What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424711 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Reliable Realty Limited $5,617.07 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5424711?

Blind String: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $249.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $114.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $249.99 awarded to landlord; Shower Trap: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $124.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424711?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760798-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424711 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Reliable Realty Limited $5,617.07 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5424711?

Blind String: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $249.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $114.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $249.99 awarded to landlord; Shower Trap: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $124.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424711?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760798-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19A Kelwyn Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424711 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

19A Kelwyn Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424711 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424711 — net $5,617.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 January 2026	$114.15	Rent arrears to 16 January 2026
Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026	$124.94	Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026
Insurance excess (x6	$4,500.00	Insurance excess (x6
Shower trap	$50.00	Shower trap
Blind string	$100.00	Blind string
Cleaning	$249.99	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$249.99	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,617.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,617.07

Claims and awards for application 5424711 — net $5,617.07 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 16 January 2026

Amount: $114.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 16 January 2026

Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026

Amount: $124.94
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026

Insurance excess (x6

Amount: $4,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess (x6

Shower trap

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Shower trap

Blind string

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Blind string

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Reliable Realty Limited $5,617.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 17 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 16 January 2026.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves the tenant owes $3,304.15 in rent arrears up to the end of the tenancy. The landlord has recovered the bond of $3,190.00, which must be deducted from this amount. After this deduction, the total rent arrears are $114.15.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $124.94 in outstanding water rates invoices.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The carpet is stained throughout the premises and the landlord gave evidence it smelt like dog urine. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The tenant also left behind personal belongings such as a mattress, outdoor furniture and other miscellaneous household items. Rubbish is scattered throughout the lawns, which are also overgrown.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts, which are inclusive of GST: a. Cleaning: $249.99 b. Rubbish removal: $249.99 c. Lawns: $200.00
The landlord submitted an invoice from Night Star Limited for these amounts. Heat pump remote
The landlord claims a heat pump remote was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end. They seek $25.00 to replace it.
The tenancy agreement does not list a heat pump remote as a chattel provided by the landlord. The landlord did not submit any photographs of the heat pump 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. remote taken during the tenancy. The landlord has not had the heat pump remote replaced and therefore did not submit an invoice either.
In the absence of any kind of supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that a heat pump remote was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end. I am also not convinced the landlord has incurred a cost to replace it.
For all of these reasons, this claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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. 7
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Insurance excess (x6)
The landlord claims the following rooms inside the premises were damaged during the tenancy: a. Bedroom 1 b. Bedroom 2 c. Ensuite d. Living room e. Hallway f. Garage
The repair costs have been covered by the landlord’s insurer who has charged the landlord an excess of $750.00 per room, totalling $4,500.00. The repairs include full replacement of the carpet and painting the inside of the premises.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The carpet is in good condition with no obvious or significant stains. The 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. walls are also in good condition with no obvious or significant marks, scratches or holes. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the carpet is stained throughout the premises. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant kept a dog at the premises without permission and some of the staining appears to be dog urine. I accept the landlord’s evidence. Photographs of some of the staining appear consistent with the claim regarding dog urine. Other photographs of the carpet show dark marks and spots, some of which appear to be paint. One section of the carpet appears to have been burnt.
Other photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some parts of the walls and doors have been painted white. The colour is slightly different from the original colour of the walls. In particular, a large part of the wall in the hallway appears to have been painted white. In the bedrooms, a couple of screw-sized holes are apparent, as well as other marks that look like small, grey/black squares. The tenant has also painted the garage flooring dark blue. It was grey, polished concrete in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy and is dark blue in the photographs taken at the end.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the that the carpet, walls and/or flooring were damaged during the tenancy in each of the following areas: a. Bedroom 1 b. Bedroom 2 c. Ensuite d. Living room e. Hallway f. Garage
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $4,500.00 to cover the excess of $750.00 for each room is granted. Shower head and trap
The landlord claims the showerhead was broken at the end of the tenancy, because it was leaking water between the hose and head. The landlord gave evidence that the showerhead is 5 years old. Given its age, I am not convinced the leaking exceeds fair wear and tear.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy also show the shower trap is missing. The landlord gave evidence it was present at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. I find the shower trap was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a quote for $244.00 to repair the shower head and replace the trap. The landlord has only proven their claim in relation to the shower trap, not the shower head. The landlord has also not incurred an actual cost to replace the shower trap yet. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the shower trap is granted for a nominal amount of $50.00. Clothesline
The landlord claims the main pole on the clothesline was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted one photograph taken at the end of the tenancy. It is taken at a distance and blurry. The quality is not good and no damage can be seen in the photograph.
The landlord did not submit a photograph of the clothesline at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks $325.00 in compensation and submitted a quote for $649.00 to replace the clothesline. The amount sought by the landlord reflects the fact that the clothesline is 5 years old.
In the absence of photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, which clearly show the clothesline is in good condition at the beginning and damaged at the end, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the clothesline was damaged during the tenancy. For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Blind string
The premises have roller blinds in some rooms. The landlord claims that the cord on one of the blinds in the living room and bedroom was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted photographs of these areas taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which show the cords are present. Photographs taken at the end show the cords are missing. On the balance of probabilities, I find the cords on the roller blinds in the living room and one of the bedrooms were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a quote for $472.00 to replace the cords on each of the blinds. Because the landlord has not actually incurred this cost, their claim for compensation is granted for a nominal amount of $100.00.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because Reliable Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424711 — net $5,617.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 January 2026	$114.15	Rent arrears to 16 January 2026
Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026	$124.94	Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026
Insurance excess (x6	$4,500.00	Insurance excess (x6
Shower trap	$50.00	Shower trap
Blind string	$100.00	Blind string
Cleaning	$249.99	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$249.99	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,617.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,617.07

Claims and awards for application 5424711 — net $5,617.07 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 16 January 2026

Amount: $114.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 16 January 2026

Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026

Amount: $124.94
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: December 2025 - 16 January 2026

Insurance excess (x6

Amount: $4,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess (x6

Shower trap

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Shower trap

Blind string

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Blind string

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Reliable Realty Limited $5,617.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 17 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 16 January 2026.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves the tenant owes $3,304.15 in rent arrears up to the end of the tenancy. The landlord has recovered the bond of $3,190.00, which must be deducted from this amount. After this deduction, the total rent arrears are $114.15.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $124.94 in outstanding water rates invoices.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The carpet is stained throughout the premises and the landlord gave evidence it smelt like dog urine. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The tenant also left behind personal belongings such as a mattress, outdoor furniture and other miscellaneous household items. Rubbish is scattered throughout the lawns, which are also overgrown.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts, which are inclusive of GST: a. Cleaning: $249.99 b. Rubbish removal: $249.99 c. Lawns: $200.00
The landlord submitted an invoice from Night Star Limited for these amounts. Heat pump remote
The landlord claims a heat pump remote was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end. They seek $25.00 to replace it.
The tenancy agreement does not list a heat pump remote as a chattel provided by the landlord. The landlord did not submit any photographs of the heat pump 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. remote taken during the tenancy. The landlord has not had the heat pump remote replaced and therefore did not submit an invoice either.
In the absence of any kind of supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that a heat pump remote was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end. I am also not convinced the landlord has incurred a cost to replace it.
For all of these reasons, this claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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. 7
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Insurance excess (x6)
The landlord claims the following rooms inside the premises were damaged during the tenancy: a. Bedroom 1 b. Bedroom 2 c. Ensuite d. Living room e. Hallway f. Garage
The repair costs have been covered by the landlord’s insurer who has charged the landlord an excess of $750.00 per room, totalling $4,500.00. The repairs include full replacement of the carpet and painting the inside of the premises.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The carpet is in good condition with no obvious or significant stains. The 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. walls are also in good condition with no obvious or significant marks, scratches or holes. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the carpet is stained throughout the premises. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant kept a dog at the premises without permission and some of the staining appears to be dog urine. I accept the landlord’s evidence. Photographs of some of the staining appear consistent with the claim regarding dog urine. Other photographs of the carpet show dark marks and spots, some of which appear to be paint. One section of the carpet appears to have been burnt.
Other photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some parts of the walls and doors have been painted white. The colour is slightly different from the original colour of the walls. In particular, a large part of the wall in the hallway appears to have been painted white. In the bedrooms, a couple of screw-sized holes are apparent, as well as other marks that look like small, grey/black squares. The tenant has also painted the garage flooring dark blue. It was grey, polished concrete in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy and is dark blue in the photographs taken at the end.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the that the carpet, walls and/or flooring were damaged during the tenancy in each of the following areas: a. Bedroom 1 b. Bedroom 2 c. Ensuite d. Living room e. Hallway f. Garage
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $4,500.00 to cover the excess of $750.00 for each room is granted. Shower head and trap
The landlord claims the showerhead was broken at the end of the tenancy, because it was leaking water between the hose and head. The landlord gave evidence that the showerhead is 5 years old. Given its age, I am not convinced the leaking exceeds fair wear and tear.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy also show the shower trap is missing. The landlord gave evidence it was present at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. I find the shower trap was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a quote for $244.00 to repair the shower head and replace the trap. The landlord has only proven their claim in relation to the shower trap, not the shower head. The landlord has also not incurred an actual cost to replace the shower trap yet. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the shower trap is granted for a nominal amount of $50.00. Clothesline
The landlord claims the main pole on the clothesline was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted one photograph taken at the end of the tenancy. It is taken at a distance and blurry. The quality is not good and no damage can be seen in the photograph.
The landlord did not submit a photograph of the clothesline at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks $325.00 in compensation and submitted a quote for $649.00 to replace the clothesline. The amount sought by the landlord reflects the fact that the clothesline is 5 years old.
In the absence of photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, which clearly show the clothesline is in good condition at the beginning and damaged at the end, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the clothesline was damaged during the tenancy. For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Blind string
The premises have roller blinds in some rooms. The landlord claims that the cord on one of the blinds in the living room and bedroom was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted photographs of these areas taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which show the cords are present. Photographs taken at the end show the cords are missing. On the balance of probabilities, I find the cords on the roller blinds in the living room and one of the bedrooms were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenancy has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a quote for $472.00 to replace the cords on each of the blinds. Because the landlord has not actually incurred this cost, their claim for compensation is granted for a nominal amount of $100.00.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because Reliable Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424711 — Property damage at 19A Kelwyn Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424711 — Property damage at 19A Kelwyn Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions