What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474489 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Pratik and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5474489?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474489?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13929307-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474489 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Pratik and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5474489?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474489?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13929307-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5474489 — Cleanliness

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Pratik and [The landlord/s] $1781.62 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims are allowed as set out in this order and its

Reasons

. All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Pratik and [The landlord/s]: $1,781.62 [The tenant/s]: $1,618.38 DescriptionLandlordTenant Water rates$255.42 Cleaning: general$0.00 Carpet cleaning$115.00 Cleaning curtains$150.00 Rubbish removal$207.00 Wall painting$207.00 Repairing door frame$264.50 Missing waterspout - 85 percent$175.95 Other$406.75 Total award$1,809.62 Bond$1,781.62$1,618.38

REASONS

I heard these applications on 21 July 2026.
Mr Singh attended the hearing for the landlord.
Ms Cook attended with Ms Dixon and Ms Mihaka. The Tribunal granted Ms Cook permission for Ms Dixon to represent her.
The landlord seeks orders for water arrears, compensation for expenses incurred for cleaning, damage and re-tenanting the premises, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond.
The tenant originally applied for return of the bond and added a claim for compensation six days before the hearing.
The landlord added further compensation claims the day of the hearing.
The tenancy began on 28 March 2025 and was for a fixed term, due to end on 27 March 2026. However, on 25 September 2025, the tenant asked to be released from the tenancy early because she was struggling to meet the rent and outgoings for the premises. Mr Singh advertised the premises in September, but a replacement tenancy did not proceed until 3 March 2026, only about three weeks before the end of the fixed term.

How much does the tenant owe for water?

The tenancy ended on 6 March 2026. Mr Singh provided water records proving that the tenant owes $255.42 for water used up to the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord paid a cleaning contractor $253.00 for the general cleaning needed to bring the premises up to a reasonable standard of cleanliness for the new tenants who were due to move in the next day. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e).
However, the landlord did not provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonably clean condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant complained to Mr Singh. Mr Singh (to the landlord’s credit) promptly had the premises thoroughly cleaned at a cost of $402.50. Nonetheless, the failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness is a breach of the landlord’s duties that carries exemplary damages of $7,200.00. 2 It is fair in these circumstances to decline to order that Ms Cook pay for the modest cost of general cleaning to balance the parties’ breaches. 3
The cost of cleaning the curtains is allowed. The tenant’s children stained the curtain backing with markers or the like. That is in a different category to the general cleaning. I refuse the cost of replacing the curtains because the staining even prior to cleaning (Mr Singh did not have photographs of the curtains after they were cleaned) is minor and the staining is on the curtain backings where some staining such as mould or damp stains can ordinarily be expected.
I allow 87 per cent of the cost of the carpet cleaning. The reduced amount is to account for betterment. The carpet stains were few and isolated. The landlord has the benefit of thoroughly clean carpets in the living rooms and the bedrooms.
The tenant did not remove all her rubbish at the end of the tenancy. She put her rubbish in the premises’ wheelie bins but didn’t put the bins out for the rubbish truck which was due the next day. The new tenants moved in the next day and asked the landlord to remove the rubbish so they could use the bins. The landlord incurred an expense of $207.00 for this. The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the expense.
At the end of the tenancy, a filtered drinking waterspout was missing. I order the tenant to pay 85 per cent of the cost of replacing the waterspout – the reduced amount being to account for depreciation.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairs to the premises?

The landlord claims for the cost of retouching paintwork and repairing a door jamb.
To succeed in a claim for the cost or repairing damage, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and 2 RTA s 45(1)(a) and Schedule 1A. 3 RTA s 85. 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. 4
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. 5 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 6
The paint retouching was for minor wall damage caused by a child pulling of some stickers and damage caused when moving furniture out at the end of the tenancy.
The damage occurred during the tenancy. I am not satisfied the pulling off the stickers was more than fair wear and tear. The stickers predated the tenancy and pulling them off was naturally irresistible to a young child. The landlord should have removed the stickers prior to the tenancy beginning.
The other wall damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the other wall damage was not caused carelessly. The landlord seeks $414.00 for the cost of painting. I order 50 percent of that. That reduction takes account of the exclusion of the sticker removal damage and depreciation of the paintwork.
The ensuite door jamb was damaged where the strike plate screwed into it. The landlord’s entry photographs indicate the lock and strike plate had considerable wear and tear at the beginning of the tenancy. However, the strike plate was absent at the end of the tenancy and the door jamb itself damaged, indicating careless use of the door. I am satisfied the damage involved more than fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied that the damage was not careless. I order the tenant to pay 50 percent of the cost of repair. The lesser amount is to account for depreciation and betterment. Lease break costs 4 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 5 RTA s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of its costs to find new tenants prior to the end of the fixed term.
I allow the $166.75 cost of advertising on Trade Me in September 2025.
I do not allow the letting fee because the landlord would have occurred that cost in about February or March 2026 anyway because the tenancy was due to end in March 2026.
The landlord had to drop the rent by $80.00 per week. I allow the rent difference from 7 March to 27 March 2026 which amounts to $240.00.
The landlord’s total proved loss related to the early end of the fixed term is $406.75. Late claims
Neither party pursued their late claims. They are dismissed. Filing fees
No order is made for the filing fees because each party has had succeeded in their claims to a degree. 7 I had originally intended to order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord has been more successful than the tenant in the proceedings. However, on reflection the parties’ relative success is comparable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474489 — Cleanliness at 15A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474489 — Cleanliness at 15A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

Order

Reasons

REASONS

How much does the tenant owe for water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairs to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

REASONS

How much does the tenant owe for water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairs to the premises?

Property management