What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5374982?

The tribunal order states: Cyrus Foley-Rose must pay Vicki Glynn $849.72 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5374982?

Bailiff Fees: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Electrician Callout Fee: $66.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $340.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $58.13 awarded to landlord; Power Arrears: $179.31 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5268060 D…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall - Patching And Painting: $632.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374982?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13295675-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5374982?

The tribunal order states: Cyrus Foley-Rose must pay Vicki Glynn $849.72 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5374982?

Bailiff Fees: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Electrician Callout Fee: $66.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $340.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $58.13 awarded to landlord; Power Arrears: $179.31 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5268060 D…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall - Patching And Painting: $632.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374982?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13295675-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4J, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5374982 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374982 — net $849.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5268060 dated 21/07/2025	$27.00	Previous order application 5268060 dated 21/07/2025
Power arrears	$179.31	Power arrears
Cleaning: Exit cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning: Exit cleaning
Lock/key replacement: Front door fob	$51.75	Lock/key replacement: Front door fob
Lock/key replacement: Apartmnet door	$340.03	Lock/key replacement: Apartmnet door
Lock/key replacement: Mailbox	$58.13	Lock/key replacement: Mailbox
Bailiff fees	$267.00	Bailiff fees
Electrician callout fee	$66.00	Electrician callout fee
Repairs: Wall - patching and painting	$632.50	Repairs: Wall - patching and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$849.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$849.72

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 March 2026.

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

The tenancy began on 10 March 2023 and ended on 15 August 2025.

The landlord had claimed for rent arrears of $140.00. However, as there was no rent ledger to prove the shortfall and the tenant denied any underpayment of rent, this claim could not be proved. Accordingly, the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

The landlord was able to prove the claim for power shortfall of $179.31. The last actual reading for power was done on 15 August 2025. Despite the weekly payments of $25.00 towards the power bills, there was a shortfall in the end. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $179.31 for power arrears.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and 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 (“RTA”).

There was a previous Tribunal order made on 21 July 2025 terminating the tenancy on 3 August 2025. However, the tenant did not move out on 3 August 2025 and the landlord had to engage in services of the bailiff for eviction to take place.

Once the eviction notice was placed on the door, the tenant urgently made arrangements to move out. As a result, he could not clean the premises to the required standard and did not properly check what was packed when he and other people packed.

Although I acknowledge that the tenant did try to leave the premises clean, the landlord has proven that the premises was not left reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $200.00 for exit cleaning fees.

The tenant found out afterwards that he did not return all keys when he left. However, by the time the tenant wanted to return the keys and the front door fob, it was too late. The landlord had already changed the lock and barrel. This is standard practice especially when the tenant is evicted with the assistance of the bailiffs.

As the tenant did not leave all the keys and did not move out when the tenancy ended, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $267.00 for the bailiff costs, $51.75 for replacing the front door fob, $340.03 for change of lock and barrel, and $58.13 for replacement of the mailbox lock and keys.

The landlord also claimed that the microwave trim was damaged by the tenant. The microwave trim had been removed and the parts were still at the premises at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant said that it was removed by one of the contractors that came during his tenancy.

The microwave itself was still intact and there were no signs of any effort to damage the microwave or to take it.

I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused damage to the microwave trim. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord claimed $66.00 for an electrician call out fee. The tenant had asked the landlord for the microwave and the fridge to be looked at due to them suddenly not working. When the electrician attended, it was found that the isolation switch on the wall had been turned off. The landlord said that the isolation switch was on kitchen bench and the tenant said that the isolation switch was behind the microwave and the fridge.

In either case, there was no suggestion of the landlord or any of the landlord’s contractor having turned off the isolation switch. No contractor had been at the premises just before the fridge and microwave stopped working.

I find that the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission must have accidentally turned off the isolation switch wherever it was.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord $66.00 for half of the invoice for the electrician callout. That is the amount the landlord was claiming for.

The landlord claimed for damages done to the entry wall. There were some gouge marks visible. The tenant disputed causing damage to the wall but did accept that there had been other guests over at the premises during the tenancy.

I find that the damage on the wall occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I find that it was caused carelessly by either the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord $632.50 for the wall repair. Exemplary damages

The landlord claimed that the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.

A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

Although the landlord claimed that the tenant’s antisocial behaviour resulted in the landlord issuing one antisocial behaviour notice to the tenant and that the landlord had to incur legal costs to rebut claims from the Body Corporate, the landlord did not have evidence to prove the claim itself at the Tenancy Tribunal.

Accordingly, although I accept there must have been some basis for antisocial behaviour notice by the landlord and the Body Corporate, I do not find that the landlord has proven the exemplary damages claim at the Tribunal to the required standard. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Previous order incorporated

The previous order made on 21 July 2025 under application number 5268060 is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes Filing fee reimbursement

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374982 — net $849.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5268060 dated 21/07/2025	$27.00	Previous order application 5268060 dated 21/07/2025
Power arrears	$179.31	Power arrears
Cleaning: Exit cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning: Exit cleaning
Lock/key replacement: Front door fob	$51.75	Lock/key replacement: Front door fob
Lock/key replacement: Apartmnet door	$340.03	Lock/key replacement: Apartmnet door
Lock/key replacement: Mailbox	$58.13	Lock/key replacement: Mailbox
Bailiff fees	$267.00	Bailiff fees
Electrician callout fee	$66.00	Electrician callout fee
Repairs: Wall - patching and painting	$632.50	Repairs: Wall - patching and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$849.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$849.72

Order

Cyrus Foley-Rose must pay Vicki Glynn $849.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 July 2025 under application number 5268060.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (6496851-001) to Vicki Glynn immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 March 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent and power arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 10 March 2023 and ended on 15 August 2025.
The landlord had claimed for rent arrears of $140.00. However, as there was no rent ledger to prove the shortfall and the tenant denied any underpayment of rent, this claim could not be proved. Accordingly, the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
The landlord was able to prove the claim for power shortfall of $179.31. The last actual reading for power was done on 15 August 2025. Despite the weekly payments of $25.00 towards the power bills, there was a shortfall in the end. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $179.31 for power arrears.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and 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 (“RTA”).
There was a previous Tribunal order made on 21 July 2025 terminating the tenancy on 3 August 2025. However, the tenant did not move out on 3 August 2025 and the landlord had to engage in services of the bailiff for eviction to take place.
Once the eviction notice was placed on the door, the tenant urgently made arrangements to move out. As a result, he could not clean the premises to the required standard and did not properly check what was packed when he and other people packed.
Although I acknowledge that the tenant did try to leave the premises clean, the landlord has proven that the premises was not left reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $200.00 for exit cleaning fees.
The tenant found out afterwards that he did not return all keys when he left. However, by the time the tenant wanted to return the keys and the front door fob, it was too late. The landlord had already changed the lock and barrel. This is standard practice especially when the tenant is evicted with the assistance of the bailiffs.
As the tenant did not leave all the keys and did not move out when the tenancy ended, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $267.00 for the bailiff costs, $51.75 for replacing the front door fob, $340.03 for change of lock and barrel, and $58.13 for replacement of the mailbox lock and keys.
The landlord also claimed that the microwave trim was damaged by the tenant. The microwave trim had been removed and the parts were still at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that it was removed by one of the contractors that came during his tenancy.
The microwave itself was still intact and there were no signs of any effort to damage the microwave or to take it.
I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused damage to the microwave trim. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed $66.00 for an electrician call out fee. The tenant had asked the landlord for the microwave and the fridge to be looked at due to them suddenly not working. When the electrician attended, it was found that the isolation switch on the wall had been turned off. The landlord said that the isolation switch was on kitchen bench and the tenant said that the isolation switch was behind the microwave and the fridge.
In either case, there was no suggestion of the landlord or any of the landlord’s contractor having turned off the isolation switch. No contractor had been at the premises just before the fridge and microwave stopped working.
I find that the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission must have accidentally turned off the isolation switch wherever it was.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $66.00 for half of the invoice for the electrician callout. That is the amount the landlord was claiming for.
The landlord claimed for damages done to the entry wall. There were some gouge marks visible. The tenant disputed causing damage to the wall but did accept that there had been other guests over at the premises during the tenancy.
I find that the damage on the wall occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I find that it was caused carelessly by either the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $632.50 for the wall repair. Exemplary damages
The landlord claimed that the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Although the landlord claimed that the tenant’s antisocial behaviour resulted in the landlord issuing one antisocial behaviour notice to the tenant and that the landlord had to incur legal costs to rebut claims from the Body Corporate, the landlord did not have evidence to prove the claim itself at the Tenancy Tribunal.
Accordingly, although I accept there must have been some basis for antisocial behaviour notice by the landlord and the Body Corporate, I do not find that the landlord has proven the exemplary damages claim at the Tribunal to the required standard. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Previous order incorporated
The previous order made on 21 July 2025 under application number 5268060 is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374982 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4J, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374982 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4J, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions