What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384465 about?

The tribunal order states: of the same NZTT Number issued on 31

How much money was awarded in case 5384465?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384465?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13677820-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384465 about?

The tribunal order states: of the same NZTT Number issued on 31

How much money was awarded in case 5384465?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384465?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13677820-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 46 Normandy Place, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384465 — Rent arrears

Order

of the same NZTT Number issued on 31 March 2026. The only correction made in this Corrigendum is to include the $500.00 insurance excess mentioned at paragraph 34 of the

Reasons

section. Although mentioned in the original Order, this amount was not included in the table or Order 2 below. Having added the $500.00, the total award has also been adjusted. These and the date are the only changes made in this Corrigendum.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For M Del Rosario & M Dano $878.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (6541107-001) to Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For M Del Rosario & M Dano immediately. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 19 June 2025$965.00 Water rates$39.26 Bailiff Insurance excess $258.00 $500.00 Carpet cleaning$253.00 Lawns and garden work$98.00 Rubbish removal$495.00 Garage remote$172.50 Replace microwave$135.00 Repair dishwasher$165.00 Repairs walls$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,258.76 Bond$2,380.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$878.76 Reasons:
The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing or ask for an adjournment.
The tenant was served notice of the hearing to an icloud email address.
The tenant and the landlord signed the tenancy agreement on 4 July 2024 and 7 July 2024 respectively. The tenancy agreement included the tenant’s gmail address as an address for service. During the tenancy the tenant changed her email from gmail to icloud. Since the end of the tenancy, the landlord has continued to receive emails from the tenant from her icloud email address.
The landlord produced an email from the tenant dated 8 August 2025, sent from her icloud email.
Towards the end of 2025, and after the tenancy ended, the landlord contacted the tenant about paying the rent arrears. The landlord said the tenant responded via her icloud email saying “Not interested”.
On the information before me today, I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing and has decided to not attend.
Because of this, I am prepared to conduct the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $965.00 rent arrears and $39.26 for unpaid water rates invoices.

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 and belongings, 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.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant did not quit the premises. The landlord engaged the services of a bailiff to take possession of the premises. The landlord produced an invoice from the Ministry of Justice for $258.00 for a final possession order. This claim is proved.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and is claiming $402.50 for end of tenancy cleaning costs.
When I look at the end of tenancy photographs provided by the landlord, I consider the tenant has left the tenancy reasonably clean and tidy, except for the carpet. A responsible landlord may undertake a deep clean between tenancies, but that is not the standard required of an outgoing tenant. The claim for house cleaning, other than carpet, is not proved.
The landlord provided photographs which show numerous small carpet stains throughout the house. The landlord is claiming $253.00 for carpet cleaning, which the landlord says was successful in removing all the stains. Having seen the photographs I am persuaded the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The claim and amount awarded are proved.
The landlord is claiming $165.00 for cleaning the ceiling. The landlord said that on 30 July 2025 the owner pointed out black marks on the ceiling. This was 41 days after the end of the tenancy. The marks had not been recorded by the landlord at the end of the tenancy and are not visible in the landlord’s photographs.
Between the tenancy ending and the owner noticing the marks, many people had come and gone from the premises. I am therefore not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the marks were caused by the tenant. This claim is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $98.00 for mowing the lawn and removing weeds at the end of the tenancy. Photographs from the end of tenancy show the back garden to be very overgrown. This claim and the amount ordered are proved.
The landlord is claiming $495.00 for removing belongings left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord produced photographs that show belongings the tenant left behind, including a double bed, a children’s swimming pool, a swing chair and other sundry items. This claim and the amount ordered are proved.
The landlord said a gate remote was not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $172.50 to replace the gate remote. This claim and the amount ordered are proved.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy, the microwave oven was missing. The microwave oven was listed as a chattel on the Ingoing Inspection. The landlord is claiming $135.00 to replace the microwave oven. This claim and the amount ordered are proved.
The landlord is claiming $258.75 for pest control costs. The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the premises was infested with fleas. The landlord said the tenant did not admit to having a cat, but a cat was often seen outside the premises.
The invoice the landlord produced for pest control was issued by East West pest control on 8 July 2025. It is for the control of ants and rodents. No mention is made of fleas.
The landlord has not persuaded me on the balance of probabilities the premises was infested with fleas. Nor am I persuaded that any problem that related to ants and rodents resulted from the tenant’s conduct. This claim is not proved.
The landlord produced invoices for all claims.

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.
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord produced a settlement offer from AA insurance dated 20 February 2025 following a claim made for a bathroom doorframe significantly damaged by the tenant.
The insurance excess is $500.00. The landlord is claiming this amount. This claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $1,653.99 for touch-up repairs throughout the premises following the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced photographs in support of the claim. When I look at the photographs I can see the repairs are mostly very small chips and scrapes to walls and doorframes.
The only marks I consider exceed fair wear and tear are holes that appear to have been drilled into a doorframe. I consider this to be intentional damage and I have made an award for this repair only. This claim is proved. The remainder of the marks chips and scrapes I determine to be fair wear and tear.
The landlord is claiming $165.00 to remove a dent from the dishwasher door. I determine this to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved carelessness. This claim is proved.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For M Del Rosario & M Dano has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384465 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 46 Normandy Place, Henderson, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384465 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 46 Normandy Place, Henderson, Auckland

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.