What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399569 about?

The tribunal order states: Baseden Property Management Limited and D. Rong must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $10,590.83 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5399569?

Previous Order Application 5361324 D…: $11,715.50 awarded to tenant; Rent Owing: $746.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $378.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13316807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399569 about?

The tribunal order states: Baseden Property Management Limited and D. Rong must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $10,590.83 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5399569?

Previous Order Application 5361324 D…: $11,715.50 awarded to tenant; Rent Owing: $746.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $378.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13316807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Rosario Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399569 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399569 — net $10,590.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owing to 2 November 2025	$746.43		Rent owing to 2 November 2025
Water rates	$378.24		Water rates
Previous order application 5361324 dated 09/12/2025		$11,715.50	Previous order application 5361324 dated 09/12/2025
Total award	$1,124.67	$11,715.50
Net award		$10,590.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$10,590.83

Order

Baseden Property Management Limited and D. Rong must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $10,590.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 9 December 2025 under application number 5361324.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Baseden represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord claims the sum of $5,021.43 being rent at the full weekly rental of $950.00 to the end of the fixed term of the tenancy, 23 November 2025.
However, in a decision dated 9 December 2025 (under application number 5361324), the Tribunal found (in paragraphs 11 and 12) that the landlord agreed to reduce the tenancy to 2 November due to the condition of the premises, and between the time the tenants vacated on 16 September to the agreed end of the tenancy on 2 November, the landlord agreed to reduce the rent by 50%.
I therefore find the tenants liable for rent, at the reduced rate to 2 November 2025, totalling $746.43.
The landlord claims the sum of $621.38 for water rates for the months February 2025 to November 2025. The tenants did not dispute that they owed water rates (although they said they were never received invoices for the amounts said to be due until they received this application), but there was a dispute over how much was owed, particularly given the accuracy of the credits given due to identified water leaks at the premises. However, they both agreed at the hearing to settle the dispute by taking an average of the water rates for the months of February, August, September and October and applying that average to calculate the water rates due for May, June and July. The total due for the water rates invoiced for February, August, September and October, after deducting the fixed charges (tenants are generally only liable for the water actually used; landlords are responsible for fixed charges), is $216.15 which averages $54.03 each month. Thus, the total to be paid for the Months of May, June and July is $162.09.
I dismiss the claim for water rates for the month of November 2025. The reading is for the period 23 October to 21 November 2025. As mentioned, the tenants vacated the premises on 16 September and the tenancy ended on 2 November and there is no evidence to support the actual amount of water used by the tenants to 2 November. Has the landlord established that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?
The landlord claims $1,200.00 (plus GST) to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens; $840.00 (plus GST) to clean the premises; and $600.00 (plus GST) to clean the carpets.
I dismiss these claims. I accept the tenants’ evidence that the lawns were mowed (by a contractor employed by them) after the photographs provided by the landlord were taken.
The tenants also said that they weeded the gardens when the tenancy ended and left them reasonably tidy, and I accept their undisputed evidence that the landlord did not have the work done to tidy the gardens until some three weeks after the tenancy ended. There is also no explanation of what garden work was completed for the amount invoiced.
I also accept their evidence that they left the premises in a cleaner state that when the tenancy commenced. Their evidence is supported by an email dated the day the tenancy commenced, 9 December 2024, advising the landlord of the several issues found with the premises including their concerns regarding cleanliness; and on 20 December when they told the landlord that the carpets were badly stained and, despite them cleaning them several times, they remained “badly affected”. I also take into account the tenants’ undisputed evidence that the property manager who completed the final inspection told them that there was nothing more that needed to be done by them with respect to the cleaning of the premises.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenants are liable for the cost (limited to the insurance excess of $500.00) to remedy damage they say was caused by a leaking dishwasher pipe that had been installed two months before the tenancy ended. The damage was extensive, including mould and rot in the wall behind the dishwasher/kitchen area (through to the hall), and damage to the kitchen cabinets. The landlord claims that the tenants must have been aware of the leak and failed to advise the landlord of the need for repair as soon as possible after becoming aware of it (as required by section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). If a tenant fails to do so they may be liable for any additional damage caused by the failure to notify the landlord of the need for repair.
I dismiss this claim. It is clear that the house had extensive and major water ingress issues from the commencement of the tenancy and the tenants had alerted the landlord to that fact several times (some of these issues were identified by the Tribunal in decision number 5361324). It seems likely in my view that the existing water ingress issues were the major cause, if not the sole cause, of the damage now claimed by the landlord, rather than a leaking dishwasher that had only been installed some two months earlier.
Moreover, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they were unaware of any water leaks from the dishwasher and there were no signs that ought to have put them on notice of that fact. They are therefore not in breach of section 40(1)(d) of the Act which only required them to advise the landlord of any repairs that they were aware of.
The landlord also claims the cost (again limited to the insurance excess of $500.00) for the cost to replace the bathroom vanity. The landlord claims that the tenants were careless by allowing water from the shower to flood the bathroom floor causing the damage.
Again, I do not consider that the landlord has established that the water damage to the vanity was caused by any actions or inactions of the tenants (or others at the premises with their permission). I find that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused when the hot water cylinder on the floor above the bathroom leaked causing water to drain down the wall and onto the bathroom floor. The tenants had told the landlord of the leaking cylinder, and I accept their evidence that the pooling of water on the bathroom floor ceased after the cylinder was repaired/replaced. I note that the Tribunal at paragraph 30 records the problem with the hot water cylinder “leaking from upstairs to the downstairs bathroom area”.
Mr Baseden confirmed at the hearing that the landlord wished to withdraw the claim for the cost to replace curtains in the premises. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claims, and I do not consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Previous order
On 9 December 2025, the Tribunal made an order under application 5361324 that the landlord is to pay the tenants the sum of $11,715.50, being compensation and the Tribunal application fee. That order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Finally, I record that it is of some concern that the landlord chose to file its application for full rent to the end of the fixed term, and to pursue the water damage claims against the tenants given the findings of the Tribunal in application 5361324.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399569 — net $10,590.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owing to 2 November 2025	$746.43		Rent owing to 2 November 2025
Water rates	$378.24		Water rates
Previous order application 5361324 dated 09/12/2025		$11,715.50	Previous order application 5361324 dated 09/12/2025
Total award	$1,124.67	$11,715.50
Net award		$10,590.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$10,590.83

Order

Baseden Property Management Limited and D. Rong must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $10,590.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 9 December 2025 under application number 5361324.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Baseden represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord claims the sum of $5,021.43 being rent at the full weekly rental of $950.00 to the end of the fixed term of the tenancy, 23 November 2025.
However, in a decision dated 9 December 2025 (under application number 5361324), the Tribunal found (in paragraphs 11 and 12) that the landlord agreed to reduce the tenancy to 2 November due to the condition of the premises, and between the time the tenants vacated on 16 September to the agreed end of the tenancy on 2 November, the landlord agreed to reduce the rent by 50%.
I therefore find the tenants liable for rent, at the reduced rate to 2 November 2025, totalling $746.43.
The landlord claims the sum of $621.38 for water rates for the months February 2025 to November 2025. The tenants did not dispute that they owed water rates (although they said they were never received invoices for the amounts said to be due until they received this application), but there was a dispute over how much was owed, particularly given the accuracy of the credits given due to identified water leaks at the premises. However, they both agreed at the hearing to settle the dispute by taking an average of the water rates for the months of February, August, September and October and applying that average to calculate the water rates due for May, June and July. The total due for the water rates invoiced for February, August, September and October, after deducting the fixed charges (tenants are generally only liable for the water actually used; landlords are responsible for fixed charges), is $216.15 which averages $54.03 each month. Thus, the total to be paid for the Months of May, June and July is $162.09.
I dismiss the claim for water rates for the month of November 2025. The reading is for the period 23 October to 21 November 2025. As mentioned, the tenants vacated the premises on 16 September and the tenancy ended on 2 November and there is no evidence to support the actual amount of water used by the tenants to 2 November. Has the landlord established that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?
The landlord claims $1,200.00 (plus GST) to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens; $840.00 (plus GST) to clean the premises; and $600.00 (plus GST) to clean the carpets.
I dismiss these claims. I accept the tenants’ evidence that the lawns were mowed (by a contractor employed by them) after the photographs provided by the landlord were taken.
The tenants also said that they weeded the gardens when the tenancy ended and left them reasonably tidy, and I accept their undisputed evidence that the landlord did not have the work done to tidy the gardens until some three weeks after the tenancy ended. There is also no explanation of what garden work was completed for the amount invoiced.
I also accept their evidence that they left the premises in a cleaner state that when the tenancy commenced. Their evidence is supported by an email dated the day the tenancy commenced, 9 December 2024, advising the landlord of the several issues found with the premises including their concerns regarding cleanliness; and on 20 December when they told the landlord that the carpets were badly stained and, despite them cleaning them several times, they remained “badly affected”. I also take into account the tenants’ undisputed evidence that the property manager who completed the final inspection told them that there was nothing more that needed to be done by them with respect to the cleaning of the premises.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenants are liable for the cost (limited to the insurance excess of $500.00) to remedy damage they say was caused by a leaking dishwasher pipe that had been installed two months before the tenancy ended. The damage was extensive, including mould and rot in the wall behind the dishwasher/kitchen area (through to the hall), and damage to the kitchen cabinets. The landlord claims that the tenants must have been aware of the leak and failed to advise the landlord of the need for repair as soon as possible after becoming aware of it (as required by section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). If a tenant fails to do so they may be liable for any additional damage caused by the failure to notify the landlord of the need for repair.
I dismiss this claim. It is clear that the house had extensive and major water ingress issues from the commencement of the tenancy and the tenants had alerted the landlord to that fact several times (some of these issues were identified by the Tribunal in decision number 5361324). It seems likely in my view that the existing water ingress issues were the major cause, if not the sole cause, of the damage now claimed by the landlord, rather than a leaking dishwasher that had only been installed some two months earlier.
Moreover, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they were unaware of any water leaks from the dishwasher and there were no signs that ought to have put them on notice of that fact. They are therefore not in breach of section 40(1)(d) of the Act which only required them to advise the landlord of any repairs that they were aware of.
The landlord also claims the cost (again limited to the insurance excess of $500.00) for the cost to replace the bathroom vanity. The landlord claims that the tenants were careless by allowing water from the shower to flood the bathroom floor causing the damage.
Again, I do not consider that the landlord has established that the water damage to the vanity was caused by any actions or inactions of the tenants (or others at the premises with their permission). I find that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused when the hot water cylinder on the floor above the bathroom leaked causing water to drain down the wall and onto the bathroom floor. The tenants had told the landlord of the leaking cylinder, and I accept their evidence that the pooling of water on the bathroom floor ceased after the cylinder was repaired/replaced. I note that the Tribunal at paragraph 30 records the problem with the hot water cylinder “leaking from upstairs to the downstairs bathroom area”.
Mr Baseden confirmed at the hearing that the landlord wished to withdraw the claim for the cost to replace curtains in the premises. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claims, and I do not consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Previous order
On 9 December 2025, the Tribunal made an order under application 5361324 that the landlord is to pay the tenants the sum of $11,715.50, being compensation and the Tribunal application fee. That order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Finally, I record that it is of some concern that the landlord chose to file its application for full rent to the end of the fixed term, and to pursue the water damage claims against the tenants given the findings of the Tribunal in application 5361324.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399569 — Tenancy dispute at 29 Rosario Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399569 — Tenancy dispute at 29 Rosario Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions