What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438049 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Baath Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5438049?

Cleaning: $676.67 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $487.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.90 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,373.80 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Glass: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Lid: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Unblock: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438049?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401005-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438049 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Baath Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5438049?

Cleaning: $676.67 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $487.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.90 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,373.80 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Glass: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Lid: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Unblock: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438049?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401005-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438049 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438049 — net $3,603.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,373.80	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$676.67	Cleaning
Wall Damage Repair	$487.31	Wall Damage Repair
Smoke alarms	$50.00	Smoke alarms
Lock/key replacement	$215.90	Lock/key replacement
Toilet Lid	$50.00	Toilet Lid
Toilet Unblock	$200.00	Toilet Unblock
Door handle	$50.00	Door handle
Sliding Door Glass	$500.00	Sliding Door Glass
Net award	$3,603.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,603.68

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend. Background

The applicant states that a mediation occurred and an order was made for rent arrears, which the tenant did not comply with. The respondent subsequently vacated the property without notice. The applicant took possession on 7 September 2025. The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy due to end in February 2026.

The applicant seeks compensation for costs arising from the vacation of the property, including damages, rubbish removal, and cleaning. Burden of Proof

In the Tenancy Tribunal, the civil burden of proof applies. The applicant must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. This requires establishing that the claim for compensation is more likely than not to be true and is based on a breach of the law.

All claims for compensation must also relate to expenses that were reasonably incurred.

The applicant’s representative advised that they have no firsthand knowledge of the repairs, as these were undertaken directly by the owner. Their evidence is based on documentation provided by the owner. Rubbish Removal

I am satisfied that the respondent breached their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.

The vacate inspection photos show a substantial amount of rubbish and abandoned furniture. The applicant seeks $3,434.50. The applicant’s representative stated that the owner reported that two people worked eight hours each and that five skip bins were required.

However, aside from an invoice from Hammerod Painters, there is no evidence supporting the need for five skip bins. While the rubbish is extensive, the evidence does not support that level of cost. I am satisfied that the work could reasonably have been completed using two skip bins.

Accordingly, I award two-fifths of the claim:

$1,373.80 is awarded for rubbish removal. Cleaning

The applicant has provided photographs showing that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as required under section 40(1)(e)(ii).

I am satisfied that the respondent breached this obligation and that the claimed cost is reasonable.

$676.67 is awarded for cleaning. Wall Damage (Patching)

Photographs show two areas of wall damage consistent with impact damage. I am satisfied this damage was caused in breach of section 40(2)(a), which prohibits intentional or careless damage.

The claimed cost is reasonable.

$487.31 is awarded. Smoke Alarms

The applicant seeks $155.54 for replacement of smoke alarms. I am satisfied that the smoke alarms were removed by the respondent.

However, the invoiced costs appear excessive given the standard of the property and the nature of the work, which was undertaken by a handyman alongside other tasks. The evidence does not reliably establish the claimed amount.

A nominal award is appropriate.

$50.00 is awarded. Curtains

The applicant seeks costs for replacement of curtains. The move-in inspection shows that no curtains were present in the laundry. For other areas, the vacate photos appear to show the curtains rolled up rather than missing.

I am not satisfied that the curtains were removed. The claim is not proven on the balance of probabilities.

This claim is dismissed. Lock Replacement

The applicant states that the respondent vacated without notice and did not return any keys. Under section 40(1)(e)(iv), tenants must return all keys at the end of the tenancy.

I am satisfied that this obligation was breached and that the cost is reasonable.

$215.90 is awarded for lock replacement. Window Latch (Laundry)

The move-in and move-out photographs appear identical and do not show any damage.

I am not satisfied that damage occurred.

This claim is dismissed. Toilet Lid

The applicant seeks $164.85 for replacement of a toilet lid. The photos show the lid was removed.

However, the claimed cost is excessive for a basic fixture and unsupported by adequate evidence. A nominal award is appropriate.

$50.00 is awarded. Toilet Unblocking

The applicant seeks $880.30 for unblocking a toilet. The photos confirm that the toilet was blocked.

However, the cost is not adequately explained or supported. A nominal award is appropriate.

$200.00 is awarded. Cabinet Door

The applicant seeks $257.30 for supply and installation of a cabinet door. While photos show a door missing, the move-in condition is unclear.

The claim is not proven on the balance of probabilities.

This claim is dismissed. Aluminium Sliding Door (Rumpus Room)

The applicant claims the aluminium sliding door was damaged. The door appears to be significantly aged (likely over 30 years old) and therefore fully depreciated.

There is insufficient evidence as to the nature of the damage or why repair was not possible.

This claim is therefore dismissed. Carpet (Sleepout)

The applicant seeks $431.25 for carpet replacement. The carpet is clearly stained and damaged and I am satisfied that the respondent is liable.

However, no evidence has been provided as to the age of the carpet. Based on IRD guidance, carpet has a useful lifespan of approximately 8 years, and this carpet was likely fully depreciated. There is also no explanation as to why cleaning was not attempted.

This claim is therefore dismissed. Sliding Door Glass

The applicant seeks $1,481.11 for repair of the sliding door window. I am satisfied the respondent caused the damage.

However, the claimed cost is not adequately supported. A nominal award is appropriate.

$500.00 is awarded. Lawn Mowing

The applicant seeks $361.69 for lawn mowing. The lawns appear to be in a similar condition at the start and end of the tenancy.

I am not satisfied that the respondent is liable.

This claim is dismissed. Door Handle

The applicant seeks $164.85 for supply and installation of a door handle. Photographs show the handle was missing, and I am satisfied the respondent is responsible.

However, the claimed cost is not consistent with what a door handle of this quality would cost. A nominal award is appropriate.

$50.00 is awarded. Filing fee and suppression:

The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application and therefore the filing fee is not awarded and suppression is not granted.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438049 — net $3,603.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,373.80	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$676.67	Cleaning
Wall Damage Repair	$487.31	Wall Damage Repair
Smoke alarms	$50.00	Smoke alarms
Lock/key replacement	$215.90	Lock/key replacement
Toilet Lid	$50.00	Toilet Lid
Toilet Unblock	$200.00	Toilet Unblock
Door handle	$50.00	Door handle
Sliding Door Glass	$500.00	Sliding Door Glass
Net award	$3,603.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,603.68

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend. Background

The applicant seeks compensation for costs arising from the vacation of the property, including damages, rubbish removal, and cleaning. Burden of Proof

All claims for compensation must also relate to expenses that were reasonably incurred.

Accordingly, I award two-fifths of the claim:

$1,373.80 is awarded for rubbish removal. Cleaning

The applicant has provided photographs showing that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as required under section 40(1)(e)(ii).

I am satisfied that the respondent breached this obligation and that the claimed cost is reasonable.

$676.67 is awarded for cleaning. Wall Damage (Patching)

Photographs show two areas of wall damage consistent with impact damage. I am satisfied this damage was caused in breach of section 40(2)(a), which prohibits intentional or careless damage.

The claimed cost is reasonable.

$487.31 is awarded. Smoke Alarms

The applicant seeks $155.54 for replacement of smoke alarms. I am satisfied that the smoke alarms were removed by the respondent.

A nominal award is appropriate.

$50.00 is awarded. Curtains

I am not satisfied that the curtains were removed. The claim is not proven on the balance of probabilities.

This claim is dismissed. Lock Replacement

The applicant states that the respondent vacated without notice and did not return any keys. Under section 40(1)(e)(iv), tenants must return all keys at the end of the tenancy.

I am satisfied that this obligation was breached and that the cost is reasonable.

$215.90 is awarded for lock replacement. Window Latch (Laundry)

The move-in and move-out photographs appear identical and do not show any damage.

I am not satisfied that damage occurred.

This claim is dismissed. Toilet Lid

The applicant seeks $164.85 for replacement of a toilet lid. The photos show the lid was removed.

However, the claimed cost is excessive for a basic fixture and unsupported by adequate evidence. A nominal award is appropriate.

$50.00 is awarded. Toilet Unblocking

The applicant seeks $880.30 for unblocking a toilet. The photos confirm that the toilet was blocked.

However, the cost is not adequately explained or supported. A nominal award is appropriate.

$200.00 is awarded. Cabinet Door

The applicant seeks $257.30 for supply and installation of a cabinet door. While photos show a door missing, the move-in condition is unclear.

The claim is not proven on the balance of probabilities.

This claim is dismissed. Aluminium Sliding Door (Rumpus Room)

The applicant claims the aluminium sliding door was damaged. The door appears to be significantly aged (likely over 30 years old) and therefore fully depreciated.

There is insufficient evidence as to the nature of the damage or why repair was not possible.

This claim is therefore dismissed. Carpet (Sleepout)

The applicant seeks $431.25 for carpet replacement. The carpet is clearly stained and damaged and I am satisfied that the respondent is liable.

This claim is therefore dismissed. Sliding Door Glass

The applicant seeks $1,481.11 for repair of the sliding door window. I am satisfied the respondent caused the damage.

However, the claimed cost is not adequately supported. A nominal award is appropriate.

$500.00 is awarded. Lawn Mowing

The applicant seeks $361.69 for lawn mowing. The lawns appear to be in a similar condition at the start and end of the tenancy.

I am not satisfied that the respondent is liable.

This claim is dismissed. Door Handle

The applicant seeks $164.85 for supply and installation of a door handle. Photographs show the handle was missing, and I am satisfied the respondent is responsible.

However, the claimed cost is not consistent with what a door handle of this quality would cost. A nominal award is appropriate.

$50.00 is awarded. Filing fee and suppression:

The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application and therefore the filing fee is not awarded and suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438049 — Property damage at 48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438049 — Property damage at 48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

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