What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394782 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon

How much money was awarded in case 5394782?

Credit Check: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,757.14 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Advertising: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394782?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13315026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394782 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon

How much money was awarded in case 5394782?

Credit Check: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,757.14 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Advertising: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394782?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13315026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394782 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5394782 — net $2,084.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 October 2025	$4,757.14	Rent arrears to 26 October 2025
Trade me advertising	$287.50	Trade me advertising
Credit check	$20.00	Credit check
Net award	$2,084.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,084.64

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon Van Megen $2,084.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (BN-00040335) to Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon Van Megen immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

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. This was a fixed term tenancy that ended by agreement and the landlord has also claimed the costs of finding a new tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has claimed rent to 26 October 2025, which is the day before a new fixed term tenancy started. This is the landlord’s claim to prove.
The tenant said she should not have to pay rent to that date because the landlord did not act promptly or fairly in assessing three prospective tenants. I have considered the tenancy agreement and I do not find that pets were allowed because the specific pet clause at pages 2 and 3 is clear and overrides the general rules if a pet is allowed set out later in the tenancy agreement. I have also considered the evidence and the dates. I do not find the landlord acted unreasonably in the process of choosing a new tenant.
This means the tenant should pay rent up to 26 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Should I allow the claim for water rates?

The landlord has claimed water rates for the whole tenancy. I was not provided with copies of the invoices. The tenant said she never received these either, and was only aware she had to pay water at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the bills were sent to the tenant during the tenancy addressed to “the occupier”. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for water because I do not have copies of the invoices, and because I have not seen any evidence from the provider confirming that the invoices were sent during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

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

There is a claim for cleaning. Tenants are required to the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos taken at the exit inspection. The house looks reasonably clean and tidy to me. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the floors?

There is a claim for repairs to the engineered timber flooring in the lounge. The 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 she 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.
It is hard to see if there were any scratches on the floor by looking at the photos in the entry and exit inspections. The landlord provided me close up photos. I can see there are a number of fine surface scratches. It is not clear from the close up photos how much flooring was marked, but the landlord said the boards were where the tenant had her sofa.
I am not persuaded the marks are more than fair wear and tear. The landlord said the tenancy was too short for there to be any wear and tear but I do not agree. Fair wear and tear is any damage that arises from the normal use of the premises. Having a sofa on the wooden boards in the lounge is normal use. I also note the floor is still fully functional and a new tenant has moved in even though the repair has not been done. The landlord has not proved the claim and it is dismissed.

Can the landlord recover expenses?

The landlord has attempted to recover expenses incurred in respect of the termination under section 50(1)(d) RTA. An accounting of costs was provided to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is allowed to claim any reasonable expenses incurred in finding the new tenant. See section 44A RTA.
I find the landlord has proved there were advertising and credit check costs and the tenant should pay these. The exit inspection and the inspection for the new tenant should be paid by the landlord because these are done for the landlord’s benefit.
The claim for a flat fee of $851 for time and travel to viewings is not allowed because section 44A RTA requires a claim for reasonable expenses and an itemised account. A flat fee specified in advance is no longer allowed. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5394782 — net $2,084.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 October 2025	$4,757.14	Rent arrears to 26 October 2025
Trade me advertising	$287.50	Trade me advertising
Credit check	$20.00	Credit check
Net award	$2,084.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,084.64

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon Van Megen $2,084.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (BN-00040335) to Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon Van Megen immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

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. This was a fixed term tenancy that ended by agreement and the landlord has also claimed the costs of finding a new tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has claimed rent to 26 October 2025, which is the day before a new fixed term tenancy started. This is the landlord’s claim to prove.
The tenant said she should not have to pay rent to that date because the landlord did not act promptly or fairly in assessing three prospective tenants. I have considered the tenancy agreement and I do not find that pets were allowed because the specific pet clause at pages 2 and 3 is clear and overrides the general rules if a pet is allowed set out later in the tenancy agreement. I have also considered the evidence and the dates. I do not find the landlord acted unreasonably in the process of choosing a new tenant.
This means the tenant should pay rent up to 26 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Should I allow the claim for water rates?

The landlord has claimed water rates for the whole tenancy. I was not provided with copies of the invoices. The tenant said she never received these either, and was only aware she had to pay water at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the bills were sent to the tenant during the tenancy addressed to “the occupier”. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for water because I do not have copies of the invoices, and because I have not seen any evidence from the provider confirming that the invoices were sent during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

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

There is a claim for cleaning. Tenants are required to the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos taken at the exit inspection. The house looks reasonably clean and tidy to me. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the floors?

There is a claim for repairs to the engineered timber flooring in the lounge. The 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 she 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.
It is hard to see if there were any scratches on the floor by looking at the photos in the entry and exit inspections. The landlord provided me close up photos. I can see there are a number of fine surface scratches. It is not clear from the close up photos how much flooring was marked, but the landlord said the boards were where the tenant had her sofa.
I am not persuaded the marks are more than fair wear and tear. The landlord said the tenancy was too short for there to be any wear and tear but I do not agree. Fair wear and tear is any damage that arises from the normal use of the premises. Having a sofa on the wooden boards in the lounge is normal use. I also note the floor is still fully functional and a new tenant has moved in even though the repair has not been done. The landlord has not proved the claim and it is dismissed.

Can the landlord recover expenses?

The landlord has attempted to recover expenses incurred in respect of the termination under section 50(1)(d) RTA. An accounting of costs was provided to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is allowed to claim any reasonable expenses incurred in finding the new tenant. See section 44A RTA.
I find the landlord has proved there were advertising and credit check costs and the tenant should pay these. The exit inspection and the inspection for the new tenant should be paid by the landlord because these are done for the landlord’s benefit.
The claim for a flat fee of $851 for time and travel to viewings is not allowed because section 44A RTA requires a claim for reasonable expenses and an itemised account. A flat fee specified in advance is no longer allowed. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394782 — Rent arrears at 53 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394782 — Rent arrears at 53 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should I allow the claim for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the floors?

Can the landlord recover expenses?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should I allow the claim for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the floors?

Can the landlord recover expenses?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.