What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372267 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Waller Developments Limited $7,294.10

How much money was awarded in case 5372267?

Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,199.36 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $364.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372267?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372267?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372267 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Waller Developments Limited $7,294.10

How much money was awarded in case 5372267?

Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,199.36 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $364.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372267?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372267?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13409701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 111 Hobsonville Road, West Harbour, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372267 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372267 — net $7,294.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 September 2025	$6,199.36	Rent arrears to 30 September 2025
Water rates (19/05/2025 – 30/09/2025	$364.74	Water rates (19/05/2025 – 30/09/2025
Cleaning	$552.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$50.00	ion for a nominal amount to reflect the nature and extent of the breach. I find $50.00 to be reasonable, considering the likely value of the heat pump remote.
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote	$50.00	ion for a nominal amount to reflect the nature and extent of the breach. I find $50.00 to be reasonable, considering the likely value of the heat pump remote.
Insurance excess	$2,000.00	Insurance excess
Lost rent (one week	$650.00	Lost rent (one week
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,294.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,294.10

The landlord attended the hearing on 8 April 2026. The tenant did not.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 30 September 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $6,199.36 up to this date.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $6,199.36.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare for the period 19 May 2025 – 16 October 2025. The last invoice is dated 16 October 2025 and covers the period from 16 September 2025 – 16 October 2025. It is for a total of $114.04. The landlord undertook a final water meter reading on 30 September 2025 and only seek $40.03 of this invoice.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has not paid the amounts contained in the Watercare invoices. The total amount outstanding across all invoices is $364.74. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

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

The law

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. 1

The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 2 Therefore, the tenant’s obligations relate to the inside and outside of the premises. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 Cleaning and rubbish removal

The landlord gave evidence the premises were left in a very unclean and untidy state. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy support this. The floors are dirty and do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. There is rubbish and personal belongings inside and outside the premises. The dishwasher has not been emptied. It does not appear that any attempt to clean the premises has been made.

On the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $552.00 to clean the premises. The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for this amount.

The landlord seeks $150.00 in compensation to remove the rubbish. The landlord gave evidence that they removed the rubbish themselves and incurred costs in disposing of it. The landlord gave evidence they completed three trips to the rubbish removal site. The landlord did not submit any invoices.

In the absence of an invoice, I am not convinced the landlord has suffered a loss of $150.00 to dispose of the rubbish. In these circumstances, I can only grant the landlord’s claim for compensation for a nominal amount to reflect the nature and extent of the breach.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $50.00, which I find reasonably reflects the amount of rubbish left at the premises. Heat pump remote

The landlord gave evidence that they provided the tenant with a heat pump remote at the beginning of the tenancy, which was not returned at the end. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

The landlord seeks $120.00 in compensation to replace the heat pump remote however, they did not submit an invoice for this amount.

In the absence of an invoice, I am not connived the landlord has suffered a loss of $120.00 to replace the heat pump remote. In these circumstances, I can only grant the landlord’s claim for compensation for a nominal amount to reflect the nature and extent of the breach. I find $50.00 to be reasonable, considering the likely value of the heat pump remote.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the heat pump remote is granted for $50.00. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law

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. 8

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9

The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the inside of the premises. They seek $2,000.00 in compensation to cover their insurance excess. The landlord’s excess is $500.00 per claim.

The landlord did not submit photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, but gave evidence the premises were brand new, and the tenant was the first person to live in them. The landlord submitted an email from the Auckland Council dated 18 March 2025. It states that the code compliance certificate for the premises is ready to be issued. The tenancy began shortly thereafter on 9 April 2025.

The letter from the Auckland Council, together with the landlord’s oral evidence at the hearing, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the premises were newly built shortly before the tenancy began. I am convinced the tenant was the first person to live in the premises and that the premises were in a new and good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. Bedroom 1 and Bedroom 2

The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some small marks to the walls in bedrooms 1 and 2. I am not convinced these small marks exceed fair wear and tear. This is because it is reasonably foreseeable that walls will incur small marks over time as a result of every day living. This tenancy was five and a half months long.

Other areas of the walls show moderate – large areas where paint has been removed. I find this damage exceeds fair wear and tear. This is because the nature of the damage is not consistent with natural deterioration as a result of everyday living. I am convinced the damage occurred during the tenancy.

The house alarm panel is also located in one of the bedrooms. The face of the panel has been removed, together with the battery and some wiring. It appears the tenant tried to disengage the alarm. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced house alarm panel was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord submitted an email from their insurer, which confirms an excess of $500.00 was charged to the landlord for each bedroom.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to bedroom 1 and 2 is granted for $1,000.00 ($500.00 each). Upstairs landing and stairwell

The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show some small marks to the walls in the upstairs landing and stairwell. I am not convinced these small marks exceed fair wear and tear for the same reasons mentioned at paragraph [26].

Other photographs show large scratches to the walls in the hallway and at the top of the stairs. I find this damage exceeds fair wear and tear, because it is not consistent with natural deterioration as a result of everyday living. I am also convinced it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.

An email from the landlord’s insurer confirms an excess of $500.00 was charges to the landlord to repair the walls in the upstairs landing and stairwell.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the upstairs landing and stairwell is granted for $500.00. Downstairs living area

The landlord submitted photographs of the downstairs living area. These show multiple large black scratches/marks to the timber flooring. The white curtains are also stained with what the landlord suspects is marmite. On the balance of probabilities, I find the flooring and curtains were damaged during the tenancy. the damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

An email from the landlord’s insurer confirms an excess of $500.00 was charged to the landlord to repair the flooring and curtains in the downstairs living area.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the downstairs living area is granted for $500.00.

All of the 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. Should the tenant pay the landlord $5,013.90 in lost rent?

The landlord claims the tenant’s breaches contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises. The landlord seeks compensation of $5,013.90 in lost rent from 1 October 2025 – 23 November 2025 (54 days). The landlord submitted a copy of a tenancy agreement, which proves a new tenancy began on 24 November 2025.

The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.

In this case, I am convinced that by damaging the premises the tenant contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises. This is because it took some time for the landlord’s insurer to assess the claim and for repairs to be completed. This meant the premises could not be advertised for rent immediately following the end of the tenancy, which delayed the timeframe within which the premises were ultimately re-tenanted.

Although I am satisfied that the tenant’s breach contributed to a delay in re- tenanting the premises, I am not convinced the delay is equivalent to $5,013.90. This amount reflects the entire period between the end of this tenancy and the beginning of a new one. There is usually an inevitable delay in re-tenanting premises, because it takes some time to advertise the premises and vet prospective tenants. In some cases, tenants also need to give 21 days’ notice to end their current tenancy before beginning a new one. Considering these factors, I find the landlord is only able to attribute one week of the total delay in this case to the tenant’s conduct. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for lost rent is granted for $650.00. Filing fee

Because Waller Developments Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372267 — net $7,294.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 September 2025	$6,199.36	Rent arrears to 30 September 2025
Water rates (19/05/2025 – 30/09/2025	$364.74	Water rates (19/05/2025 – 30/09/2025
Cleaning	$552.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$50.00	ion for a nominal amount to reflect the nature and extent of the breach. I find $50.00 to be reasonable, considering the likely value of the heat pump remote.
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote	$50.00	ion for a nominal amount to reflect the nature and extent of the breach. I find $50.00 to be reasonable, considering the likely value of the heat pump remote.
Insurance excess	$2,000.00	Insurance excess
Lost rent (one week	$650.00	Lost rent (one week
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,294.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,294.10