What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379181 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 5379181?

Painting Garage Floor (Including GST: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Painting Of Walls (Including GST: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $231.42 awarded to landlord; Water Care Refund: $542.42 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379181?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379181 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 5379181?

Painting Garage Floor (Including GST: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Painting Of Walls (Including GST: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $231.42 awarded to landlord; Water Care Refund: $542.42 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379181?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33B Hoteo Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379181 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379181 — net $781.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 October 2025	$231.42		Rent arrears to 2 October 2025
Painting of walls (including GST	$920.00		Painting of walls (including GST
Painting garage floor (including GST	$172.50		Painting garage floor (including GST
Water care refund		$542.42	Water care refund
Total award	$1,323.92	$542.42
Net award	$781.50
Bond	$2,430.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$781.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Shivie Investments Limited $781.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,430.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Shivie Investments Limited: $781.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,648.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks the water care refund and refund of her bond. Water care refund:
The landlord confirms that the water care refund was sent to him as the account was in his name. The landlord will refund the water care refund immediately to the tenant as she paid the water bills, and the refund is rightly hers.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. Standard of proof:
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 and the tenant 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.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 September 2025. The tenant had asked the landlord to allow her a further two days to continue with the cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord agreed to the two days. An arrangement was made between the parties that an inspection of the property would be held on 2 October 2025.
At that inspection on 2 October 2025 the landlord told the tenant to do further cleaning outside. The landlord wanted the windows cleaned, driveway water blasted, and the lawns mowed again. The landlord said he would collect the key after the work had been done.
The landlord now claims for 4 days additional rent. The tenant says she had vacated the property on 30 September 2025 and had moved into her new property. The only reasons for returning to the property was to finalise the cleaning.
I consider that the tenant should pay two days additional rent up to 2 October 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 2 October 2025.
I am satisfied that the landlord has partially proven their claim for rent arrears.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Bathroom deep clean:
The landlord had a few photos of the property on his phone, but none showed the areas in the bathroom that he claimed were dirty. The tenant provided photos of the home at the end of the tenancy and of the bathroom. The photos did show a very clean and tidy bathroom.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the bathroom clean and I am dismissing that claim for $250.00. Rubbish: The landlord claims that the tenant left rubbish on the property that he had to dispose of. The tenant totally denies this and claims the battery and two rubbish bags seen in a photo were not her.
The landlord has no proof or photos of the rubbish in or around the property before being placed in the rubbish bags by the landlord. I am dismissing the landlords claim for $60.00. Carpet replacement:
The landlord claimed that the tenant has left several marks on the carpet. The landlord provided a few photos which showed a few small red marks. The tenant said there was one small red mark in the lounge and that is the only marks she knows about.
The landlord has provided a quote for the cost of replacing a piece of the carpet and states an intention to carry out this work. The Tribunal may award compensation based on the reasonable cost of replacement, less an appropriate allowance for depreciation, provided there is evidence of a genuine intention to proceed with the repairs.
However, if the landlord does not intend to replace the carpet piece, or has already re-let the property without doing so, compensation should not be awarded, as there is no actual loss. The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, not to place them in a better position
In this case the landlord has re tenanted the property and it has been two months since the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that the landlord intends to replace the piece of carpet, and I am dismissing the landlords claim for $400.00.

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: -Marks and drawings on the wallpaper. -Garage floor repainting.
The landlord has provided detailed photos of drawing and scuff marks on the wallpaper and missing paint from the garage floor. In addition, the landlord has provided an invoice for $800.00 plus GST for painting the walls and $300.00 plus GST for the garage floor.
Many of the marks on the wall could be considered normal wear and tear. However, the tenant does not dispute that her children did draw and mark the walls. I am satisfied that the landlord should be compensated for the repainting of the walls. The property had been renovated before the commencement of this tenancy.
The garage floor was painted before the start of the tenancy. The landlord claims $300.00 plus GST to repaint the garage floor. The landlord claims that this is damage and not normal use of the garage.
It is clear that for all but one area that the marks are consistent with tyre marks. The tenant was simply using the garage as a garage by driving her vehicle inside, I cannot accept that the missing paint is intentional damage. The tenant says that there was an area where she kept her washing machine that caused some paint to lift. I am awarding the landlord half the cost of the repainting of the garage floor to cover the damage done by the washing machine.
The damage identified above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered are proved. Suppression/Bond/ filing fee:
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and as she has been successful with her application I am granting her suppression. The landlord was not seeking suppression.
As both parties have been partially successful, I am not awarding either party reimbursement of the filing fee.
The bond is to be split as set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379181 — net $781.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 October 2025	$231.42		Rent arrears to 2 October 2025
Painting of walls (including GST	$920.00		Painting of walls (including GST
Painting garage floor (including GST	$172.50		Painting garage floor (including GST
Water care refund		$542.42	Water care refund
Total award	$1,323.92	$542.42
Net award	$781.50
Bond	$2,430.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$781.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Shivie Investments Limited $781.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,430.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Shivie Investments Limited: $781.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,648.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks the water care refund and refund of her bond. Water care refund:
The landlord confirms that the water care refund was sent to him as the account was in his name. The landlord will refund the water care refund immediately to the tenant as she paid the water bills, and the refund is rightly hers.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. Standard of proof:
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 and the tenant 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.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 September 2025. The tenant had asked the landlord to allow her a further two days to continue with the cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord agreed to the two days. An arrangement was made between the parties that an inspection of the property would be held on 2 October 2025.
At that inspection on 2 October 2025 the landlord told the tenant to do further cleaning outside. The landlord wanted the windows cleaned, driveway water blasted, and the lawns mowed again. The landlord said he would collect the key after the work had been done.
The landlord now claims for 4 days additional rent. The tenant says she had vacated the property on 30 September 2025 and had moved into her new property. The only reasons for returning to the property was to finalise the cleaning.
I consider that the tenant should pay two days additional rent up to 2 October 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 2 October 2025.
I am satisfied that the landlord has partially proven their claim for rent arrears.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Bathroom deep clean:
The landlord had a few photos of the property on his phone, but none showed the areas in the bathroom that he claimed were dirty. The tenant provided photos of the home at the end of the tenancy and of the bathroom. The photos did show a very clean and tidy bathroom.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the bathroom clean and I am dismissing that claim for $250.00. Rubbish: The landlord claims that the tenant left rubbish on the property that he had to dispose of. The tenant totally denies this and claims the battery and two rubbish bags seen in a photo were not her.
The landlord has no proof or photos of the rubbish in or around the property before being placed in the rubbish bags by the landlord. I am dismissing the landlords claim for $60.00. Carpet replacement:
The landlord claimed that the tenant has left several marks on the carpet. The landlord provided a few photos which showed a few small red marks. The tenant said there was one small red mark in the lounge and that is the only marks she knows about.
The landlord has provided a quote for the cost of replacing a piece of the carpet and states an intention to carry out this work. The Tribunal may award compensation based on the reasonable cost of replacement, less an appropriate allowance for depreciation, provided there is evidence of a genuine intention to proceed with the repairs.
However, if the landlord does not intend to replace the carpet piece, or has already re-let the property without doing so, compensation should not be awarded, as there is no actual loss. The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, not to place them in a better position
In this case the landlord has re tenanted the property and it has been two months since the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that the landlord intends to replace the piece of carpet, and I am dismissing the landlords claim for $400.00.

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: -Marks and drawings on the wallpaper. -Garage floor repainting.
The landlord has provided detailed photos of drawing and scuff marks on the wallpaper and missing paint from the garage floor. In addition, the landlord has provided an invoice for $800.00 plus GST for painting the walls and $300.00 plus GST for the garage floor.
Many of the marks on the wall could be considered normal wear and tear. However, the tenant does not dispute that her children did draw and mark the walls. I am satisfied that the landlord should be compensated for the repainting of the walls. The property had been renovated before the commencement of this tenancy.
The garage floor was painted before the start of the tenancy. The landlord claims $300.00 plus GST to repaint the garage floor. The landlord claims that this is damage and not normal use of the garage.
It is clear that for all but one area that the marks are consistent with tyre marks. The tenant was simply using the garage as a garage by driving her vehicle inside, I cannot accept that the missing paint is intentional damage. The tenant says that there was an area where she kept her washing machine that caused some paint to lift. I am awarding the landlord half the cost of the repainting of the garage floor to cover the damage done by the washing machine.
The damage identified above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered are proved. Suppression/Bond/ filing fee:
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and as she has been successful with her application I am granting her suppression. The landlord was not seeking suppression.
As both parties have been partially successful, I am not awarding either party reimbursement of the filing fee.
The bond is to be split as set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379181 — Rent arrears at 33B Hoteo Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379181 — Rent arrears at 33B Hoteo Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

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

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

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