What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361203 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5361203?

Break Lease Costs: $1,251.67 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $472.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Hob Scraper: $11.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,607.06 awarded to landlord; Shower Dome: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $172.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361203?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13606504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361203 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5361203?

Break Lease Costs: $1,251.67 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $472.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Hob Scraper: $11.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,607.06 awarded to landlord; Shower Dome: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $172.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361203?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13606504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

39A Killarney Avenue, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361203 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361203 — net $1,553.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 September 2025	$2,607.06	Rent arrears to 27 September 2025
Water rates	$172.35	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: Garden waste & weeding	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Garden waste & weeding
Cleaning	$472.50	Cleaning
Hob scraper	$11.90	Hob scraper
Repairs: Shower dome	$60.00	Repairs: Shower dome
Break lease costs	$1,251.67	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,553.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,553.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Mandi Ruzaan de Villiers and Rulandi Charle de Villiers must pay [The landlord/s] $1,553.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 15 May 2026.
The tenancy began on 2 February 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 2 February 2027.
The parties attended mediation, and an order sealed on 18 July 2025 1 records that the tenancy was to end on 15 October 2025.
The parties agreed for the tenancy to end earlier on 27 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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, 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: hob scraper.
The landlord claimed for weeding, garden waste disposal and lawn mowing. There was insufficient evidence that the lawns needed mowing. I have estimated the amount of time required for the weeding and garden waste disposal after considering the evidence produced.
The landlord claimed for cleaning to the concrete area in the carport. There was no photograph of the concrete from the beginning of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence that the tenants caused this damage. That claim is dismissed. 1 TT5277059
The landlord claimed for damage to the berm on the side of the road next to the footpath. This is outside the premises and next to a shared driveway. I was told that there was CCTV evidence from the neighbours who live at the far end of the driveway, but this was not produced.
I am not satisfied that these tenants are liable for damage to the berm which is on council land and where there is no evidence to support that the tenants caused the damage. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for repairs to the shower dome. The tenant confirmed that it had come loose at the beginning of the tenancy, and they slid it back in place. The landlord said that the part was on the floor next to the shower at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenants should be liable for the cost of repair.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs but needed to employ an electrician to do so. The light bulbs replaced were not standard light bulbs. The tenant is only liable for standard light bulbs that do not require special tools or knowledge to replace and are easily accessible. I am not satisfied that the bulbs that needed replacing were standard or able to be replace by the tenants.
The landlord claimed in relation to the smoke alarm batteries. The tenant had reported that there were problems with the smoke alarm when she reported the leak in the laundry. The landlord asked the tenant to replace the batteries, but the tenancy agreement records that the smoke alarms are long-life photoelectric smoke alarms with a total battery life when installed of at least eight years or a hard-wired smoke alarm system. The landlord could not advise when the smoke alarm was installed.
The landlord confirmed that the smoke alarm was not working, and their electrician advised that it should be replaced.
The tenant had raised the issue with the smoke alarm in April 2025 and while the landlord asked her to replace the batteries, this should not have been necessary. The smoke alarm was replaced by the landlord in October 2025. The landlord claim in relation to the smoke alarm is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for a plumber call out which they say was not necessary. The tenant said that she had reported that the dishwasher was not working and when the appliance person attended, he tightened the motor.
The invoice is only for the call out fee and does not record that any repairs were required. It is for this reason that the landlord considers that the tenant should be responsible for the call out fee. There is no other evidence produced.
The Act requires that the tenant shall notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of the need for any repairs 2 . I am satisfied that the tenant has 2 Section 40(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 done so on this occasion. Tenants are not responsible for the cost of a contractor’s call-out if they reported a genuine issue in good faith, even if the contractor does not find a fault at the time of inspection. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks the reimbursement of the insurance excess for damage caused by a leak in the laundry. The tenant reported the issues that she noticed in April 2025.
Because of the extent of the damage the landlord has the view that the tenant has failed to report the issue within a timely manner. There is no evidence to support this.
The insurance claim was accepted although the landlord did not provide any evidence from the insurance company. When asked how the damage occurred the landlord said that it must have been due to a leaking tap, and she produced a photograph of the tap with a droplet of water above the laundry tub. I cannot see how this would cause damage to the walls in the laundry.
The tenant is only liable for damage to the premises if it was caused intentionally or by a careless act 3 . The onus is on the landlord to prove the damage was not fair wear and tear and that it was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional act.
If the damage was caused by the leaking tap, then it is due to fair wear and tear. If it was caused by something else, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant was careless or caused the damage intentionally. The claim for the insurance excess is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the ducting for the drier in the laundry which was missing at the end of the tenancy. There were repairs carried out in the laundry and the tenant reported that the builders disposed of the ducting. The tenant is not responsible for this. Break lease fee
In the order sealed on 18 July 2025 it records that there was agreement that the tenants would be responsible for the costs incurred in reletting the property, namely the cost to advertise the property, the cost to meth test the property at the end of the tenancy, the cost incurred in credit checking of prospective tenants, and any actual and reasonable costs incurred in administration.
The landlord produced invoices for advertising ($281.75), meth test ($278.42) and credit check ($241.50). For document preparation I have allowed $50.00, for open homes (4) I have allowed $200.00 and for communication, $200.00 3 Section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which I consider to be reasonable costs. The total awarded for the costs of reletting the property is $1,251.67.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the names of the landlords are suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361203 — net $1,553.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 September 2025	$2,607.06	Rent arrears to 27 September 2025
Water rates	$172.35	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: Garden waste & weeding	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Garden waste & weeding
Cleaning	$472.50	Cleaning
Hob scraper	$11.90	Hob scraper
Repairs: Shower dome	$60.00	Repairs: Shower dome
Break lease costs	$1,251.67	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,553.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,553.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Mandi Ruzaan de Villiers and Rulandi Charle de Villiers must pay [The landlord/s] $1,553.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 15 May 2026.
The tenancy began on 2 February 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 2 February 2027.
The parties attended mediation, and an order sealed on 18 July 2025 1 records that the tenancy was to end on 15 October 2025.
The parties agreed for the tenancy to end earlier on 27 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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, 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: hob scraper.
The landlord claimed for weeding, garden waste disposal and lawn mowing. There was insufficient evidence that the lawns needed mowing. I have estimated the amount of time required for the weeding and garden waste disposal after considering the evidence produced.
The landlord claimed for cleaning to the concrete area in the carport. There was no photograph of the concrete from the beginning of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence that the tenants caused this damage. That claim is dismissed. 1 TT5277059
The landlord claimed for damage to the berm on the side of the road next to the footpath. This is outside the premises and next to a shared driveway. I was told that there was CCTV evidence from the neighbours who live at the far end of the driveway, but this was not produced.
I am not satisfied that these tenants are liable for damage to the berm which is on council land and where there is no evidence to support that the tenants caused the damage. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for repairs to the shower dome. The tenant confirmed that it had come loose at the beginning of the tenancy, and they slid it back in place. The landlord said that the part was on the floor next to the shower at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenants should be liable for the cost of repair.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs but needed to employ an electrician to do so. The light bulbs replaced were not standard light bulbs. The tenant is only liable for standard light bulbs that do not require special tools or knowledge to replace and are easily accessible. I am not satisfied that the bulbs that needed replacing were standard or able to be replace by the tenants.
The landlord claimed in relation to the smoke alarm batteries. The tenant had reported that there were problems with the smoke alarm when she reported the leak in the laundry. The landlord asked the tenant to replace the batteries, but the tenancy agreement records that the smoke alarms are long-life photoelectric smoke alarms with a total battery life when installed of at least eight years or a hard-wired smoke alarm system. The landlord could not advise when the smoke alarm was installed.
The landlord confirmed that the smoke alarm was not working, and their electrician advised that it should be replaced.
The tenant had raised the issue with the smoke alarm in April 2025 and while the landlord asked her to replace the batteries, this should not have been necessary. The smoke alarm was replaced by the landlord in October 2025. The landlord claim in relation to the smoke alarm is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for a plumber call out which they say was not necessary. The tenant said that she had reported that the dishwasher was not working and when the appliance person attended, he tightened the motor.
The invoice is only for the call out fee and does not record that any repairs were required. It is for this reason that the landlord considers that the tenant should be responsible for the call out fee. There is no other evidence produced.
The Act requires that the tenant shall notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of the need for any repairs 2 . I am satisfied that the tenant has 2 Section 40(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 done so on this occasion. Tenants are not responsible for the cost of a contractor’s call-out if they reported a genuine issue in good faith, even if the contractor does not find a fault at the time of inspection. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks the reimbursement of the insurance excess for damage caused by a leak in the laundry. The tenant reported the issues that she noticed in April 2025.
Because of the extent of the damage the landlord has the view that the tenant has failed to report the issue within a timely manner. There is no evidence to support this.
The insurance claim was accepted although the landlord did not provide any evidence from the insurance company. When asked how the damage occurred the landlord said that it must have been due to a leaking tap, and she produced a photograph of the tap with a droplet of water above the laundry tub. I cannot see how this would cause damage to the walls in the laundry.
The tenant is only liable for damage to the premises if it was caused intentionally or by a careless act 3 . The onus is on the landlord to prove the damage was not fair wear and tear and that it was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional act.
If the damage was caused by the leaking tap, then it is due to fair wear and tear. If it was caused by something else, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant was careless or caused the damage intentionally. The claim for the insurance excess is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the ducting for the drier in the laundry which was missing at the end of the tenancy. There were repairs carried out in the laundry and the tenant reported that the builders disposed of the ducting. The tenant is not responsible for this. Break lease fee
In the order sealed on 18 July 2025 it records that there was agreement that the tenants would be responsible for the costs incurred in reletting the property, namely the cost to advertise the property, the cost to meth test the property at the end of the tenancy, the cost incurred in credit checking of prospective tenants, and any actual and reasonable costs incurred in administration.
The landlord produced invoices for advertising ($281.75), meth test ($278.42) and credit check ($241.50). For document preparation I have allowed $50.00, for open homes (4) I have allowed $200.00 and for communication, $200.00 3 Section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which I consider to be reasonable costs. The total awarded for the costs of reletting the property is $1,251.67.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the names of the landlords are suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361203 — Rent arrears at 39A Killarney Avenue, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361203 — Rent arrears at 39A Killarney Avenue, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions