What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359585 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (6232715-004) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5359585?

Compensation: breach of obligation t…: $126.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $126.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359585?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13016981-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359585 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (6232715-004) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5359585?

Compensation: breach of obligation t…: $126.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $126.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359585?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13016981-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Merton Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359585 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359585 — net $126.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Wall repairs	$126.50		Wall repairs
Compensation: breach of obligation to complete entry inspection report		$126.50	breach of obligation to complete entry inspection report
Total award	$126.50	$126.50
Net award	$126.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$126.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (6232715-004) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have filed a cross application seeking refund of their bond, compensation and exemplary damages. Bond
A bond of $3,580.00 was paid by the tenants and remains held at the Bond Centre.
The tenancy ended on 25 September 2025.
The landlord’s total claim against the bond amounts to $598.00.
At the start of the hearing I expressed my extreme disappointment that the landlord has not taken steps to have the undisputed part of the bond released to the tenants. The result has been the tenants not having access to $3,000.00 of their money, for 4 months. They had to find a bond for their new tenancy, when they should have been able to largely cover it from the part of this bond the landlord makes no claim over.
The landlord says it could not have that aprt of the bond released. That is not correct. Section 22 RTA is clear that if either party applies for payment of the bond (or part of a bond) and the application is in favour of the other party, the chief executive must pay the bond (or part of it) accordingly.
So, all the landlord had to do was to send in a bond form to have $2,982.00 paid to the tenants and it would have happened.
It is very hard to see a reason for the landlord’s failure to do that, other than to make things difficult for the tenants.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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. 1
The tenants say they met that obligation.
The landlord says they did not and seeks compensation of $471.50 for cleaning costs incurred.
In support of its claim the landlord has provided photos from the start of the tenancy, from the final inspection done with Ms Issagulova, from an inspection done after further cleaning work was done by the tenants and from after the commercial cleaners had done their work.
The photos include some very close up images of a gas hob and some corners and surfaces which were not spotless. Reasonable, not immaculate, is the condition in which tenants are required to leave the premises. 1 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
Overall, the evidence does not prove that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s claim would require the tenants to pay all costs to have the premises made ready for a new tenancy. Again, that is not the tenants’ obligation. It is not unreasonable for the owner to meet a cost of $471.50 to have the premises “refreshed” for a new tenancy to begin.
That claim is declined. It is not therefore necessary for me to consider whether the landlord met its obligation to mitigate the claimed loss by being clear with the tenants about what additional cleaning was expected and giving them a chance to do it.
I also note that the cleaning invoice provided by the landlord simply says “Cleaning - $471.50”. Without any indication of what work that was done, how long it took and at what hourly rate, it is very difficult for the Tribunal to make a an assessment of whether the compensation claimed, based on that invoice, is fair.

Are the tenants 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 tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage 2 .
The landlord claims compensation of $126.50 as compensation for the cost of repairing damage to a wall surface where a small basketball hoop had been put up. An invoice has been provided in respect of that work.
The tenants say that they were not provided proper information about that damage or given fair opportunity to fix it themselves, in breach of the landlord’s obligation to mitigate loss 3 .
The tenants do however accept that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants accept that even if they had been given the chance to arrange the repair themselves, they would have needed to get a tradesperson in. I think it very unlikely that any tradesperson arranged by the tenants could have done the work at a lower cost.
So, my view is that even if the landlord did not do all it ought to have to let them fix the damage themselves, no loss was caused to the tenants by that failure. 2 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See s.49 RTA
The landlord should be compensated for the cost of repairing that damage the tenants were responsible for. Tenants’ claims
The tenants bring claims for compensation and exemplary damages based on the view that the landlord wrongly retained their bond and brought wrongful claims against them.
As discussed during the hearing, the Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to make awards based on its view of parties’ behaviour. Any claim for compensation must first prove a breach of the landlord’s legal obligations to the tenants 4 . Any claim for exemplary damages must first establish than an unlawful act was committed intentionally 5 .
The landlord is entitled to a view that it should be compensated for breaches of the tenants’ obligations. The tenants are entitled to disagree. It is the Tribunal’s role to resolve that disagreement.
I have clearly expressed my view about the fairness of the landlord’s failure to release the undisputed bond. But that is not a breach of the RTA so cannot form the basis for an award of compensation.
The tenants are aggrieved at what they say is the landlord’s knowledge of Tribunal processes and refusal to enter into negotiations to resolve the dispute, which they say was intended to pressure them onto accepting the landlord’s claims.
The evidence shows that the landlord did advise the tenants it would be asking the Tribunal to determine the dispute and did spell out what that process involved, including publication of the outcome. I do not interpret that as intimidation.
The length of time it has taken for these claims to be heard has been longer than usual because when the tenants filed their cross application it became clear that the time initially scheduled to hear the landlord’s claims would not be enough to hear them both, so a new hearing date needed to be allocated. The landlord is not responsible for that delay.
The landlord acknowledges having declined to engage in mediation. It says it did so because the parties didn’t agree. That of course is the whole point of mediation. If the parties agreed mediation would not be necessary. The landlord’s approach shows, with respect, a distinct lack of insight into the 4 S.77(2)(n) 5 S.109(3) RTA effectiveness of mediation and the statistically very high probability that the dispute could be resolved quickly and effectively with a mediators’ help.
But, no party can be compelled to attend mediation so that is not a breach of the landlord’s obligations for which compensation or exemplary damages can be awarded.
The tenant’s application cites breach of s.60AA RTA as a basis on which exemplary damages should be awarded. That section is to do with unlawfully ending tenancies and has no application here.
Finally, the tenants claim that the landlord breached its own agreement which requires that 6 : “Property Inspection Report: At the time occupation the tenant shall complete a property inspection report in conjunction with the landlord or landlord’s agent expressly detailing the standard of cleanliness and maintenance requirements of the tenanted property....”
The landlord says that is not its practice. Instead, the landlord takes entry inspection photographs and encourages tenants to do the same. The landlord says it does this because, if there is a dispute, the Tribunal prefers to rely on photos rather than written inspection reports.
Nevertheless, the landlord has breached its own agreement. The Tribunal must consider whether to award compensation for that breach 7 .
The tenants say that the lack of a pre tenancy inspection report led to this dispute and the inability to resolve it. I am not persuaded that is the case. The dispute is about whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the wall damage happened during the tenancy. It seems unlikely that the existence of an entry inspection report would have altered the parties’ positions on those issues.
It is difficult to see a direct loss caused to the tenant by the landlord’s breach.
I do however accept that from the tenant’s perspective it reinforced the concern that the landlord was stringent about requiring the tenants to meet their obligations but much more relaxed about meeting its own.
In my view a fair outcome is to award the tenants general compensation for that breach, equal to the compensation awarded to the landlord for wall damage so the bond can be released to the tenants with no payment between the parties required.
No order is made regarding the filing fee paid by each of them. 6 Clause 26 7 S.77(2)(n) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359585 — net $126.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Wall repairs	$126.50		Wall repairs
Compensation: breach of obligation to complete entry inspection report		$126.50	breach of obligation to complete entry inspection report
Total award	$126.50	$126.50
Net award	$126.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$126.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (6232715-004) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have filed a cross application seeking refund of their bond, compensation and exemplary damages. Bond
A bond of $3,580.00 was paid by the tenants and remains held at the Bond Centre.
The tenancy ended on 25 September 2025.
The landlord’s total claim against the bond amounts to $598.00.
At the start of the hearing I expressed my extreme disappointment that the landlord has not taken steps to have the undisputed part of the bond released to the tenants. The result has been the tenants not having access to $3,000.00 of their money, for 4 months. They had to find a bond for their new tenancy, when they should have been able to largely cover it from the part of this bond the landlord makes no claim over.
The landlord says it could not have that aprt of the bond released. That is not correct. Section 22 RTA is clear that if either party applies for payment of the bond (or part of a bond) and the application is in favour of the other party, the chief executive must pay the bond (or part of it) accordingly.
So, all the landlord had to do was to send in a bond form to have $2,982.00 paid to the tenants and it would have happened.
It is very hard to see a reason for the landlord’s failure to do that, other than to make things difficult for the tenants.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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. 1
The tenants say they met that obligation.
The landlord says they did not and seeks compensation of $471.50 for cleaning costs incurred.
In support of its claim the landlord has provided photos from the start of the tenancy, from the final inspection done with Ms Issagulova, from an inspection done after further cleaning work was done by the tenants and from after the commercial cleaners had done their work.
The photos include some very close up images of a gas hob and some corners and surfaces which were not spotless. Reasonable, not immaculate, is the condition in which tenants are required to leave the premises. 1 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
Overall, the evidence does not prove that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s claim would require the tenants to pay all costs to have the premises made ready for a new tenancy. Again, that is not the tenants’ obligation. It is not unreasonable for the owner to meet a cost of $471.50 to have the premises “refreshed” for a new tenancy to begin.
That claim is declined. It is not therefore necessary for me to consider whether the landlord met its obligation to mitigate the claimed loss by being clear with the tenants about what additional cleaning was expected and giving them a chance to do it.
I also note that the cleaning invoice provided by the landlord simply says “Cleaning - $471.50”. Without any indication of what work that was done, how long it took and at what hourly rate, it is very difficult for the Tribunal to make a an assessment of whether the compensation claimed, based on that invoice, is fair.

Are the tenants 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 tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage 2 .
The landlord claims compensation of $126.50 as compensation for the cost of repairing damage to a wall surface where a small basketball hoop had been put up. An invoice has been provided in respect of that work.
The tenants say that they were not provided proper information about that damage or given fair opportunity to fix it themselves, in breach of the landlord’s obligation to mitigate loss 3 .
The tenants do however accept that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants accept that even if they had been given the chance to arrange the repair themselves, they would have needed to get a tradesperson in. I think it very unlikely that any tradesperson arranged by the tenants could have done the work at a lower cost.
So, my view is that even if the landlord did not do all it ought to have to let them fix the damage themselves, no loss was caused to the tenants by that failure. 2 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See s.49 RTA
The landlord should be compensated for the cost of repairing that damage the tenants were responsible for. Tenants’ claims
The tenants bring claims for compensation and exemplary damages based on the view that the landlord wrongly retained their bond and brought wrongful claims against them.
As discussed during the hearing, the Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to make awards based on its view of parties’ behaviour. Any claim for compensation must first prove a breach of the landlord’s legal obligations to the tenants 4 . Any claim for exemplary damages must first establish than an unlawful act was committed intentionally 5 .
The landlord is entitled to a view that it should be compensated for breaches of the tenants’ obligations. The tenants are entitled to disagree. It is the Tribunal’s role to resolve that disagreement.
I have clearly expressed my view about the fairness of the landlord’s failure to release the undisputed bond. But that is not a breach of the RTA so cannot form the basis for an award of compensation.
The tenants are aggrieved at what they say is the landlord’s knowledge of Tribunal processes and refusal to enter into negotiations to resolve the dispute, which they say was intended to pressure them onto accepting the landlord’s claims.
The evidence shows that the landlord did advise the tenants it would be asking the Tribunal to determine the dispute and did spell out what that process involved, including publication of the outcome. I do not interpret that as intimidation.
The length of time it has taken for these claims to be heard has been longer than usual because when the tenants filed their cross application it became clear that the time initially scheduled to hear the landlord’s claims would not be enough to hear them both, so a new hearing date needed to be allocated. The landlord is not responsible for that delay.
The landlord acknowledges having declined to engage in mediation. It says it did so because the parties didn’t agree. That of course is the whole point of mediation. If the parties agreed mediation would not be necessary. The landlord’s approach shows, with respect, a distinct lack of insight into the 4 S.77(2)(n) 5 S.109(3) RTA effectiveness of mediation and the statistically very high probability that the dispute could be resolved quickly and effectively with a mediators’ help.
But, no party can be compelled to attend mediation so that is not a breach of the landlord’s obligations for which compensation or exemplary damages can be awarded.
The tenant’s application cites breach of s.60AA RTA as a basis on which exemplary damages should be awarded. That section is to do with unlawfully ending tenancies and has no application here.
Finally, the tenants claim that the landlord breached its own agreement which requires that 6 : “Property Inspection Report: At the time occupation the tenant shall complete a property inspection report in conjunction with the landlord or landlord’s agent expressly detailing the standard of cleanliness and maintenance requirements of the tenanted property....”
The landlord says that is not its practice. Instead, the landlord takes entry inspection photographs and encourages tenants to do the same. The landlord says it does this because, if there is a dispute, the Tribunal prefers to rely on photos rather than written inspection reports.
Nevertheless, the landlord has breached its own agreement. The Tribunal must consider whether to award compensation for that breach 7 .
The tenants say that the lack of a pre tenancy inspection report led to this dispute and the inability to resolve it. I am not persuaded that is the case. The dispute is about whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the wall damage happened during the tenancy. It seems unlikely that the existence of an entry inspection report would have altered the parties’ positions on those issues.
It is difficult to see a direct loss caused to the tenant by the landlord’s breach.
I do however accept that from the tenant’s perspective it reinforced the concern that the landlord was stringent about requiring the tenants to meet their obligations but much more relaxed about meeting its own.
In my view a fair outcome is to award the tenants general compensation for that breach, equal to the compensation awarded to the landlord for wall damage so the bond can be released to the tenants with no payment between the parties required.
No order is made regarding the filing fee paid by each of them. 6 Clause 26 7 S.77(2)(n) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359585 — Property damage at 5 Merton Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359585 — Property damage at 5 Merton Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.