What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367826 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 5367826?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $422.50 awarded to landlord; Outdoor Light: $62.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $39.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367826?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367826 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 5367826?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $422.50 awarded to landlord; Outdoor Light: $62.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $39.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367826?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1, Unit/Flat 18, 17 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367826 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367826 — net $552.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$422.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: outdoor light	$62.50	Repairs: outdoor light
Replace smoke alarms	$39.98	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$552.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$552.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jamie Mackay must pay [The landlord/s] $552.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for cleaning, a methamphetamine test and the vertical blind replacement are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not request to be admitted to the video conference at the scheduled time, and did not answer the three calls that were made to the telephone number provided to the Tribunal at the scheduled time.
The tenant has been served notice of the hearing to his e-mail address, which is an address for service on his tenancy agreement. Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (the “RTA”), I conducted the hearing in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

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) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. Cleaning and methamphetamine test
The landlord is claiming $368.00 for cleaning. No photographs in support of this claim were provided as part of the application. Without visual information before me, it is impossible for me to determine whether on not the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought to submit photographs during the hearing to the remote.tenancy e-mail and I allowed this. However even after a short time after the allocated time, the photographs had not been uploaded to the landlord’s file. The landlord explained that they had had difficulty uploading information to the file. This is a problem that parties’ occasionally experience, and it is important they resolve this prior to a hearing so that all their supporting information is before the Tribunal before the hearing begins. I note this application was filed in October 2025, more than three months ago. I am not allowing further time for the landlord to produce information in support of their claims.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $282.01 for a methamphetamine test. The landlord said there had been complaints by other tenants about suspicious behaviour at this tenant’s address, and on the basis of this the landlord decided to conduct a methamphetamine test. The methamphetamine test showed that methamphetamine had not been used at this address.
If methamphetamine had been detected, it would be reasonable to claim the cost of the test from the tenant. This is because using methamphetamine is an unlawful act. It is in a landlord’s best interests to conduct baseline methamphetamine tests at the start of every tenancy, but this is not a cost that can be claimed from an outgoing tenant. The test that the landlord is claiming for, amounts to a baseline test for the next tenancy. As such it is not reasonable to expect the outgoing tenant to pay for this.
This claim is not proved. Locks and smoke alarm
At the end of the tenancy the tenant did not return the keys. Because of this the landlord engaged the locksmith to replace the locks. The landlord provided oral evidence that the cost for replacing the locks amounted to $422.50.
The landlord said at the end of the tenancy the smoke alarm was missing from the tenant’s room and could not be found. A replacement smoke alarm cost $39.98.
These claims and the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Neither an entry inspection report and photographs nor an exit inspection report and photographs were submitted as part of the landlord’s application. These provide the information that is often relied on by an applicant landlord to prove their claims.
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 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. Vertical blind
The landlord is claiming for the cost of replacing a vertical blind.
The landlord said at the end of the tenancy the vertical blind was missing several slats, and partly due to the age of the blind it was not possible to source replacements. No photographs of the blind from the start of the tenancy or the end of the tenancy were provided as part of this claim. The landlord said the blind had been in place since they began managing the property in 2020, and other than that there is no information about the age of the blind.
The landlord said similar blinds in other properties they manage had not being damaged like this one. This is not information that is particularly helpful to me as it is highly likely that there are differences in the make of the blind, or the age of the blind, or where and how they're being used.
The IRD Depreciation Guide says blinds are fully depreciated over 8 years. At best the blind is approaching this age. I consider it likely the residual value of this blind is close to, if not nil.
As well as this, I do not have enough information before me to determine the condition of the blind at the beginning or at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is not proved. The outside light
The landlord is claiming $62.50 to replace an outside light in the tenant’s private courtyard.
The landlord said at the end of the tenancy the outside light was smashed, and glass from the light was lying in the courtyard.
The landlord has sourced a replacement light at a cost of $38.00 and expects it will take their handyman half an hour to replace it at a cost of $60.00 plus GST per hour.
On the landlord’s oral evidence I find this claim proved.
The amount ordered is proved.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. 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.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367826 — net $552.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$422.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: outdoor light	$62.50	Repairs: outdoor light
Replace smoke alarms	$39.98	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$552.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$552.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jamie Mackay must pay [The landlord/s] $552.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for cleaning, a methamphetamine test and the vertical blind replacement are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not request to be admitted to the video conference at the scheduled time, and did not answer the three calls that were made to the telephone number provided to the Tribunal at the scheduled time.
The tenant has been served notice of the hearing to his e-mail address, which is an address for service on his tenancy agreement. Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (the “RTA”), I conducted the hearing in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

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) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. Cleaning and methamphetamine test
The landlord is claiming $368.00 for cleaning. No photographs in support of this claim were provided as part of the application. Without visual information before me, it is impossible for me to determine whether on not the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought to submit photographs during the hearing to the remote.tenancy e-mail and I allowed this. However even after a short time after the allocated time, the photographs had not been uploaded to the landlord’s file. The landlord explained that they had had difficulty uploading information to the file. This is a problem that parties’ occasionally experience, and it is important they resolve this prior to a hearing so that all their supporting information is before the Tribunal before the hearing begins. I note this application was filed in October 2025, more than three months ago. I am not allowing further time for the landlord to produce information in support of their claims.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $282.01 for a methamphetamine test. The landlord said there had been complaints by other tenants about suspicious behaviour at this tenant’s address, and on the basis of this the landlord decided to conduct a methamphetamine test. The methamphetamine test showed that methamphetamine had not been used at this address.
If methamphetamine had been detected, it would be reasonable to claim the cost of the test from the tenant. This is because using methamphetamine is an unlawful act. It is in a landlord’s best interests to conduct baseline methamphetamine tests at the start of every tenancy, but this is not a cost that can be claimed from an outgoing tenant. The test that the landlord is claiming for, amounts to a baseline test for the next tenancy. As such it is not reasonable to expect the outgoing tenant to pay for this.
This claim is not proved. Locks and smoke alarm
At the end of the tenancy the tenant did not return the keys. Because of this the landlord engaged the locksmith to replace the locks. The landlord provided oral evidence that the cost for replacing the locks amounted to $422.50.
The landlord said at the end of the tenancy the smoke alarm was missing from the tenant’s room and could not be found. A replacement smoke alarm cost $39.98.
These claims and the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Neither an entry inspection report and photographs nor an exit inspection report and photographs were submitted as part of the landlord’s application. These provide the information that is often relied on by an applicant landlord to prove their claims.
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 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. Vertical blind
The landlord is claiming for the cost of replacing a vertical blind.
The landlord said at the end of the tenancy the vertical blind was missing several slats, and partly due to the age of the blind it was not possible to source replacements. No photographs of the blind from the start of the tenancy or the end of the tenancy were provided as part of this claim. The landlord said the blind had been in place since they began managing the property in 2020, and other than that there is no information about the age of the blind.
The landlord said similar blinds in other properties they manage had not being damaged like this one. This is not information that is particularly helpful to me as it is highly likely that there are differences in the make of the blind, or the age of the blind, or where and how they're being used.
The IRD Depreciation Guide says blinds are fully depreciated over 8 years. At best the blind is approaching this age. I consider it likely the residual value of this blind is close to, if not nil.
As well as this, I do not have enough information before me to determine the condition of the blind at the beginning or at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is not proved. The outside light
The landlord is claiming $62.50 to replace an outside light in the tenant’s private courtyard.
The landlord said at the end of the tenancy the outside light was smashed, and glass from the light was lying in the courtyard.
The landlord has sourced a replacement light at a cost of $38.00 and expects it will take their handyman half an hour to replace it at a cost of $60.00 plus GST per hour.
On the landlord’s oral evidence I find this claim proved.
The amount ordered is proved.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. 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.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367826 — Property damage at Room 1, Unit/Flat 18, 17 Bunyan Street, Waltham,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367826 — Property damage at Room 1, Unit/Flat 18, 17 Bunyan Street, Waltham,

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