What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371941 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $1,388.00

How much money was awarded in case 5371941?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $510.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Paint, Door, Floor: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371941?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12688287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371941 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $1,388.00

How much money was awarded in case 5371941?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $510.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Paint, Door, Floor: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371941?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12688287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Te Wiata Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371941 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371941 — net $1,388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$800.00	Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Lock replacement	$510.00	Lock replacement
Repairs: paint, door, floor	$50.00	Repairs: paint, door, floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,388.00
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,388.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $1,388.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5095866-003) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]: $1,388.00 [The tenant/s]: $132.00

Reasons

This is a cross-application. Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for the following: a. rent arrears, b. compensation for re-barrelling two locks, c. compensation for damage to the walls, doors and floor,
The tenant applied for the following: a. compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy, b. exemplary damages for unlawful entry, c. compensation for the premises being unlawful. The landlord’s claims for rent arrears, locks and cleaning
It was agreed by the parties today that at the end of the tenancy the tenant withheld one week’s rent because of a dispute that arose from cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy, and because of a discrepancy in rent payments. For now I will set aside the offset regarding the tenant’s cleaning claim, and address that later in this order.
The discrepancy relating to the rent payments involves the change of rental period from Tuesday to Monday, to Thursday to Wednesday. Having heard from each of the parties and having looked at the rent statement provided by the landlord, I am persuaded the tenant owed a full week’s rent at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must 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 landlord is claiming $510.00 for re-barrelling the front and rear doors and a set of French doors.
The tenant accepts that she lost the keys for each of these doors that was provided to her at the start of the tenancy. The tenant’s view is that due to the latches on the French doors being damaged, repairing the locks is hard to justify. The tenant also said she had a contact that could have done the work far cheaper than the claim, which she offered to the landlord but which wasn’t accepted.
In this case the tenant did not fulfil her obligation. The landlord may repair or replace damaged items as best as she sees fit, within reason.
I am not persuaded that $510.00 to replace the lock barrels is unreasonable, and I am satisfied that the French door’s latches are a separate issue that does not impact the reasonableness of this claim. This claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $260.00 for cleaning. Having heard the claim I determine the claim is for damage to paint, and not for cleaning.
The landlord produced photographs that they say show damage to bedroom walls, a bathroom wall, a living room wall, a floor, an exterior door and a partition on a kitchen bench.
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.
The tenant denied causing any of the damage except for the paint on the floor and the paint on the exterior door, which is a very small amount in each case.
The tenant says the damage to the walls was there at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord did not produce any photographs from the start of the tenancy. From the photographs produced today, taken at the end of the tenancy, it appears to me that the premises are an older premises, and the interior decoration also is not new. I agree with the tenant that one of the photographs of the wall in the blue room shows cracking in the paint which appears to be the result of a wall moving, in that it appears to be along the whole seam of a join in the gib-board.
The damage to the kitchen partition looks to me to be degradation of particle board which occurs over time and is exacerbated as a result of exposure to moisture.
Except for the paint on the floor and the door, I determine that the damage has occurred over a period that is not limited to this tenancy. It is therefore not possible to determine the tenant’s liability. As such this part of the claim fails. For completeness, nor am I persuaded that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
The paint on the floor and door which the tenant accepts responsibility for, amounts to loss for the landlords whether or not they chose to rectify it. However, the damage is very minimal. I have awarded a nominal amount in consideration of this.
The rest of this claim is not proved. The tenant’s claims for cleaning, unlawful entry and unlawful premises
At the start of the tenancy, the tenant claims the premises “disgusting, covered in cobwebs and unliveable”. No photographs were available on file before today’s hearing, but in the course of the hearing, the tenant forwarded photographs in support of her claim.
The tenant is claiming $800.00 for cleaning costs to compensate her for what she says was three days cleaning.
The landlord says the property was cleaned prior to the tenant moving in, and that the previous tenants said they had the carpet cleaned. She denies the premises were dirty at the start of the tenancy.
A landlord’s obligations for the start of the tenancy is included in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 at section 45. At subsection (1) it says: The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness;
This does not mean the premises will be perfect or that the tenant will not want to conduct a deeper clean on moving in; they may. But this is not the standard required of the landlord.
The photographs provided by the tenant are poor quality and it is difficult to see where the dirt is or how serious it is. I can see obvious dust on a wifi-modem and some cords, but without the context of the whole premises I am not persuaded that the “premises” has not been provided in a state of reasonable cleanliness.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant claims that the landlord entered the property without giving the proper notice in order fix a remote for the heat pump.
The tenant is not sure of the date this on which this occurred, but says that she received a text from the landlord to say that she was inside the tenant’s premises. The tenant says she had not been given notice of this visit.
The landlord says it is difficult to comment on this claim without knowing the date in question, but she is adamant that she always gave the correct notice.
The landlord produced an email to the tenant dated 30 April 2025 in which she gives notice to attend the premises for an inspection on 8 May 2025 and in which she mentions the tenant leaving the heat pump remote “on the kitchen bench so we can check why the unit isn’t powering on”. The landlord advises the tenant that she needn’t be present during this time.
The landlord claims they always gave notice before entering the premises. The information in the email appears to be so close in nature to the circumstances of the tenant’s claim that the logical conclusion to draw is that the tenant overlooked the information in the email regarding the inspection including heat pump remote.
For these reasons I am not persuaded the landlord entered the premises without giving lawful notice.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant claims that the premises was an unlawful premises in that the downstairs had been converted to a self-contained unit without council consent. The conversion does not relate to the tenant’s tenancy but the tenancy in the basement downstairs. As the building is one, there are potential ramifications for both tenancies.
The tenant showed the Tribunal an email from a person at council who considers the premises have not been consented for two separate rental properties. This email has not been uploaded to the file.
When asked how the possible unlawfulness of the premises impacted the tenancy, the tenant responded that she had to tiptoe around and stop the children making noise which would disturb the downstairs tenants. She also said the insufficient fire-proofing in place meant there was an increased risk of fire in her premises.
The Tribunal has considered unlawful premises on many occasions. In one decision which surveyed the unlawful premises landscape, Tenant v Presland And Co Trustee Company [2021] NZTT 4290197, the Tribunal set unlawful tenancies into three categories: a. Unconsented premises, b. Premises with an abatement notice, c. Premises with garage/basement conversions.
This case involves the conversion of a basement. In similar cases where it is established that premises of this sort are unconsented, tenants have been reimbursed a substantial proportion or all of their rent, see for example Zowitzkey v Hemmings [2020] NZTT 4257512, 4264964. In that case however, both parties agreed the premises were unconsented. That is not the case here.
Although the letter from council raises the likelihood of the premises being unconsented and therefore possibly unlawful, I am not satisfied that it goes so far as to prove the matter, even on the balance of probabilities. This is a hearsay document in that it is made out of court, it is unsigned and the detail is lacking. The maker of the statement is not present today to answer questions.
Even if the premises have not been consented as two separate dwellings, there was no information presented that shows the sound insulation and fire insulation requirements have not been met. The tenant has drawn this conclusion, but the conclusion appears to be nothing more than an assumption.
Nor is there a paper trail that supports the tenant’s claim that she felt she had to tiptoe around so as not to disturb the tenants below her. The paper trail presented shows there was friction between the two tenants, but as a result of issues with rubbish in the yard rather than noise.
The landlord said that they believed the premises did meet council requirements, and they had had no trouble getting the premises insured. I note that the insurance document presented makes no mention of the insurer being satisfied that the premises met all council requirements and regulations, and I consider the landlord would be naïve to believe that such an insurance document did meet that requirement. Based on the lack of information provided by the landlord today, I believe it is likely that at best the landlord turned a blind eye to their responsibilities to ensure the property was fully compliant with council regulations.
However, I am not satisfied sufficient information has been provided today to prove on the balance of probabilities that these premises are not consented, are unlawful or insanitary or not fit for habitation. Therefore this claim is not proved.
Because [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim and [The tenant/s] has not succeeded with her claims, I have reimbursed the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371941 — net $1,388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$800.00	Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Lock replacement	$510.00	Lock replacement
Repairs: paint, door, floor	$50.00	Repairs: paint, door, floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,388.00
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,388.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $1,388.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5095866-003) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]: $1,388.00 [The tenant/s]: $132.00

Reasons

This is a cross-application. Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for the following: a. rent arrears, b. compensation for re-barrelling two locks, c. compensation for damage to the walls, doors and floor,
The tenant applied for the following: a. compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy, b. exemplary damages for unlawful entry, c. compensation for the premises being unlawful. The landlord’s claims for rent arrears, locks and cleaning
It was agreed by the parties today that at the end of the tenancy the tenant withheld one week’s rent because of a dispute that arose from cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy, and because of a discrepancy in rent payments. For now I will set aside the offset regarding the tenant’s cleaning claim, and address that later in this order.
The discrepancy relating to the rent payments involves the change of rental period from Tuesday to Monday, to Thursday to Wednesday. Having heard from each of the parties and having looked at the rent statement provided by the landlord, I am persuaded the tenant owed a full week’s rent at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must 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 landlord is claiming $510.00 for re-barrelling the front and rear doors and a set of French doors.
The tenant accepts that she lost the keys for each of these doors that was provided to her at the start of the tenancy. The tenant’s view is that due to the latches on the French doors being damaged, repairing the locks is hard to justify. The tenant also said she had a contact that could have done the work far cheaper than the claim, which she offered to the landlord but which wasn’t accepted.
In this case the tenant did not fulfil her obligation. The landlord may repair or replace damaged items as best as she sees fit, within reason.
I am not persuaded that $510.00 to replace the lock barrels is unreasonable, and I am satisfied that the French door’s latches are a separate issue that does not impact the reasonableness of this claim. This claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $260.00 for cleaning. Having heard the claim I determine the claim is for damage to paint, and not for cleaning.
The landlord produced photographs that they say show damage to bedroom walls, a bathroom wall, a living room wall, a floor, an exterior door and a partition on a kitchen bench.
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.
The tenant denied causing any of the damage except for the paint on the floor and the paint on the exterior door, which is a very small amount in each case.
The tenant says the damage to the walls was there at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord did not produce any photographs from the start of the tenancy. From the photographs produced today, taken at the end of the tenancy, it appears to me that the premises are an older premises, and the interior decoration also is not new. I agree with the tenant that one of the photographs of the wall in the blue room shows cracking in the paint which appears to be the result of a wall moving, in that it appears to be along the whole seam of a join in the gib-board.
The damage to the kitchen partition looks to me to be degradation of particle board which occurs over time and is exacerbated as a result of exposure to moisture.
Except for the paint on the floor and the door, I determine that the damage has occurred over a period that is not limited to this tenancy. It is therefore not possible to determine the tenant’s liability. As such this part of the claim fails. For completeness, nor am I persuaded that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
The paint on the floor and door which the tenant accepts responsibility for, amounts to loss for the landlords whether or not they chose to rectify it. However, the damage is very minimal. I have awarded a nominal amount in consideration of this.
The rest of this claim is not proved. The tenant’s claims for cleaning, unlawful entry and unlawful premises
At the start of the tenancy, the tenant claims the premises “disgusting, covered in cobwebs and unliveable”. No photographs were available on file before today’s hearing, but in the course of the hearing, the tenant forwarded photographs in support of her claim.
The tenant is claiming $800.00 for cleaning costs to compensate her for what she says was three days cleaning.
The landlord says the property was cleaned prior to the tenant moving in, and that the previous tenants said they had the carpet cleaned. She denies the premises were dirty at the start of the tenancy.
A landlord’s obligations for the start of the tenancy is included in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 at section 45. At subsection (1) it says: The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness;
This does not mean the premises will be perfect or that the tenant will not want to conduct a deeper clean on moving in; they may. But this is not the standard required of the landlord.
The photographs provided by the tenant are poor quality and it is difficult to see where the dirt is or how serious it is. I can see obvious dust on a wifi-modem and some cords, but without the context of the whole premises I am not persuaded that the “premises” has not been provided in a state of reasonable cleanliness.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant claims that the landlord entered the property without giving the proper notice in order fix a remote for the heat pump.
The tenant is not sure of the date this on which this occurred, but says that she received a text from the landlord to say that she was inside the tenant’s premises. The tenant says she had not been given notice of this visit.
The landlord says it is difficult to comment on this claim without knowing the date in question, but she is adamant that she always gave the correct notice.
The landlord produced an email to the tenant dated 30 April 2025 in which she gives notice to attend the premises for an inspection on 8 May 2025 and in which she mentions the tenant leaving the heat pump remote “on the kitchen bench so we can check why the unit isn’t powering on”. The landlord advises the tenant that she needn’t be present during this time.
The landlord claims they always gave notice before entering the premises. The information in the email appears to be so close in nature to the circumstances of the tenant’s claim that the logical conclusion to draw is that the tenant overlooked the information in the email regarding the inspection including heat pump remote.
For these reasons I am not persuaded the landlord entered the premises without giving lawful notice.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant claims that the premises was an unlawful premises in that the downstairs had been converted to a self-contained unit without council consent. The conversion does not relate to the tenant’s tenancy but the tenancy in the basement downstairs. As the building is one, there are potential ramifications for both tenancies.
The tenant showed the Tribunal an email from a person at council who considers the premises have not been consented for two separate rental properties. This email has not been uploaded to the file.
When asked how the possible unlawfulness of the premises impacted the tenancy, the tenant responded that she had to tiptoe around and stop the children making noise which would disturb the downstairs tenants. She also said the insufficient fire-proofing in place meant there was an increased risk of fire in her premises.
The Tribunal has considered unlawful premises on many occasions. In one decision which surveyed the unlawful premises landscape, Tenant v Presland And Co Trustee Company [2021] NZTT 4290197, the Tribunal set unlawful tenancies into three categories: a. Unconsented premises, b. Premises with an abatement notice, c. Premises with garage/basement conversions.
This case involves the conversion of a basement. In similar cases where it is established that premises of this sort are unconsented, tenants have been reimbursed a substantial proportion or all of their rent, see for example Zowitzkey v Hemmings [2020] NZTT 4257512, 4264964. In that case however, both parties agreed the premises were unconsented. That is not the case here.
Although the letter from council raises the likelihood of the premises being unconsented and therefore possibly unlawful, I am not satisfied that it goes so far as to prove the matter, even on the balance of probabilities. This is a hearsay document in that it is made out of court, it is unsigned and the detail is lacking. The maker of the statement is not present today to answer questions.
Even if the premises have not been consented as two separate dwellings, there was no information presented that shows the sound insulation and fire insulation requirements have not been met. The tenant has drawn this conclusion, but the conclusion appears to be nothing more than an assumption.
Nor is there a paper trail that supports the tenant’s claim that she felt she had to tiptoe around so as not to disturb the tenants below her. The paper trail presented shows there was friction between the two tenants, but as a result of issues with rubbish in the yard rather than noise.
The landlord said that they believed the premises did meet council requirements, and they had had no trouble getting the premises insured. I note that the insurance document presented makes no mention of the insurer being satisfied that the premises met all council requirements and regulations, and I consider the landlord would be naïve to believe that such an insurance document did meet that requirement. Based on the lack of information provided by the landlord today, I believe it is likely that at best the landlord turned a blind eye to their responsibilities to ensure the property was fully compliant with council regulations.
However, I am not satisfied sufficient information has been provided today to prove on the balance of probabilities that these premises are not consented, are unlawful or insanitary or not fit for habitation. Therefore this claim is not proved.
Because [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim and [The tenant/s] has not succeeded with her claims, I have reimbursed the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371941 — Rent arrears at 33 Te Wiata Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371941 — Rent arrears at 33 Te Wiata Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions