How much money was awarded in case 5356563?

Cleaning: $6.93 awarded to landlord; Exit Mould: $4.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $369.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356563?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13045988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5356563?

Cleaning: $6.93 awarded to landlord; Exit Mould: $4.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $369.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356563?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13045988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2A McCullough Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356563 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356563 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356563 — net $1,209.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exit mould	$4.93	Exit mould
Dishwasher cleaner	$6.93	Dishwasher cleaner
Replacement curtains	$369.60	Replacement curtains
Vanity replacement	$250.00	Vanity replacement
Repair damage to lounge walls	$550.00	Repair damage to lounge walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,209.46
Bond	$1,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,209.46

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,209.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,209.46 [The tenant/s]: $530.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims the cost of cheaper curtains for the 6 curtains that she says the tenant left in a dirty condition. She showed evidence that the cost of these replacements was less than the $828.00 it would have cost to have the original curtains drycleaned.

The photographs show that the curtains were not left reasonably clean. The tenant is required to pay the cost of the curtain replacements, given that this was a cheaper alternative than having them cleaned.

At today’s hearing the tenant accepted that she ought to pay the cost of the exit mould and the cost of the dishwasher cleaner.

The amounts ordered are proved with invoices.

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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional.

The tenant made holes in 3 walls of the lounge to put up pictures. This damage is clearly intentional.

While the tenant claims that the water damage to the vanity was fair wear and tear, I consider that the extent of the damage, which was not apparent during inspections, was not fair wear and tear and was most likely caused carelessly.

In making the monetary orders, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Filing fee reimbursement

I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful with the claim against her. Suppression of names

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of her name because she was substantially successful with her claim against the tenant.

I am also allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of her name. I do so because I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant was an exemplary tenant. It would therefore be unfair that future landlords may well be deterred from accepting her as a tenant because her name appeared as a respondent in a Tenancy Tribunal case. Further, she genuinely disputed the claim and this was not just a case of a tenant failing to pay. C ter Haar 29 January 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356563 — net $1,209.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exit mould	$4.93	Exit mould
Dishwasher cleaner	$6.93	Dishwasher cleaner
Replacement curtains	$369.60	Replacement curtains
Vanity replacement	$250.00	Vanity replacement
Repair damage to lounge walls	$550.00	Repair damage to lounge walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,209.46
Bond	$1,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,209.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,209.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,209.46 [The tenant/s]: $530.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the cost of cheaper curtains for the 6 curtains that she says the tenant left in a dirty condition. She showed evidence that the cost of these replacements was less than the $828.00 it would have cost to have the original curtains drycleaned.
The photographs show that the curtains were not left reasonably clean. The tenant is required to pay the cost of the curtain replacements, given that this was a cheaper alternative than having them cleaned.
At today’s hearing the tenant accepted that she ought to pay the cost of the exit mould and the cost of the dishwasher cleaner.
The amounts ordered are proved with invoices.

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional.
The tenant made holes in 3 walls of the lounge to put up pictures. This damage is clearly intentional.
While the tenant claims that the water damage to the vanity was fair wear and tear, I consider that the extent of the damage, which was not apparent during inspections, was not fair wear and tear and was most likely caused carelessly.
In making the monetary orders, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful with the claim against her. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of her name because she was substantially successful with her claim against the tenant.
I am also allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of her name. I do so because I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant was an exemplary tenant. It would therefore be unfair that future landlords may well be deterred from accepting her as a tenant because her name appeared as a respondent in a Tenancy Tribunal case. Further, she genuinely disputed the claim and this was not just a case of a tenant failing to pay. C ter Haar 29 January 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356563 — Property damage at 2A McCullough Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356563 — Property damage at 2A McCullough Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions