What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477409 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties names are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5477409?

Carpet: Excess X2: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $191.43 awarded to landlord; Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477409?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13768851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477409 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties names are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5477409?

Carpet: Excess X2: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $191.43 awarded to landlord; Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477409?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13768851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

39 Ngae Place, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5477409 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5477409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/02/2026	$191.43	Rent arrears to 28/02/2026
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Carpet: Excess x2	$800.00	Carpet: Excess x2
Repairs: Walls	$100.00	Repairs: Walls

Order

Both parties names are suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,670.00 ([Bond number suppressed]BN- 00037734) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended at the conclusion of the fixed term on 28/02/2026.
The applicant seeks: a) $191.43 in rent arrears to the end of the tenancy; b) $650, comprising $450 for damage repairs and $200 for cleaning; c) $800 for two separate insurance excesses relating to carpet replacement; and d) $304.75 for a power reconnection fee.

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

The landlord has provided rent records showing that $191.43 was owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have also acknowledged that this amount is their responsibility.
I am satisfied that the rent records are accurate and that the arrears are owing. The claim for rent arrears is therefore awarded.

Are the respondents liable for the cleaning costs?

The landlord has provided evidence showing that the property was, in large part, left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, there were deficiencies in the standard of cleaning. These included soap scum and grime that had accumulated in the shower and bath areas, and dust that had not been removed from an extractor fan.
These are relatively minor matters. However, the landlord has claimed only the modest sum of $200 for rectifying them. I am satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred as a result of the tenants' breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires tenants to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning costs of $200 is awarded.

Are the tenants liable for the repair invoices?

The landlord seeks compensation for repairs relating to hooks that were left attached to the walls.
The quotation provided states that one wall may require repainting and notes that removing the hooks was likely to cause damage. I am satisfied that some damage was likely to occur as a result of removing the hooks. However, the landlord has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the full extent of the claimed damage actually occurred.
I note that the invoice refers to damage that may arise when the hooks are removed. At the time the invoice was prepared, the work had not yet been undertaken and any damage remained hypothetical rather than established. The invoice was therefore based, at least in part, on an assumption that damage would occur.
In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenants contribute $100 towards the work likely required to remove the hooks and remedy any resulting damage. That amount is awarded.
The landlord also seeks reimbursement of two insurance excesses incurred in relation to the replacement of carpet.
The landlord has provided evidence showing that the carpet was stained by a dark substance. The tenants say that the stain resulted from spilled coffee. The staining does not appear consistent with a typical coffee stain, as it is a dark charcoal colour. However, the tenants accept that the staining occurred during the tenancy and that their attempts to remove it were unsuccessful.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it resulted from the tenants' breach of section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The evidence suggests that the damage was caused carelessly rather than intentionally.
I am further satisfied that the insurance excesses were reasonably incurred as a consequence of that damage. The claim for the two insurance excesses, totalling $800, is therefore awarded.

Are the tenants liable for the power reconnection fee?

The applicant submits that this property has a physical fuse that is removed when power is disconnected. The landlord relies on a provision contained within a list of vacating instructions advising tenants not to disconnect the power because reconnection fees may apply. The landlord says that this requirement is specific to this property. The landlord acknowledged tenants can move or close their account however notes that this distinction is critical in this specific property.
The landlord states that, after the tenancy ended, a new electricity account was established. Electricity supply was then disconnected on 12 March. Following enquiries, the landlord was advised that the disconnection had been carried out on instructions received through a company associated with Slingshot and 2degrees, on the basis that the current customer had advised that the property was becoming vacant.
The information provided by the electricity supplier suggests that the tenants informed their power company that they were vacating the property, which they were entitled to do. The evidence does not establish that the tenants expressly instructed the power company to disconnect the electricity supply.
If the property requires a particular process to avoid disconnection, that requirement ought to be highlighted more prominently. While the instruction relied upon by the landlord is clear when read in hindsight, it appears within a lengthy list of vacating requirements. In any event, the evidence suggests that the disconnection resulted from an assumption made by the power company following notification that the tenants were vacating, rather than from any direct instruction given by the tenants to disconnect the power.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the tenants are liable for the reconnection fee. This claim is dismissed. Filing fees and suppression
Both parties made applications and neither party has been wholly successful.
In those circumstances, each party shall bear their own filing fee.
Suppression is granted to both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5477409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/02/2026	$191.43	Rent arrears to 28/02/2026
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Carpet: Excess x2	$800.00	Carpet: Excess x2
Repairs: Walls	$100.00	Repairs: Walls

Order

Both parties names are suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,670.00 ([Bond number suppressed]BN- 00037734) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended at the conclusion of the fixed term on 28/02/2026.
The applicant seeks: a) $191.43 in rent arrears to the end of the tenancy; b) $650, comprising $450 for damage repairs and $200 for cleaning; c) $800 for two separate insurance excesses relating to carpet replacement; and d) $304.75 for a power reconnection fee.

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

The landlord has provided rent records showing that $191.43 was owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have also acknowledged that this amount is their responsibility.
I am satisfied that the rent records are accurate and that the arrears are owing. The claim for rent arrears is therefore awarded.

Are the respondents liable for the cleaning costs?

The landlord has provided evidence showing that the property was, in large part, left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, there were deficiencies in the standard of cleaning. These included soap scum and grime that had accumulated in the shower and bath areas, and dust that had not been removed from an extractor fan.
These are relatively minor matters. However, the landlord has claimed only the modest sum of $200 for rectifying them. I am satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred as a result of the tenants' breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires tenants to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning costs of $200 is awarded.

Are the tenants liable for the repair invoices?

The landlord seeks compensation for repairs relating to hooks that were left attached to the walls.
The quotation provided states that one wall may require repainting and notes that removing the hooks was likely to cause damage. I am satisfied that some damage was likely to occur as a result of removing the hooks. However, the landlord has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the full extent of the claimed damage actually occurred.
I note that the invoice refers to damage that may arise when the hooks are removed. At the time the invoice was prepared, the work had not yet been undertaken and any damage remained hypothetical rather than established. The invoice was therefore based, at least in part, on an assumption that damage would occur.
In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenants contribute $100 towards the work likely required to remove the hooks and remedy any resulting damage. That amount is awarded.
The landlord also seeks reimbursement of two insurance excesses incurred in relation to the replacement of carpet.
The landlord has provided evidence showing that the carpet was stained by a dark substance. The tenants say that the stain resulted from spilled coffee. The staining does not appear consistent with a typical coffee stain, as it is a dark charcoal colour. However, the tenants accept that the staining occurred during the tenancy and that their attempts to remove it were unsuccessful.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it resulted from the tenants' breach of section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The evidence suggests that the damage was caused carelessly rather than intentionally.
I am further satisfied that the insurance excesses were reasonably incurred as a consequence of that damage. The claim for the two insurance excesses, totalling $800, is therefore awarded.

Are the tenants liable for the power reconnection fee?

The applicant submits that this property has a physical fuse that is removed when power is disconnected. The landlord relies on a provision contained within a list of vacating instructions advising tenants not to disconnect the power because reconnection fees may apply. The landlord says that this requirement is specific to this property. The landlord acknowledged tenants can move or close their account however notes that this distinction is critical in this specific property.
The landlord states that, after the tenancy ended, a new electricity account was established. Electricity supply was then disconnected on 12 March. Following enquiries, the landlord was advised that the disconnection had been carried out on instructions received through a company associated with Slingshot and 2degrees, on the basis that the current customer had advised that the property was becoming vacant.
The information provided by the electricity supplier suggests that the tenants informed their power company that they were vacating the property, which they were entitled to do. The evidence does not establish that the tenants expressly instructed the power company to disconnect the electricity supply.
If the property requires a particular process to avoid disconnection, that requirement ought to be highlighted more prominently. While the instruction relied upon by the landlord is clear when read in hindsight, it appears within a lengthy list of vacating requirements. In any event, the evidence suggests that the disconnection resulted from an assumption made by the power company following notification that the tenants were vacating, rather than from any direct instruction given by the tenants to disconnect the power.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the tenants are liable for the reconnection fee. This claim is dismissed. Filing fees and suppression
Both parties made applications and neither party has been wholly successful.
In those circumstances, each party shall bear their own filing fee.
Suppression is granted to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477409 — Cleanliness at 39 Ngae Place, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477409 — Cleanliness at 39 Ngae Place, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

Are the respondents liable for the cleaning costs?

Are the tenants liable for the repair invoices?

Are the tenants liable for the power reconnection fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

Are the respondents liable for the cleaning costs?

Are the tenants liable for the repair invoices?

Are the tenants liable for the power reconnection fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions