What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369164 about?

The tribunal order states: Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent for Pawanpreet Singh Sethi &

How much money was awarded in case 5369164?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $897.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds…: $965.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $76.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369164?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13265340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369164 about?

The tribunal order states: Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent for Pawanpreet Singh Sethi &

How much money was awarded in case 5369164?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $897.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds…: $965.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $76.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369164?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13265340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Burbank Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369164 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

38 Burbank Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369164 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5369164. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$517.50	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement (minus depreciation	$1,600.00	Carpet replacement (minus depreciation
Cleaning	$897.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$287.50	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds 50	$965.42	Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds 50
Water rates	$76.77	Water rates

Claims and awards for application 5369164. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Carpet replacement (minus depreciation

Amount: $1,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement (minus depreciation

Cleaning

Amount: $897.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Window repairs

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent for Pawanpreet Singh Sethi & Harpreet Kaur has been granted suppression of their name and identifying details.
Taimi Teaupa to pay [The landlord/s]$1732.19 immediately, as calculated and shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$517.50 Carpet replacement (minus depreciation)$1600.00 Cleaning$897.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Window repairs$287.50 Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds 50%$965.42 Water rates$76.77 Total award$4372.19 Minus Bond-$2,640.00 Amount owing for tenant to pay landlord: $1732.19
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.19 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord withdrew their claims for the light fitting replacement, fan in kitchen, deep clean, maintenance costs, replacement oven, dishwasher, heat pump and waste disposal.
I have dismissed the landlords claims for rubbish and green waste removal and replacement of broken door glass, due to the lack of evidence provided to support these claims.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant was sent the notice of hearing and has not communicated with the Tribunal seeking an adjournment. I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the tenant.
The landlord has applied for water bills, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof required for the Tribunal:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they 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 this burden.
As noted 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.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 June 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $76.77 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills.

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.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a detailed exit inspection report and photos and an invoice for the costs of cleaning and carpet cleaning.
The inspection report and photos clearly show the property had been left in a very dirty condition. The carpets were heavily stained, ripped and smelt badly. The carpets were thoroughly cleaned but that did not help with the stains and smells in the carpets, and it was ultimately replaced.
The landlord sought to be reimbursed for the cost of rubbish and green waste removal. I could not award the cost of the rubbish removal as there were no photos or evidence provided to support this claim. There was a photo of a skip bin at the property and the landlord confirmed that items replaced by the landlord for the repairs were put in that skip bin. I am dismissing the claim for rubbish removal.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for the cleaning and carpet cleaning costs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -The carpets were heavily stained, smelt and were ripped and torn throughout the property. -The window was broken. -The vertical blinds were ripped, broken, heavily stained and mouldy.
The landlord provided detailed invoices which set out the costs of the repairs and an exit inspection report and photos showing the damage.
The carpets could not be satisfactory cleaned to eradicate the heavy staining and smell. The carpets could not be repaired, and the decision was made to replace the carpets as the property could not be re-let with the carpet in this condition.
The landlord provided an invoice for $3200.00 for the cost of the replacement of the carpet. I am awarding the landlord for replacing the carpet however, given the life expectancy of carpet is 10 years, I must deduct depreciation from that amount claimed. I am awarding the landlord $1600.00 for the replacement carpet.
The landlord provided a photo of the broken windowpane lying on the floor in the property and an invoice for $287.50. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the broken windowpane.
The vertical blinds were left in a terrible condition. They were heavily stained and mouldy. The fittings were broken off and panels were missing. The curtains were beyond repair and had to be replaced.
The landlord provided a number of photos and the inspection report to show the very poor condition of the blinds at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of $1930.85 to replace the vertical blinds. I must consider the life span of blinds and factor in depreciation. I am awarding the landlord 50 % of the cost of the replacement blinds given their age.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought to claim for the cost of a broken door glass but has not provided any proof of this damage. I cannot award this cost as the landlord has not satisfied me of their claim. I am dismissing the claim for the replacement of the door glass.
The other amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the cost of the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and identifying details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5369164. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$517.50	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement (minus depreciation	$1,600.00	Carpet replacement (minus depreciation
Cleaning	$897.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$287.50	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds 50	$965.42	Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds 50
Water rates	$76.77	Water rates

Claims and awards for application 5369164. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Carpet replacement (minus depreciation

Amount: $1,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement (minus depreciation

Cleaning

Amount: $897.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Window repairs

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent for Pawanpreet Singh Sethi & Harpreet Kaur has been granted suppression of their name and identifying details.
Taimi Teaupa to pay [The landlord/s]$1732.19 immediately, as calculated and shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$517.50 Carpet replacement (minus depreciation)$1600.00 Cleaning$897.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Window repairs$287.50 Replace furnishings: Vertical blinds 50%$965.42 Water rates$76.77 Total award$4372.19 Minus Bond-$2,640.00 Amount owing for tenant to pay landlord: $1732.19
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.19 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord withdrew their claims for the light fitting replacement, fan in kitchen, deep clean, maintenance costs, replacement oven, dishwasher, heat pump and waste disposal.
I have dismissed the landlords claims for rubbish and green waste removal and replacement of broken door glass, due to the lack of evidence provided to support these claims.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant was sent the notice of hearing and has not communicated with the Tribunal seeking an adjournment. I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the tenant.
The landlord has applied for water bills, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof required for the Tribunal:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they 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 this burden.
As noted 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.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 June 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $76.77 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills.

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.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a detailed exit inspection report and photos and an invoice for the costs of cleaning and carpet cleaning.
The inspection report and photos clearly show the property had been left in a very dirty condition. The carpets were heavily stained, ripped and smelt badly. The carpets were thoroughly cleaned but that did not help with the stains and smells in the carpets, and it was ultimately replaced.
The landlord sought to be reimbursed for the cost of rubbish and green waste removal. I could not award the cost of the rubbish removal as there were no photos or evidence provided to support this claim. There was a photo of a skip bin at the property and the landlord confirmed that items replaced by the landlord for the repairs were put in that skip bin. I am dismissing the claim for rubbish removal.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for the cleaning and carpet cleaning costs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -The carpets were heavily stained, smelt and were ripped and torn throughout the property. -The window was broken. -The vertical blinds were ripped, broken, heavily stained and mouldy.
The landlord provided detailed invoices which set out the costs of the repairs and an exit inspection report and photos showing the damage.
The carpets could not be satisfactory cleaned to eradicate the heavy staining and smell. The carpets could not be repaired, and the decision was made to replace the carpets as the property could not be re-let with the carpet in this condition.
The landlord provided an invoice for $3200.00 for the cost of the replacement of the carpet. I am awarding the landlord for replacing the carpet however, given the life expectancy of carpet is 10 years, I must deduct depreciation from that amount claimed. I am awarding the landlord $1600.00 for the replacement carpet.
The landlord provided a photo of the broken windowpane lying on the floor in the property and an invoice for $287.50. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the broken windowpane.
The vertical blinds were left in a terrible condition. They were heavily stained and mouldy. The fittings were broken off and panels were missing. The curtains were beyond repair and had to be replaced.
The landlord provided a number of photos and the inspection report to show the very poor condition of the blinds at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of $1930.85 to replace the vertical blinds. I must consider the life span of blinds and factor in depreciation. I am awarding the landlord 50 % of the cost of the replacement blinds given their age.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought to claim for the cost of a broken door glass but has not provided any proof of this damage. I cannot award this cost as the landlord has not satisfied me of their claim. I am dismissing the claim for the replacement of the door glass.
The other amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the cost of the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and identifying details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369164 — Property damage at 38 Burbank Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369164 — Property damage at 38 Burbank Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

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