighted photographs of some items left at the property at the end of the tenancy including some herbs and spices, laundry items and a few other items. Whilst this would ordinarily be considered rubbish removal, there was no line item or narrative on the invoice provided by the landlord for cleaning, to indicate any rubbish removal or disposal of any discarded items.
- The tenant acknowledged he may have left some herbs and laundry items after he cleaned up, by mistake. However, he believed all outstanding charges had been covered in him giving the landlord the full bond as well as the additional payment he made to the landlord in excess of the bond, of $647.93. The date of the landlord’s cleaning invoice was 8 May 2025 and so pre-dated the email chain dated 22 May 2025 where the property manager then asked the tenant to pay an additional $647.93 to cover outstanding charges in addition to the bond, the details of which were not provided by the property manager. The current property manager at the hearing said he was not involved with the tenancy then and so did not know when the cleaning was done, had no record of a final inspection, and did not know whether the previous property manager had included the cleaning invoice dated 8 May 2025 in his outstanding charges of $647.93 that the tenant paid in addition to the full bond. Further, the property manager said that, whilst there were photographs of some discarded items, he did not have any information about the cleaning that may have been required, by way of photographs of any dirty areas, for example.
- Given the evidence where there were photographs of discarded items, but rubbish removal was not on the cleaning invoice and the property manager was unsure as to whether this removal of the discarded items and the cleaning invoice were included in the outstanding charges of $647.93 that the tenant paid in addition to the full bond, and the lack of evidence about the requirement for the cleaning cost, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of the cleaning claim and so dismiss this claim. Filing fee
- As the landlord has not been substantially successful with the claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
- Both parties requested name suppression. As the parties had agreed as to the release of the bond to cover several issues before the hearing, and as the rest of the claims have been dismissed, I find that the parties’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.