What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428031 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,966.75 (BN-17328614) to The Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5428031?

Cleaning: $339.25 awarded to landlord; Failure To Provide Updated Insurance…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $908.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $41.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529240-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428031 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,966.75 (BN-17328614) to The Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5428031?

Cleaning: $339.25 awarded to landlord; Failure To Provide Updated Insurance…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $908.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $41.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529240-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Leaver Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428031 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428031 — net $2,966.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 19 December 2025	$1,260.00		Rent to 19 December 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$41.50		Water charges to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$339.25		Cleaning
Repairs to walls	$908.50		Repairs to walls
Lock/key replacement	$517.50		Lock/key replacement
Failure to provide updated insurance information		$100.00	Failure to provide updated insurance information
Total award	$3,066.75	$100.00
Net award	$2,966.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,966.75

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 April 2026.

The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 12 September 2023 to 11 September 2024. The landlord signed the agreement as agent for the owner.

On 19 January 2026 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond. The tenant also raised issues about the landlord’s requests for a signed bond refund form, the application of the insurance excess, and maintenance visits to the premises.

On 21 January 2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Landlord’s Application Rent and Water

The tenant did not dispute the amounts claimed for rent and water ($1,260.00 and $41.50 respectively). The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 19 December 2025. Cleaning and Locks

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 (section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).

The landlord provided photographs said to show a need for cleaning to the oven, skirting boards, and walls – where some faint drawings can be seen. A kitchen cabinet was said to be dirty.

I accept some cleaning was required, although I am not satisfied that $590.00 plus GST ($678.50) is a reasonable sum for the cleaning shown in the photographs. I award $339.25 for cleaning (50%).

The key for the garage door was broken and had to be replaced. The tenant said that the key was in the lock when the garage door moved upwards suddenly, and the key was broken. The tenant seemed to suggest that the door was caught by a gust of wind.

I consider that the tenant is responsible for the cost of replacing the garage door lock. The obligation to return all keys carries an implication that they will be in the same general condition as when provided. Alternatively, I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally (the tenant having the onus of proof in this respect). Tenant Damage

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.

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. The damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance, but insurers advised that the insurance excess of $750.00 (the excess was $550.00 in the tenancy agreement) would be applied in such a way that the wall damage was essentially uninsured.

The landlord said their photographs showed burn marks on the wall of the lounge. The tenant said they were not burn marks but residue from candles, which could easily be wiped away.

The landlord provided photographs comparing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy to the ingoing inspection report. The tenant queried the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy, and provided photographs said to show mould around window frames.

I find that the walls were damaged during the tenancy by marks, drawings, and a small hole which needed to be patched. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The insurance excess was applied to each individual mark on the lounge wall, so that effectively the cost of repair was uninsured. As explained by insurers, it was not economical for the insurance claim to proceed. Whether an excess of $550.00 or $750.00 is applied does not change the position, because the limitation of the tenant’s liability in section 49B of the Act applies to each act or omission. I award the repair cost of $790.00 plus GST ($908.50). Tenant’s Application Unlawful Entry

The tenant said that the landlord’s tradespeople came to the house unannounced on several occasions. The incident the parties focussed on occurred on 26 November 2025. The tenant was at work. The tradesperson sent the tenant a text that he was at the door and wanted to fix the strip light. The tenant did not give the tradesperson permission to enter, but instead, rescheduled the visit. The incident was stressful for the tenant’s daughter, who has special needs.

Both parties said the reason for the visit was to urgently fix an issue with a light fitting (the tenant noted that she lodged the repair request on 18 November 2025, but the landlord did not respond on an urgent basis). The landlord’s work order noted that the tenant considered the problem was a safety hazard.

A landlord (including their agents) is entitled to request permission to enter premises and consent to enter must be freely given. The tenant was entitled to decline to give entry permission. Only when the landlord gives notice to perform an inspection or maintenance, for example, is the tenant under an obligation to permit entry. Conversely, there was nothing wrong legally with the tradesperson attending and requesting entry permission. The tradesperson remained outside. Although unfortunately this was disturbing for the tenant’s daughter, in my view there was no breach of section 48 of the Act. Insurance Excess

The tenant said she was not told the insurance excess had changed, and she was not provided with a copy of the insurance policy when requested.

The obligation in section 13A(3) to provide insurance information to the tenant on request only comes into effect if the information was not included in the tenancy agreement (i.e., because the agreement predates the obligation to provide the insurance information). Section 13A(4) requires the landlord to update the information about insurance in the tenancy agreement within a reasonable time of becoming aware that it has changed.

It is unclear when the insurance excess was increased from $550.00 to $750.00. The landlord said the owner renewed the insurance but did not inform them that the terms had changed. The tenant requested a copy of the insurance policy on 6 January 2026, after the tenancy had ended. The landlord did not suggest it was provided.

I find that there was a breach of section 13A(4) of the Act: the insurance information, which to the owner’s knowledge had changed, was not updated and provided to the tenant. It would not be just to award exemplary damages for this breach. I accept that the landlord did not know about the change, and also that the tenant has not been asked to pay based on a $750.00 excess.

However, the lack of information was problematic for the tenant. She did not know what amounts she was being asked to pay. She wanted to understand how they were being calculated and the application of the insurance. Part of her concern stemmed from being asked to sign a blank bond refund form (discussed further below). I award compensation of $100.00 to reflect the anxiety the breach caused. Bond Refund Form

The tenant said she had been repeatedly asked to sign a blank bond refund form in the absence of supporting evidence of the amounts being claimed by the landlord. The tenant ultimately declined to sign the form.

The landlord could perhaps have explained, when the bond refund form was provided to the tenant on 24 December 2025, why she was being asked to sign a blank form and that the form would not be lodged with the Bond Centre until apportionment of the bond had been agreed. The landlord provided a list of the amounts being claimed on 30 December 2025.

The correspondence shows that the parties were negotiating the landlord’s claims. The landlord’s communications were polite and business-like. The landlord sought to reassure the tenant about the bond refund form in an email dated 5 January 2026. I am not satisfied that the landlord applied undue pressure on the tenant to sign the bond refund form or that the tenant was in any way taken advantage of. Filing Fee and Suppression

Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.

The tenant requested name suppression. The tenant has not been “wholly or substantially” successful. I decline suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428031 — net $2,966.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 19 December 2025	$1,260.00		Rent to 19 December 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$41.50		Water charges to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$339.25		Cleaning
Repairs to walls	$908.50		Repairs to walls
Lock/key replacement	$517.50		Lock/key replacement
Failure to provide updated insurance information		$100.00	Failure to provide updated insurance information
Total award	$3,066.75	$100.00
Net award	$2,966.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,966.75

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 April 2026.

The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 12 September 2023 to 11 September 2024. The landlord signed the agreement as agent for the owner.

The landlord provided photographs said to show a need for cleaning to the oven, skirting boards, and walls – where some faint drawings can be seen. A kitchen cabinet was said to be dirty.

I accept some cleaning was required, although I am not satisfied that $590.00 plus GST ($678.50) is a reasonable sum for the cleaning shown in the photographs. I award $339.25 for cleaning (50%).

The landlord said their photographs showed burn marks on the wall of the lounge. The tenant said they were not burn marks but residue from candles, which could easily be wiped away.

The tenant said she was not told the insurance excess had changed, and she was not provided with a copy of the insurance policy when requested.

Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.

The tenant requested name suppression. The tenant has not been “wholly or substantially” successful. I decline suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428031 — Property damage at 35 Leaver Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428031 — Property damage at 35 Leaver Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions