How much money was awarded in case 5359281?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $938.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $120.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13815453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5359281?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $938.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $120.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13815453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Nukumea Common, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359281 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359281 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 5359281 — net $440.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/08/2025	$938.57		3. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and carpet cleaning.
Water rates	$120.54		Water rates
Compensation: damaged items		$1,500.00	damaged items
Total award	$1,059.11	$1,500.00
Net award		$440.89
Bond		$2,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$440.89

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. The address itself is not suppressed.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $440.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 May 2026. The tenant attended in person and the landlord attended via teleconference. 5359281, 53703432

The tenancy was from 14 February 2025 until 16 August 2025.

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and carpet cleaning. There were also claims to do with rangehood and window stays, however, those were withdrawn by the landlord and were not considered at the hearing.

The tenant made a cross-application seeking for refund of the bond, and compensation for damaged personal property.

The tenant did not dispute owing $938.57 as rent arrears and $120.54 for water rates. The tenant explained that the payments had been withheld pending the resolution of this dispute.

The tenant opposed the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning and provided evidence of having had professional carpet cleaning done at the end of the tenancy.

After the carpet cleaning had been done, the landlord had drainage work carried out at the front of the house just 5 days after the tenancy ended.

The landlord was unable to provide any photos of the premises after the tenant’s professional carpet cleaning to prove that the carpet cleaning done by the tenant was inadequate. It was unclear whether the carpet required cleaning as a result of the drainage workers accessing the premises.

As the landlord could not prove this, the carpet claim is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for compensation for damaged personal property was based on the premises having mould and dampness issues.

Although the landlord tried to blame the tenant for not ventilating the premises, the photos of the mould supplied by the tenant during the short 6-month tenancy was evidence that the premises was suffering from some significant mould and dampness issues.

The position of the premises at the bottom of the driveway, evidence of water pooling by the outside wall and the fact that the landlord had drainage work carried out by the wall where mould and dampness issues was present are evidence that the issue was a structural one. I do not find that the mould and dampness issue was due to the tenant’s misuse of the premises or lack of ventilation done by the tenant.

The tenant had originally provided a list of items that were to be replaced due to mould damage. However, when the tenant was unable to provide original prices and the age of the items to calculate their depreciated values, the tenant decided to withdraw those items from the claim. In the end, the tenant sought around $1,500.00 for the furniture repair costs.

I find that the compensation is justified. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 as compensation for the fdamaged items. 5359281, 53703433

I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to maintain the premises despite having known that the premises was suffering from mould and dampness issues. Therefore, I do not order any exemplary damages against the landlord.

The bond held at the Bond Centre will be refunded in full to the tenant.

As both parties had some success with their respective applications, I do not order for either party to reimburse any filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359281 — net $440.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/08/2025	$938.57		3. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and carpet cleaning.
Water rates	$120.54		Water rates
Compensation: damaged items		$1,500.00	damaged items
Total award	$1,059.11	$1,500.00
Net award		$440.89
Bond		$2,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$440.89

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. The address itself is not suppressed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $440.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 May 2026. The tenant attended in person and the landlord attended via teleconference. 5359281, 53703432
The tenancy was from 14 February 2025 until 16 August 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and carpet cleaning. There were also claims to do with rangehood and window stays, however, those were withdrawn by the landlord and were not considered at the hearing.
The tenant made a cross-application seeking for refund of the bond, and compensation for damaged personal property.
The tenant did not dispute owing $938.57 as rent arrears and $120.54 for water rates. The tenant explained that the payments had been withheld pending the resolution of this dispute.
The tenant opposed the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning and provided evidence of having had professional carpet cleaning done at the end of the tenancy.
After the carpet cleaning had been done, the landlord had drainage work carried out at the front of the house just 5 days after the tenancy ended.
The landlord was unable to provide any photos of the premises after the tenant’s professional carpet cleaning to prove that the carpet cleaning done by the tenant was inadequate. It was unclear whether the carpet required cleaning as a result of the drainage workers accessing the premises.
As the landlord could not prove this, the carpet claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for damaged personal property was based on the premises having mould and dampness issues.
Although the landlord tried to blame the tenant for not ventilating the premises, the photos of the mould supplied by the tenant during the short 6-month tenancy was evidence that the premises was suffering from some significant mould and dampness issues.
The position of the premises at the bottom of the driveway, evidence of water pooling by the outside wall and the fact that the landlord had drainage work carried out by the wall where mould and dampness issues was present are evidence that the issue was a structural one. I do not find that the mould and dampness issue was due to the tenant’s misuse of the premises or lack of ventilation done by the tenant.
The tenant had originally provided a list of items that were to be replaced due to mould damage. However, when the tenant was unable to provide original prices and the age of the items to calculate their depreciated values, the tenant decided to withdraw those items from the claim. In the end, the tenant sought around $1,500.00 for the furniture repair costs.
I find that the compensation is justified. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 as compensation for the fdamaged items. 5359281, 53703433
I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to maintain the premises despite having known that the premises was suffering from mould and dampness issues. Therefore, I do not order any exemplary damages against the landlord.
The bond held at the Bond Centre will be refunded in full to the tenant.
As both parties had some success with their respective applications, I do not order for either party to reimburse any filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359281 — Property damage at 17 Nukumea Common, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359281 — Property damage at 17 Nukumea Common, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions