Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5394963 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Minton Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102
Decided 4 February 2026 · Published 4 February 2026 · Application 5394963
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Filing Fee
- Filing Fee Reimbursement
- Leaks
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Smoke alarms
- State of repair
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Northwood
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $527.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $527.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Advertising costs | $499.00 | Advertising costs | |
| Net award | $527.00 | ||
| Bond | $5,100.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $527.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5394963 — net $527.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Advertising costs
- Amount
- $499.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Advertising costs
Net award
Landlord $527.00
Bond
Landlord $5,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $527.00
Dismissed claims
- Pest Control — Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- Rent And Water Arrears — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Hengihengi Makasini Koula to pay Skye Stirling and LENORE COULTER $527.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,100.00 (BN-00167471) immediately apportioned as follows: Skye Stirling and LENORE COULTER: $527.00 Hengihengi Makasini Koula: $4,573.00
Reasons
- This was an in person hearing scheduled for 9.30am on Wednesday 4 th February 2026. The landlords did not attend the hearing. On 12 January 2026 I note the landlords advised that they were both in Australia and provided a phone number to contact them for the hearing.
- The correct procedure would have been to advise the Tribunal that they were in Australia and seek a phone or video hearing. The landlords did not do this and simply provided a phone number.
- The tenants appeared at the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing the Registrar rang the landlords on the phone number provided in their message. The call went unanswered. The Registrar sent an email to the landlords advising that we were trying to contact them on the phone number, but it is not connecting and asking if there is another way to contact them. The email went unanswered. I rang the landlord’s phone number twice more through teams, but the calls disconnected after a short while.
- The landlords have not communicated with the Tribunal this morning. As the tenants had all taken a day off work and left a family funeral to attend this hearing, I am proceeding in the absence of the landlords.
- The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
- This was a fixed term 24 month tenancy that commenced on 16 August 2024 and was to terminate on 16 August 2026. The tenants were struggling to pay the rent and had the opportunity to buy their own home. The tenants sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy early.
- The tenants left the property on 3 November 2025. The tenants say the rent was paid up to 3 November 2025.
- The landlords have claimed for the following: -Advertising costs -Water bills -Cleaning -Curtain repairs -Pest control -Gas bottle replacement -Plumbing and gas fitting repairs -Toilet repairs -Washing machine repairs -Insurance excess -Rent arrears
- The landlords have provided invoices, bank statements, water bills, one photo, tenancy agreement and a few letters and emails between themselves and the tenants.
- The tenants claim that the house was old and in need of maintenance. They told the Tribunal that they had to carry out repairs on the property themselves rather than going to the landlords. One of the tenants had fallen through a rotten step off the deck and injured her leg. The tenants repaired the step, a broken fence, repainted the lounge and fixed the leaking toilet at their own expense.
- The tenants told the Tribunal that they did not want to complain to the landlords and just got on with doing the work themselves. Gas bottles:
- The landlord is claiming for the replacement of gas bottles at the property and the installation of gas connections.
- The tenants advised that when they took over the tenancy, they already had an account with Mercury Energy for their gas and power. They chose to remain with their usual provider, Mercury Energy, and not Rock Gas that was in place at the property.
- The tenants say that Mercury Energy came to the property and provided their gas bottles for the tenants to use and returned the Rock Gas bottles to Rock Gas.
- The tenants claim they told the landlords about this. When the tenancy ended Mercury Energy came and removed their gas bottles.
- The tenants have no knowledge of the landlords claims for installing the gas connections to the property. The landlords have not specified what these costs were for.
- The landlords have not provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the gas bottles nor explained what the invoice was for regarding the gas connection.
- I am dismissing the landlords claim for the gas bottles and gas connection costs. Insurance excess:
- The landlords mention in their summary of costs that they are seeking $500.00 for insurance excess for the shower. There is no evidence of damage to the shower nor documentation about repairs, or insurance pay out.
- The landlords have not provided evidence to support any claims for insurance excess, nor gas bottle replacements, or gas and plumbing repairs and I am dismissing them. Advertising costs:
- The tenants sought to break the tenancy agreement early and accepted that they were to pay the cost of readvertising the property before the contractual end of the tenancy.
- The landlord provided two invoices for $499.00 for Trade Me Advertisements. The tenants accept that they should be responsible for these costs.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for advertising costs. The relevant law and standard of proof:
- 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.
- 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.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court 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.
- The landlords have largely failed to prove their claims due to a lack of evidence. Rent arrears and water bills:
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 3 November 2025. The landlord stated in their application that they were seeking $5100.00 in rent arrears. The landlords have not provided a rent summary nor any records to support their claim for rent arears. I must therefore dismiss the landlord claim for rent arrears.
- The landlords seek water rates invoices and have provided a number of water bills to prove the amount owing in water bills. However, the landlords have claimed two sums for water bills, one claim is for water bills of $1179.71 and the other is for outstanding water bills of $786.44. I do not understand the difference between outstanding water bills and water bills, and this has not been explained in the documents provided.
- Furthermore, all the water bills included the wastewater fixed fee which the tenants say they have had to pay throughout the tenancy. The landlord pays this portion of the water bills as this has to do with the maintenance of the system and not actual usage of water.
- The tenants claim to have discussed this with the landlord but there was no resolution of this dispute. The tenants say they paid the water bills up to June/July of 2025, including the landlord’s portion, and then paid $50.00 per week towards the water arrears until September 2025.
- The landlords have not provided any evidence of the previously paid water bills nor a summary of the $50.00 per week paid towards water bills.
- I am not awarding the landlords the water bills because the tenants have paid the landlords portion of the water bills for nearly one year, which could be approximately $240.00 ($20.00 x 12 months)and there is no accounting for the $50.00 per week which would amount to approximately $600.00 (12 x $50.00).
- It is for the landlord to provide proper accounting for the invoices and money received from tenants.
- The landlord claims that the tenants owe arrears for rent and water charges. The landlord has not provided proper accounting or records to support the amounts claimed.
- Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies except as specifically provided otherwise. Section 30(1)(a) of the RTA requires landlords to keep proper records of all payments received from tenants, including rent and other charges.
- The onus is on the landlord, as the applicant, to prove the amount of arrears claimed. This requires clear and reliable evidence, such as a rent summary, bank statements, or invoices for water charges. Where a landlord fails to keep proper records, the Tribunal may find that the landlord has not discharged the burden of proof and may decline to order arrears.
- This approach is supported by Tribunal decisions such as McArthur and ors v Landlord (NZTT 4320786), where the Tribunal declined to order arrears due to incomplete or unreliable records. The Tribunal has consistently held that, where there is a lack of proper records, any ambiguity or doubt will be resolved in favour of the tenant.
- In this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient records to establish the arrears claimed. There is no clear rent summary, bank statement, or reliable invoices for water charges. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants owe the amounts sought.
- The landlord’s claim for rent and water arrears is dismissed.
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. Cleaning:
- The landlords claim the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenants claim that they left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The landlords have provided an invoice for $552.00 from Tidy Crew dated 21 November 2025 for cleaning. However, the landlords have not provided any proof such as photos and/or an exit inspection report to show the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
- I note the landlords are claiming $1065.00 for cleaning but the invoice I have received is for $552.00.
- The landlords have not proven their claim for cleaning costs. Pest control:
- The landlord seeks reimbursement from the tenants for pest control costs, alleging that the tenants are responsible for a cockroach and flee infestation at the premises. The landlord has provided a copy of an invoice for $402.50 from World Class Pest Control dated 19 November 2025.
- The tenants dispute liability, stating that the cockroach problem existed when they moved in, and that the landlord was aware of it. They stated that the day they moved into the property there were cockroaches clearly visible in the oven. The tenants also state that they purchased pest control products during the tenancy to address the issue. The tenants deny that there were flees at the property.
- The landlords have not provided proof of pest control issues in the property such as photos of the bugs and an inspection report noting the presence of the pests.
- Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair at the start of the tenancy. The landlord is responsible for remedying any infestation that exists at the commencement of the tenancy or arises due to a failure to maintain the premises.
- If the infestation was present at the start of the tenancy, or if the landlord was aware of it and did not remedy it, the landlord cannot recover pest control costs from the tenants. The tenants’ responsibility under section 40(1)(c) is to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, but this does not extend to remedying a pre-existing infestation.
- Where tenants have incurred costs remedying a pre-existing issue that was the landlord’s responsibility, the Tribunal may order the landlord to reimburse those reasonable costs. The tenants do not seek to be reimbursed for the pest control products.
- I find the evidence establishes that the cockroach infestation existed at the start of the tenancy and that the landlord was aware of the issue. The tenants took reasonable steps by purchasing pest control products during the tenancy. There is no evidence that the tenants’ actions caused or contributed to the infestation.
- The landlord’s claim for pest control costs is dismissed.
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: -Toilet -Washing machine -Curtains
- The landlords have not provided any proof of any damage to the toilet, washing machine or curtains. For that reason, their claims are dismissed.
- Had the landlords made the appropriate application to the Tribunal for a phone or video hearing, or arranged an agent to appear on their behalf, they may have been more successful with their claims.
- The landlords have not made themselves available for the hearing nor sought an adjournment. They have not responded to three phone calls and an email made to them this morning at the start of the hearing.
- The application and supporting documentation were inadequate and did not support the majority of their claims. Filing fee/Bond:
- Because Skye Stirling, LENORE COULTER has partially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to both parties as set out above in this order.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s30(1), s4, s40(1), s40(2), s45(1), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s64, s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394963?
The tribunal order states: Hengihengi Makasini Koula to pay Skye Stirling and LENORE COULTER
How much money was awarded in case 5394963?
Advertising Costs: $499.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394963?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394963?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072290-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.