What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427361 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Iron Bridge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5427361?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,764.29 awarded to landlord; To Deck Paintwork: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $477.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427361?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13548270-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427361 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Iron Bridge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5427361?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,764.29 awarded to landlord; To Deck Paintwork: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $477.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427361?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13548270-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77B Waiatarua Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427361 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427361 — net $3,511.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 November 2025	$2,764.29	Rent arrears to 29 November 2025
Water rates to end of tenancy	$477.95	Water rates to end of tenancy
Repairs: to deck paintwork	$241.50	Repairs: to deck paintwork
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,511.74
Bond	$5,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,511.74

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Lang Ventures Ltd $3,511.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5160.00 (3288539-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Lang Ventures Ltd: $3,511.74 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,648.26

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference on 5 May 2026. The property manager Chante van Huysen attended for the landlord and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended for both tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, 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 ended on 29 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant stated that these amounts are agreed to.

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 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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to the deck from barbeque oil in April 2025. (a)The landlord claimed that the deck was damaged with oil from the tenant’s barbeque and sought the sum of $442.75 to remedy this. (b)The landlord stated that the tenants were give notice that contractors would be painting the deck in April 2025. (c)The tenants responded that the landlord was doing extensive maintenance work during their tenancy including painting the exterior of the premises. They received notice from the landlord in April 2025 that contractors would be painting the deck and stated they assumed that this meant that they would be painting the exterior on the deck side of the house. They were not asked to move any deck furniture but discovered afterwards that the deck itself was painted. (d)The work was done and the deck painted without incident. (e)In June 2025 the tenants received an invoice from the landlord for over $1000 for deck repainting and queried this. After months of back and forth communication a revised invoice was sent to the tenant in October 2025 in the sum of $442.75. (f)The property manager stated that one week after the painting was done the owner inspected the work and was unhappy with the job done. The contractor attributed this to oil on the deck and provided photographs of the tenant’s barbeque beside a ranchslider on the deck with oil marks on the deck below. The property manager advised this photograph was provided by the contractors. (g)The tenant denied that the photograph of the barbeque was in the place where they used it and stated that it was usually in the corner and must have been moved by the contractors and oil may have spilled in the moving. The tenant stated that the paint job done had been poor and provided a photograph showing that an area under an outdoor sofa had not been painted at all. (h)The property manager who attended the hearing did not commence as property manager for this premises until November 2025 so was not directly involved at the time. She pointed to other marks on the photograph of the corner of the deck and claimed these also were oil marks. (i)Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord has not proved this claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: -The deck paintwork was old and the condition of the deck poor at the commencement of the tenancy. -The claim of oil affecting the repaint was not raised with the tenants until two months after the painting had been done. -The matter was raised after the deck had been painted over. In the absence of expert evidence it is difficult for the Tribunal to ascertain the cause of the uneven paint. -There is uncertainty as to the position of the barbeque and how it came to be in a place different from where it was usually positioned. The inspection report provided by the landlord dated 13 February 2025 shows the barbeque in the corner of the deck as stated by the tenant. (j)For the above reasons I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for repainting the uneven patches on the deck.
Scratch marks to the deck at the end of the tenancy. (a)It is agreed that the deck was painted in April 2025. (b)The landlord provided exit inspection photographs showing significant scratch marks on the deck consistent with furniture being dragged. (c)The tenant claimed that the marks were fair wear and tear and further stated that they were not raised as an issue until a few weeks after the tenancy ended. (d)I have considered the parties’ submissions and the photographs and the exit inspection report dated 1 December 2025 which records damage to the deck at the end of the tenancy. (e)I am satisfied that landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the deck that is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (f)The amount ordered is proved.
Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Lang Ventures Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427361 — net $3,511.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 November 2025	$2,764.29	Rent arrears to 29 November 2025
Water rates to end of tenancy	$477.95	Water rates to end of tenancy
Repairs: to deck paintwork	$241.50	Repairs: to deck paintwork
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,511.74
Bond	$5,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,511.74

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Lang Ventures Ltd $3,511.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5160.00 (3288539-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Lang Ventures Ltd: $3,511.74 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,648.26

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference on 5 May 2026. The property manager Chante van Huysen attended for the landlord and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended for both tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, 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 ended on 29 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant stated that these amounts are agreed to.

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 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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to the deck from barbeque oil in April 2025. (a)The landlord claimed that the deck was damaged with oil from the tenant’s barbeque and sought the sum of $442.75 to remedy this. (b)The landlord stated that the tenants were give notice that contractors would be painting the deck in April 2025. (c)The tenants responded that the landlord was doing extensive maintenance work during their tenancy including painting the exterior of the premises. They received notice from the landlord in April 2025 that contractors would be painting the deck and stated they assumed that this meant that they would be painting the exterior on the deck side of the house. They were not asked to move any deck furniture but discovered afterwards that the deck itself was painted. (d)The work was done and the deck painted without incident. (e)In June 2025 the tenants received an invoice from the landlord for over $1000 for deck repainting and queried this. After months of back and forth communication a revised invoice was sent to the tenant in October 2025 in the sum of $442.75. (f)The property manager stated that one week after the painting was done the owner inspected the work and was unhappy with the job done. The contractor attributed this to oil on the deck and provided photographs of the tenant’s barbeque beside a ranchslider on the deck with oil marks on the deck below. The property manager advised this photograph was provided by the contractors. (g)The tenant denied that the photograph of the barbeque was in the place where they used it and stated that it was usually in the corner and must have been moved by the contractors and oil may have spilled in the moving. The tenant stated that the paint job done had been poor and provided a photograph showing that an area under an outdoor sofa had not been painted at all. (h)The property manager who attended the hearing did not commence as property manager for this premises until November 2025 so was not directly involved at the time. She pointed to other marks on the photograph of the corner of the deck and claimed these also were oil marks. (i)Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord has not proved this claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: -The deck paintwork was old and the condition of the deck poor at the commencement of the tenancy. -The claim of oil affecting the repaint was not raised with the tenants until two months after the painting had been done. -The matter was raised after the deck had been painted over. In the absence of expert evidence it is difficult for the Tribunal to ascertain the cause of the uneven paint. -There is uncertainty as to the position of the barbeque and how it came to be in a place different from where it was usually positioned. The inspection report provided by the landlord dated 13 February 2025 shows the barbeque in the corner of the deck as stated by the tenant. (j)For the above reasons I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for repainting the uneven patches on the deck.
Scratch marks to the deck at the end of the tenancy. (a)It is agreed that the deck was painted in April 2025. (b)The landlord provided exit inspection photographs showing significant scratch marks on the deck consistent with furniture being dragged. (c)The tenant claimed that the marks were fair wear and tear and further stated that they were not raised as an issue until a few weeks after the tenancy ended. (d)I have considered the parties’ submissions and the photographs and the exit inspection report dated 1 December 2025 which records damage to the deck at the end of the tenancy. (e)I am satisfied that landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the deck that is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (f)The amount ordered is proved.
Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Lang Ventures Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427361 — Rent arrears at 77B Waiatarua Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427361 — Rent arrears at 77B Waiatarua Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.