What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Sami Family Trust (Trustee: Sami Trustees Limited)

How much money was awarded in case 5436769?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $36.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,655.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13898835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Sami Family Trust (Trustee: Sami Trustees Limited)

How much money was awarded in case 5436769?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $36.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,655.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13898835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 306A Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436769 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 306A Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436769 — Rent arrears | 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 5436769 — net $1,811.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09/10/2025	$1,655.00	Rent arrears to 09/10/2025
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs	$36.00	Light bulbs
Net award	$1,811.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,811.00

Claims and awards for application 5436769 — net $1,811.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 09/10/2025

Amount: $1,655.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 09/10/2025

Cleaning

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Light bulbs

Amount: $36.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs

Net award

Landlord $1,811.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,811.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Sami Family Trust (Trustee: Sami Trustees Limited) Roshni $1,811.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 27 June 2014 and ended on 9 October 2025.
The applicant is seeking: a)$3,815.00 for rent arrears; b)$1,022.14, being a rent rebate provided to the incoming tenant while repairs were undertaken; c)$120.00 for cleaning; d)$2,971.60 for replacement of the carpet; e)$1,920.62 for replacement of gib and skirting; f) $1,620.64 for plastering and repainting of a room; g)$873.93 for painting four walls; h)$279.20 for repair and refitting of two bedroom doors; i) $1,485.22 for grinding and sealing the timber floor to remove the smell of urine; j) $1,150.00 for repairs to the polished timber floor for scratches; k)$519.00 for replacement of a damaged wardrobe door; and l) $36.89 for replacement of light bulbs. Orders by consent
The respondent accepts liability for the rent arrears and the cost of replacing the light bulbs.
The applicant states that, since filing the application, the tenancy bond of $2,160.00 has been credited towards the rent arrears. That credit reduces the outstanding rent arrears from $3,815.00 to $1,655.00.
Orders are therefore made by consent for rent arrears of $1,655.00 and for the cost of replacing the light bulbs of $36.89.

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning cost?

I have reviewed both the applicant's and the respondent's evidence. While the property was left largely clean and tidy, there were deficiencies such that it was not left in the condition required by s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The cleaning cost of $120.00 was reasonably incurred and is awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the carpet?

This claim relates to staining and an alleged urine odour as well as some staining, which the applicant says necessitated replacement of the carpet.
The tenancy exceeded 11 years. According to the IRD depreciation guide, the useful life of residential carpet is eight years. The carpet was therefore fully depreciated. Given its age, its condition is consistent with ordinary wear after a tenancy of this duration, and any deterioration is fairly characterised as fair wear and tear.
The claim for replacement of the carpet is therefore dismissed. Is the respondent liable for the plastering and repainting, the replacement of gib and skirting, the painting of the walls, and the repair of the bedroom doors?
The applicant has produced photographs showing scratches and damage to walls, together with evidence that some gib and skirting was replaced after the carpet was removed.
These claims must be viewed in the context of an 11-year tenancy. I have reviewed both the applicant's photographs, which are largely close-up images of the alleged damage, and the respondent's evidence, which shows the overall condition of the property.
I am satisfied that some repairs would have been required. However, the repairs identified are those that would reasonably be expected following a tenancy of this duration. They are properly characterised as maintenance for which the landlord is responsible.
These claims are therefore dismissed.
I have also reviewed the photographs relating to the bedroom doors. Any issues apparent are consistent with the age of the property. One door appears no longer to close properly because the house has shifted over time, as commonly occurs in properties of this age and type. Doors requiring adjustment as a consequence of normal settlement is not damage for which a tenant is liable.
The claim relating to the bedroom doors is also dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of grinding and sealing the timber floor?

The applicant says it was necessary to grind and reseal the timber floor because dog urine had penetrated the timber. The applicant also refers to hearsay statements from neighbours about a dog present at the property.
However, there is no evidence establishing that a dog was ever kept at the property. It is accepted that cats were kept at the premises with the applicant's permission.
The respondent accepts that there was some pet urine, but says it was cleaned at the time and that no concerns were raised during any of the routine inspections.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that the timber floor required grinding and sealing because of damage caused by the respondent.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of repairing the polished timber floor?

The applicant has produced photographs showing scratches to the timber floor and relies on a clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant not to damage the polished timber flooring.
The photographs do show scratching. However, in the context of an 11-year tenancy, some refinishing of timber flooring would reasonably be expected. The level of scratching shown is consistent with ordinary use over a tenancy of this duration.
Questions of tenant liability are necessarily assessed in context. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the scratching resulted from intentional or careless damage. Rather, it reflects the ordinary deterioration to be expected over time.
In any event, the applicant refinished the entire timber floor. Once the issue of betterment is taken into account, together with the age of the flooring and the duration of the tenancy, these costs properly fall to the landlord.
The claim is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the wardrobe door?

The applicant says the sliding wardrobe door, comprising a framed mirror panel, was damaged and required replacement.
The respondent has produced a video showing that the door frame had become loose and that, when positioned to one side, the door would fall from its track. This evidence, together with the applicant's own evidence that other door frames required adjustment because of movement within the property, is consistent with normal settlement in a property of this age and type.
I am not satisfied that the damage resulted from any careless or intentional act by the respondent. The applicant has not produced evidence establishing that it did.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the claimed rent rebate?

The applicant also claims $1,022.14, being the amount of a rent rebate offered to the incoming tenant while repairs to the property were completed.
Consistent with the findings made throughout this decision, I consider that, following a tenancy of more than 11 years, the landlord should reasonably have expected that maintenance and refurbishment would be required before the property was re-let. The time required to undertake that work, and any associated costs, including any rent concession offered to an incoming tenant, are properly costs to be borne by the landlord.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

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 5436769 — net $1,811.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09/10/2025	$1,655.00	Rent arrears to 09/10/2025
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs	$36.00	Light bulbs
Net award	$1,811.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,811.00

Claims and awards for application 5436769 — net $1,811.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 09/10/2025

Amount: $1,655.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 09/10/2025

Cleaning

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Light bulbs

Amount: $36.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs

Net award

Landlord $1,811.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,811.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Sami Family Trust (Trustee: Sami Trustees Limited) Roshni $1,811.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 27 June 2014 and ended on 9 October 2025.
The applicant is seeking: a)$3,815.00 for rent arrears; b)$1,022.14, being a rent rebate provided to the incoming tenant while repairs were undertaken; c)$120.00 for cleaning; d)$2,971.60 for replacement of the carpet; e)$1,920.62 for replacement of gib and skirting; f) $1,620.64 for plastering and repainting of a room; g)$873.93 for painting four walls; h)$279.20 for repair and refitting of two bedroom doors; i) $1,485.22 for grinding and sealing the timber floor to remove the smell of urine; j) $1,150.00 for repairs to the polished timber floor for scratches; k)$519.00 for replacement of a damaged wardrobe door; and l) $36.89 for replacement of light bulbs. Orders by consent
The respondent accepts liability for the rent arrears and the cost of replacing the light bulbs.
The applicant states that, since filing the application, the tenancy bond of $2,160.00 has been credited towards the rent arrears. That credit reduces the outstanding rent arrears from $3,815.00 to $1,655.00.
Orders are therefore made by consent for rent arrears of $1,655.00 and for the cost of replacing the light bulbs of $36.89.

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning cost?

I have reviewed both the applicant's and the respondent's evidence. While the property was left largely clean and tidy, there were deficiencies such that it was not left in the condition required by s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The cleaning cost of $120.00 was reasonably incurred and is awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the carpet?

This claim relates to staining and an alleged urine odour as well as some staining, which the applicant says necessitated replacement of the carpet.
The tenancy exceeded 11 years. According to the IRD depreciation guide, the useful life of residential carpet is eight years. The carpet was therefore fully depreciated. Given its age, its condition is consistent with ordinary wear after a tenancy of this duration, and any deterioration is fairly characterised as fair wear and tear.
The claim for replacement of the carpet is therefore dismissed. Is the respondent liable for the plastering and repainting, the replacement of gib and skirting, the painting of the walls, and the repair of the bedroom doors?
The applicant has produced photographs showing scratches and damage to walls, together with evidence that some gib and skirting was replaced after the carpet was removed.
These claims must be viewed in the context of an 11-year tenancy. I have reviewed both the applicant's photographs, which are largely close-up images of the alleged damage, and the respondent's evidence, which shows the overall condition of the property.
I am satisfied that some repairs would have been required. However, the repairs identified are those that would reasonably be expected following a tenancy of this duration. They are properly characterised as maintenance for which the landlord is responsible.
These claims are therefore dismissed.
I have also reviewed the photographs relating to the bedroom doors. Any issues apparent are consistent with the age of the property. One door appears no longer to close properly because the house has shifted over time, as commonly occurs in properties of this age and type. Doors requiring adjustment as a consequence of normal settlement is not damage for which a tenant is liable.
The claim relating to the bedroom doors is also dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of grinding and sealing the timber floor?

The applicant says it was necessary to grind and reseal the timber floor because dog urine had penetrated the timber. The applicant also refers to hearsay statements from neighbours about a dog present at the property.
However, there is no evidence establishing that a dog was ever kept at the property. It is accepted that cats were kept at the premises with the applicant's permission.
The respondent accepts that there was some pet urine, but says it was cleaned at the time and that no concerns were raised during any of the routine inspections.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that the timber floor required grinding and sealing because of damage caused by the respondent.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the cost of repairing the polished timber floor?

The applicant has produced photographs showing scratches to the timber floor and relies on a clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant not to damage the polished timber flooring.
The photographs do show scratching. However, in the context of an 11-year tenancy, some refinishing of timber flooring would reasonably be expected. The level of scratching shown is consistent with ordinary use over a tenancy of this duration.
Questions of tenant liability are necessarily assessed in context. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the scratching resulted from intentional or careless damage. Rather, it reflects the ordinary deterioration to be expected over time.
In any event, the applicant refinished the entire timber floor. Once the issue of betterment is taken into account, together with the age of the flooring and the duration of the tenancy, these costs properly fall to the landlord.
The claim is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the wardrobe door?

The applicant says the sliding wardrobe door, comprising a framed mirror panel, was damaged and required replacement.
The respondent has produced a video showing that the door frame had become loose and that, when positioned to one side, the door would fall from its track. This evidence, together with the applicant's own evidence that other door frames required adjustment because of movement within the property, is consistent with normal settlement in a property of this age and type.
I am not satisfied that the damage resulted from any careless or intentional act by the respondent. The applicant has not produced evidence establishing that it did.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the claimed rent rebate?

The applicant also claims $1,022.14, being the amount of a rent rebate offered to the incoming tenant while repairs to the property were completed.
Consistent with the findings made throughout this decision, I consider that, following a tenancy of more than 11 years, the landlord should reasonably have expected that maintenance and refurbishment would be required before the property was re-let. The time required to undertake that work, and any associated costs, including any rent concession offered to an incoming tenant, are properly costs to be borne by the landlord.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436769 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 306A Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436769 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 306A Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning cost?

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the carpet?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of grinding and sealing the timber floor?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of repairing the polished timber floor?

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the wardrobe door?

Is the respondent liable for the claimed rent rebate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning cost?

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the carpet?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of grinding and sealing the timber floor?

Is the respondent liable for the cost of repairing the polished timber floor?

Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the wardrobe door?

Is the respondent liable for the claimed rent rebate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions