What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358593 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5358593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358593?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12997964-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358593 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5358593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358593?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12997964-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Burundi Avenue, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358593 — Property damage

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Keshwan, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 459, was called without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended in their records on 3 July 2025, as that is when they gained possession of the property. However, an earlier Tribunal order dated 4 November 2025 in application 5260880 found it likely the tenancy ended around 9 or 10 April 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making a claim must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not 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.”

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $2,350.00 for rubbish removal costs and provided an invoice in this amount.
The landlord said the property was abandoned by the tenant and was left in a bad state. They said the tenant confirmed with them they could dispose of any items remaining at the property.
The landlord did not provide any Inspection reports or photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, that might indicate the requirement for the landlord to incur rubbish removal costs.
The landlord commented in their tenancy application form that their inspection reports were “too large to send”. However, the landlord is a professional property management firm. Parties can provide inspection reports and photographs directly to the remote registry of the Tribunal for their application evidence, if they are unable to upload documents directly, which is commonly done by property management firms. I do not accept that the landlord was not able to provide any photographs of the condition of the property, as photographs could easily have been provided, and are regularly done so by parties.
As the landlord has not provided any photographs or inspection reports showing the condition of the property, I find they have provided insufficient evidence to prove their rubbish removal claim 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.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy, which required repairs: a. Repairing holes in walls. b. Removing damaged carpet and floorboards in the laundry area and installing new floorboards. c. Removing vinyl from the kitchen floor and installing timber floorboards. d. Installing a rangehood and cutting off old brackets. e. Removing damaged roof and wall from back entrance. f. Tighten vanity tap, supply and install shower tray and installing vinyl back in the damaged area.
As per the above comments about the landlord’s rubbish removal claim, the landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $2,999.00 for these compensation and damages claims. Also, part of the landlord’s first invoice relating to rubbish removal also contained a line item for repairing holes in walls in the amount of $1,000.00. However, the landlord did not provide any inspection reports or photographs that showed any of these areas or the issues requiring repairs, that could have indicated the requirement for the landlord to incur the repair costs, at the end of the tenancy, as claimed.
Therefore, as the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claims, I dismiss their compensation claims. Filing fee
As all the landlord’s claims have been dismissed, they are not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. However, they have not been successful with the claim, nor was there any evidence provided as to why the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. As such, I do not grant the landlord name suppression. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Keshwan, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 459, was called without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended in their records on 3 July 2025, as that is when they gained possession of the property. However, an earlier Tribunal order dated 4 November 2025 in application 5260880 found it likely the tenancy ended around 9 or 10 April 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making a claim must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not 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.”

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $2,350.00 for rubbish removal costs and provided an invoice in this amount.
The landlord said the property was abandoned by the tenant and was left in a bad state. They said the tenant confirmed with them they could dispose of any items remaining at the property.
The landlord did not provide any Inspection reports or photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, that might indicate the requirement for the landlord to incur rubbish removal costs.
The landlord commented in their tenancy application form that their inspection reports were “too large to send”. However, the landlord is a professional property management firm. Parties can provide inspection reports and photographs directly to the remote registry of the Tribunal for their application evidence, if they are unable to upload documents directly, which is commonly done by property management firms. I do not accept that the landlord was not able to provide any photographs of the condition of the property, as photographs could easily have been provided, and are regularly done so by parties.
As the landlord has not provided any photographs or inspection reports showing the condition of the property, I find they have provided insufficient evidence to prove their rubbish removal claim 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.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy, which required repairs: a. Repairing holes in walls. b. Removing damaged carpet and floorboards in the laundry area and installing new floorboards. c. Removing vinyl from the kitchen floor and installing timber floorboards. d. Installing a rangehood and cutting off old brackets. e. Removing damaged roof and wall from back entrance. f. Tighten vanity tap, supply and install shower tray and installing vinyl back in the damaged area.
As per the above comments about the landlord’s rubbish removal claim, the landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $2,999.00 for these compensation and damages claims. Also, part of the landlord’s first invoice relating to rubbish removal also contained a line item for repairing holes in walls in the amount of $1,000.00. However, the landlord did not provide any inspection reports or photographs that showed any of these areas or the issues requiring repairs, that could have indicated the requirement for the landlord to incur the repair costs, at the end of the tenancy, as claimed.
Therefore, as the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claims, I dismiss their compensation claims. Filing fee
As all the landlord’s claims have been dismissed, they are not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. However, they have not been successful with the claim, nor was there any evidence provided as to why the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. As such, I do not grant the landlord name suppression. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358593 — Property damage at 27 Burundi Avenue, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358593 — Property damage at 27 Burundi Avenue, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

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

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