What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452329 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio

How much money was awarded in case 5452329?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452329?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13905806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452329 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio

How much money was awarded in case 5452329?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452329?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13905806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Helena Street, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452329 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

14 Helena Street, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452329 — 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 5452329 — net $488.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$920.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$1,100.00	Repairs: Wall
Light fitting replacement	$80.00	Light fitting replacement
Pest control	$575.00	Pest control
Repairs: Door Handle	$275.00	Repairs: Door Handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$488.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$488.00

Claims and awards for application 5452329 — net $488.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $920.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Wall

Amount: $1,100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall

Light fitting replacement

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light fitting replacement

Pest control

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control

Repairs: Door Handle

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited Acting As Agent For The Y & M Grand Ltd $488.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5238662-008) to [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited Acting As Agent For The Y & M Grand Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 14 January 2023 and concluded on 13 January 2026.
Both parties have made applications. The tenant seeks a refund of their bond, and the landlord seeks $4,180.89 in compensation, comprising two separate charges of $287.50 for pest control, $275 for the repair of a door handle, $195 for the replacement of a light fixture, $30.39 for the replacement of a curtain track, $1,955 for damage to walls, $230 for carpet cleaning, and $920 for general cleaning.
The tenant raised, as a defence to a number of the landlord's claims, that the landlord had not historically engaged contractors to undertake work at the property and invited me to infer that the invoices now produced were, in some way, a ploy to recover costs that were not genuinely or reasonably incurred. There is no evidence before me to support that inference. Having considered the invoices and the work to which they relate, there is nothing to suggest that the costs claimed were improperly or unreasonably incurred.
The landlord may, in the past, have chosen to undertake repair or maintenance work himself. However, I must determine the claims before me on their merits. Where a breach by the tenant is established, the landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred in remedying the consequences of that breach, subject to matters such as causation, depreciation and betterment, where applicable.

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning and carpet-cleaning invoices?

I have reviewed the photographic evidence. The tenant says that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the property can properly be described as filthy. Its condition falls well short of the reasonably clean and tidy standard.
Although there is no visible staining to the carpet, the landlord's description of the property as being smelly is consistent with its general appearance. I am satisfied that the carpet-cleaning cost was reasonably incurred as a consequence of the tenant's breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii).
The cleaning and carpet-cleaning costs are therefore awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the pest-control costs?

There are visible rat droppings, together with evidence from the tenant that, at the end of the tenancy, they reported a flea infestation. This satisfies me, on the balance of probabilities, that there were likely flea and rodent infestations at the property.
The tenant suggested that these issues were pre-existing. However, they were not raised until the end of the tenancy. Further, flea and rodent infestations are consistent with the condition of the property as shown in the exit inspection photographs.
These costs are therefore awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

The applicant seeks $1,955 for wall repairs. I have reviewed the photographs and am satisfied that there were areas of damage throughout the property.
However, this property is clearly very old. Its fixtures, although the landlord provided no specific evidence as to their age, appear to be fully depreciated. Although the landlord says that there was minimal pre-existing damage, the tenancy agreement records damage throughout the property. Much of that pre- existing damage, including dents and indentations in the walls, is consistent with fair wear and tear.
The damage is less visible in the entry inspection photographs, not necessarily because there was substantially less damage at that time, but because those photographs are taken from a greater distance. By contrast, the exit photographs are closer and amplify the appearance of the damage.
This does not change my assessment that, during their occupation of the property, the tenants caused a substantial amount of damage for which they are responsible. However, the applicant acknowledged that some walls were fully repainted and repairs undertaken throughout the property in circumstances where the relevant surfaces were substantially or fully depreciated and, in any event, in pre-existing need of refurbishment.
The landlord's representative told me at the hearing that only those areas damaged by the tenants were singled out for repair. I am not satisfied that this would have been practicable in the circumstances, and I am satisfied that the landlord obtained ancillary benefit from the repair work undertaken.
I am still satisfied that a substantial proportion of the repairs was necessitated by the tenants' breach of section 40(2)(a), which prohibits a tenant from intentionally or carelessly damaging, or permitting damage to, the premises. However, taking into account depreciation and the betterment obtained by the landlord, I consider an award of $1,100, from the total amount of $1,955 claimed, to be appropriate.

Is the respondent liable for the door handle repair?

The landlord has provided photographs of the screen door showing the door handle hanging limp, and the property manager told me that it was not functioning. The landlord had the door assessed by a locksmith, who found that the cylinder was missing.
The tenant says that the door handle was in the same condition at the beginning of the tenancy. However, there is nothing recorded in the tenancy agreement or the other evidence before me to support that assertion.
I have reviewed the evidence, and the damage to the door handle is consistent with the general state in which the property was left at the end of the tenancy. I therefore find the landlord's account more plausible and am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly during the tenancy.
The amount of $275 is therefore awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the curtain-track invoice?

The landlord has provided photographs of a window where the curtain and sunshade are no longer present. However, a curtain rail remains present.
Even though the amount claimed is modest, the existing one was present and therefore a replacement is not warranted.
The claim is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the lighting cost?

The landlord claims $195.50 in respect of a missing light cover. The landlord engaged an electrician to replace the cover. A suitable replacement cover could not be found, and the light fixture was therefore replaced.
I am satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the loss of the light cover. The tenant has not provided any alternative evidence, despite indicating that they would do so.
However, given the apparent age and condition of the light fixture, I am satisfied that it was likely fully depreciated. In those circumstances, an award of the full replacement cost of $195.50 would result in betterment to the landlord. I consider a contribution of $80 to be appropriate. Filing fee
The applicant has been substantially successful in the application. The filing fee is therefore awarded.

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 5452329 — net $488.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$920.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$1,100.00	Repairs: Wall
Light fitting replacement	$80.00	Light fitting replacement
Pest control	$575.00	Pest control
Repairs: Door Handle	$275.00	Repairs: Door Handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$488.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$488.00

Claims and awards for application 5452329 — net $488.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $920.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Wall

Amount: $1,100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall

Light fitting replacement

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light fitting replacement

Pest control

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control

Repairs: Door Handle

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited Acting As Agent For The Y & M Grand Ltd $488.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5238662-008) to [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited Acting As Agent For The Y & M Grand Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 14 January 2023 and concluded on 13 January 2026.
Both parties have made applications. The tenant seeks a refund of their bond, and the landlord seeks $4,180.89 in compensation, comprising two separate charges of $287.50 for pest control, $275 for the repair of a door handle, $195 for the replacement of a light fixture, $30.39 for the replacement of a curtain track, $1,955 for damage to walls, $230 for carpet cleaning, and $920 for general cleaning.
The tenant raised, as a defence to a number of the landlord's claims, that the landlord had not historically engaged contractors to undertake work at the property and invited me to infer that the invoices now produced were, in some way, a ploy to recover costs that were not genuinely or reasonably incurred. There is no evidence before me to support that inference. Having considered the invoices and the work to which they relate, there is nothing to suggest that the costs claimed were improperly or unreasonably incurred.
The landlord may, in the past, have chosen to undertake repair or maintenance work himself. However, I must determine the claims before me on their merits. Where a breach by the tenant is established, the landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred in remedying the consequences of that breach, subject to matters such as causation, depreciation and betterment, where applicable.

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning and carpet-cleaning invoices?

I have reviewed the photographic evidence. The tenant says that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the property can properly be described as filthy. Its condition falls well short of the reasonably clean and tidy standard.
Although there is no visible staining to the carpet, the landlord's description of the property as being smelly is consistent with its general appearance. I am satisfied that the carpet-cleaning cost was reasonably incurred as a consequence of the tenant's breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii).
The cleaning and carpet-cleaning costs are therefore awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the pest-control costs?

There are visible rat droppings, together with evidence from the tenant that, at the end of the tenancy, they reported a flea infestation. This satisfies me, on the balance of probabilities, that there were likely flea and rodent infestations at the property.
The tenant suggested that these issues were pre-existing. However, they were not raised until the end of the tenancy. Further, flea and rodent infestations are consistent with the condition of the property as shown in the exit inspection photographs.
These costs are therefore awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

The applicant seeks $1,955 for wall repairs. I have reviewed the photographs and am satisfied that there were areas of damage throughout the property.
However, this property is clearly very old. Its fixtures, although the landlord provided no specific evidence as to their age, appear to be fully depreciated. Although the landlord says that there was minimal pre-existing damage, the tenancy agreement records damage throughout the property. Much of that pre- existing damage, including dents and indentations in the walls, is consistent with fair wear and tear.
The damage is less visible in the entry inspection photographs, not necessarily because there was substantially less damage at that time, but because those photographs are taken from a greater distance. By contrast, the exit photographs are closer and amplify the appearance of the damage.
This does not change my assessment that, during their occupation of the property, the tenants caused a substantial amount of damage for which they are responsible. However, the applicant acknowledged that some walls were fully repainted and repairs undertaken throughout the property in circumstances where the relevant surfaces were substantially or fully depreciated and, in any event, in pre-existing need of refurbishment.
The landlord's representative told me at the hearing that only those areas damaged by the tenants were singled out for repair. I am not satisfied that this would have been practicable in the circumstances, and I am satisfied that the landlord obtained ancillary benefit from the repair work undertaken.
I am still satisfied that a substantial proportion of the repairs was necessitated by the tenants' breach of section 40(2)(a), which prohibits a tenant from intentionally or carelessly damaging, or permitting damage to, the premises. However, taking into account depreciation and the betterment obtained by the landlord, I consider an award of $1,100, from the total amount of $1,955 claimed, to be appropriate.

Is the respondent liable for the door handle repair?

The landlord has provided photographs of the screen door showing the door handle hanging limp, and the property manager told me that it was not functioning. The landlord had the door assessed by a locksmith, who found that the cylinder was missing.
The tenant says that the door handle was in the same condition at the beginning of the tenancy. However, there is nothing recorded in the tenancy agreement or the other evidence before me to support that assertion.
I have reviewed the evidence, and the damage to the door handle is consistent with the general state in which the property was left at the end of the tenancy. I therefore find the landlord's account more plausible and am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly during the tenancy.
The amount of $275 is therefore awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the curtain-track invoice?

The landlord has provided photographs of a window where the curtain and sunshade are no longer present. However, a curtain rail remains present.
Even though the amount claimed is modest, the existing one was present and therefore a replacement is not warranted.
The claim is dismissed.

Is the respondent liable for the lighting cost?

The landlord claims $195.50 in respect of a missing light cover. The landlord engaged an electrician to replace the cover. A suitable replacement cover could not be found, and the light fixture was therefore replaced.
I am satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the loss of the light cover. The tenant has not provided any alternative evidence, despite indicating that they would do so.
However, given the apparent age and condition of the light fixture, I am satisfied that it was likely fully depreciated. In those circumstances, an award of the full replacement cost of $195.50 would result in betterment to the landlord. I consider a contribution of $80 to be appropriate. Filing fee
The applicant has been substantially successful in the application. The filing fee is therefore awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452329 — Property damage at 14 Helena Street, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452329 — Property damage at 14 Helena Street, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the cleaning and carpet-cleaning invoices?

Is the respondent liable for the pest-control costs?

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

Is the respondent liable for the door handle repair?

Is the respondent liable for the curtain-track invoice?

Is the respondent liable for the lighting cost?

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 and carpet-cleaning invoices?

Is the respondent liable for the pest-control costs?

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

Is the respondent liable for the door handle repair?

Is the respondent liable for the curtain-track invoice?

Is the respondent liable for the lighting cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions