What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416689 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5416689?

Cleaning: $217.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $548.57 awarded to tenant; Cupboard Door: $252.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Base Board: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $18.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416689?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13440775-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416689 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5416689?

Cleaning: $217.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $548.57 awarded to tenant; Cupboard Door: $252.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Base Board: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $18.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416689?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13440775-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Central Park Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416689 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416689 — net $939.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: cupboard door	$252.00		Repairs: cupboard door
Repairs: exterior base board	$350.00		Repairs: exterior base board
Rubbish removal	$600.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$217.50		Cleaning
Repairs: hallway	$50.00		Repairs: hallway
Water rates	$18.85		Water rates
Rent arrears overpayment of 6 days		$548.57	Rent arrears overpayment of 6 days
Total award	$1,488.35	$548.57
Net award	$939.78
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$939.78

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $939.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The claim for repair to the front door is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (6524553-001) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]: $939.78 [The tenant/s]: $1,620.22

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of overpaid rent, 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 was due to end on Monday 15 December 2025. In the event, the tenancy was extended an extra day to allow the tenants time to remove the last of their belongings and to clean. The parties agree the tenancy included Tuesday 16 December 2025.
The landlord said the tenant paid an extra week’s rent due to a mistake that the landlord made. The overpaid rent has not yet been refunded. This is money that is not in dispute and belongs to the tenant. The landlord said she was holding it because of the dispute before the Tribunal. In effect this is being held as an extra bond. This is not lawful.
Because the tenancy lasted an extra day, the overpaid rent is for six days. The parties agreed this is $584.75. This must be refunded to the tenant.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $18.85.
These claims and the amounts ordered are proved.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant said that the landlord gave them until 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 December 2025 to finish removing their belongings and do the cleaning, but this wasn’t enough time to complete all the work still to be done.
The landlord said she told the tenants to complete what they wanted to do and then lock the door behind them when they left.
The tenancy was due to end on Monday 15 December 2025. That was the original date by which the tenants were to have removed their belongings and left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs provided by the landlord show many belongings and much rubbish left inside the premises and outside the premises, including a shed with a lot of rubbish in it. Other than the kitchen, it appears no cleaning was done at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is not claiming for the loss of any belongings improperly disposed of by the landlord.
Despite what the landlord did or did not say to the tenant, the tenants had access to the property for the purpose of removing their belongings and cleaning the premises for as long as they wished on Tuesday 16 December 2025, a day later than their tenancy had originally been scheduled to end. In failing to complete these tasks the tenants has breached their tenancy obligations.
I consider the rubbish removal costs and cleaning costs to be well within reasonable limits.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 is not disputed as having been caused during the tenancy by the tenants: a. Cupboard door, b. Exterior cladding, c. Hallway.
The tenant accepts the claim of $252.00 to repair the cupboard door.
The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $400.00 for damage to the exterior cladding caused by a friend of the tenant making a hole in it with the towbar of her car. The landlord is in the process of repairing the damage himself.
The damage is not disputed. The tenant says her father repaired the damage and it simply needed repainting.
The landlord said the repair did not fix the damage to the weatherproof membrane. He considers a more thorough repair is required.
I am persuaded the repair done by the tenant’s father was not of a sufficient standard, and the landlord is justified in repairing it to the standard it was prior to the accident.
However, the landlord’s costings include a fee for the use of his own trailer which I consider cannot be justified as the landlord has incurred no expense or loss for this. I also note that the repairs include a large sheet of the material used to repair the hole when only a small amount is needed, and a large amount of the compound used to create the stucco effect. When I deduct these partial and similar costs from the landlord’s invoice, and factor in depreciation and betterment, I arrive at a figure of $350.00 for the repair. This amount is proved.
The damage to the hallway was a small hole that has been repaired by the tenant. The landlord is claiming $195.21.
The tenant said the repair simply needs repainting.
The photographs show the tenant’s repair to have been done to a good standard. I accept the tenant’s submission. I have reduced the landlord’s claim to cover light preparation and paint. I have factored in betterment.
The landlord is also claiming for damage to the front door. The landlord says the aluminium door and frame have come away from the “reveal” which is the timber part of the doorframe. The separation is about 12 mm. The landlord says this has been caused by the tenant being rough with the door.
The tenant said they have not been rough with the door and that the separation was evident at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord says the door and frame showed no separation at the beginning of the tenancy.
I consider this an unusual defect. If the tenant had been rough with the door sufficient to cause this separation, I would expect to see other evidence of it, such as damage to the door itself, the locking mechanism, or door handle. The “damage” as shown appears to be in isolation.
The landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the “damage” has been caused by the tenant.
This claim is not proved.
Because each party has been partly successful with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416689 — net $939.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: cupboard door	$252.00		Repairs: cupboard door
Repairs: exterior base board	$350.00		Repairs: exterior base board
Rubbish removal	$600.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$217.50		Cleaning
Repairs: hallway	$50.00		Repairs: hallway
Water rates	$18.85		Water rates
Rent arrears overpayment of 6 days		$548.57	Rent arrears overpayment of 6 days
Total award	$1,488.35	$548.57
Net award	$939.78
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$939.78

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $939.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The claim for repair to the front door is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (6524553-001) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]: $939.78 [The tenant/s]: $1,620.22

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of overpaid rent, 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 was due to end on Monday 15 December 2025. In the event, the tenancy was extended an extra day to allow the tenants time to remove the last of their belongings and to clean. The parties agree the tenancy included Tuesday 16 December 2025.
The landlord said the tenant paid an extra week’s rent due to a mistake that the landlord made. The overpaid rent has not yet been refunded. This is money that is not in dispute and belongs to the tenant. The landlord said she was holding it because of the dispute before the Tribunal. In effect this is being held as an extra bond. This is not lawful.
Because the tenancy lasted an extra day, the overpaid rent is for six days. The parties agreed this is $584.75. This must be refunded to the tenant.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $18.85.
These claims and the amounts ordered are proved.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant said that the landlord gave them until 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 December 2025 to finish removing their belongings and do the cleaning, but this wasn’t enough time to complete all the work still to be done.
The landlord said she told the tenants to complete what they wanted to do and then lock the door behind them when they left.
The tenancy was due to end on Monday 15 December 2025. That was the original date by which the tenants were to have removed their belongings and left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs provided by the landlord show many belongings and much rubbish left inside the premises and outside the premises, including a shed with a lot of rubbish in it. Other than the kitchen, it appears no cleaning was done at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is not claiming for the loss of any belongings improperly disposed of by the landlord.
Despite what the landlord did or did not say to the tenant, the tenants had access to the property for the purpose of removing their belongings and cleaning the premises for as long as they wished on Tuesday 16 December 2025, a day later than their tenancy had originally been scheduled to end. In failing to complete these tasks the tenants has breached their tenancy obligations.
I consider the rubbish removal costs and cleaning costs to be well within reasonable limits.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 is not disputed as having been caused during the tenancy by the tenants: a. Cupboard door, b. Exterior cladding, c. Hallway.
The tenant accepts the claim of $252.00 to repair the cupboard door.
The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $400.00 for damage to the exterior cladding caused by a friend of the tenant making a hole in it with the towbar of her car. The landlord is in the process of repairing the damage himself.
The damage is not disputed. The tenant says her father repaired the damage and it simply needed repainting.
The landlord said the repair did not fix the damage to the weatherproof membrane. He considers a more thorough repair is required.
I am persuaded the repair done by the tenant’s father was not of a sufficient standard, and the landlord is justified in repairing it to the standard it was prior to the accident.
However, the landlord’s costings include a fee for the use of his own trailer which I consider cannot be justified as the landlord has incurred no expense or loss for this. I also note that the repairs include a large sheet of the material used to repair the hole when only a small amount is needed, and a large amount of the compound used to create the stucco effect. When I deduct these partial and similar costs from the landlord’s invoice, and factor in depreciation and betterment, I arrive at a figure of $350.00 for the repair. This amount is proved.
The damage to the hallway was a small hole that has been repaired by the tenant. The landlord is claiming $195.21.
The tenant said the repair simply needs repainting.
The photographs show the tenant’s repair to have been done to a good standard. I accept the tenant’s submission. I have reduced the landlord’s claim to cover light preparation and paint. I have factored in betterment.
The landlord is also claiming for damage to the front door. The landlord says the aluminium door and frame have come away from the “reveal” which is the timber part of the doorframe. The separation is about 12 mm. The landlord says this has been caused by the tenant being rough with the door.
The tenant said they have not been rough with the door and that the separation was evident at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord says the door and frame showed no separation at the beginning of the tenancy.
I consider this an unusual defect. If the tenant had been rough with the door sufficient to cause this separation, I would expect to see other evidence of it, such as damage to the door itself, the locking mechanism, or door handle. The “damage” as shown appears to be in isolation.
The landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the “damage” has been caused by the tenant.
This claim is not proved.
Because each party has been partly successful with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416689 — Property damage at 33 Central Park Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416689 — Property damage at 33 Central Park Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions