Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5487589 — Rent arrears at 24 Tyrian Close, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012
Decided 11 June 2026 · Published 11 June 2026 · Application 5487589
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $10,588.77
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$4,800.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $5,788.77
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 7 May 2026 | $7,100.00 | Rent arrears to 7 May 2026 | |
| Water rates | $874.42 | Water rates | |
| Carpet cleaning and repairs | $644.00 | Carpet cleaning and repairs | |
| 2 Garage remotes | $435.85 | 2 Garage remotes | |
| Repairs: cupboard doors, handles, gate | $759.00 | Repairs: cupboard doors, handles, gate | |
| Repairs: Walls | $230.00 | Repairs: Walls | |
| Repairs: Pergola | $345.00 | Repairs: Pergola | |
| Repairs: Front door | $172.50 | Repairs: Front door | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $5,788.77 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $5,788.77 |
Claims and awards for application 5487589 — net $5,788.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 7 May 2026
- Amount
- $7,100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 7 May 2026
Water rates
- Amount
- $874.42
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Carpet cleaning and repairs
- Amount
- $644.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet cleaning and repairs
2 Garage remotes
- Amount
- $435.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 2 Garage remotes
Repairs: cupboard doors, handles, gate
- Amount
- $759.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: cupboard doors, handles, gate
Repairs: Walls
- Amount
- $230.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Pergola
- Amount
- $345.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Pergola
Repairs: Front door
- Amount
- $172.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Front door
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $5,788.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $5,788.77
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Macaulay Oliver Marchant must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhen And Ting Xu $5,788.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (BN-00016488) to Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhen And Ting Xu immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord, represented by Ms Zhang attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference. The tenant did not seek to be admitted to the hearing at the scheduled time.
- Because the tenant has been served notice of the hearing to his email address which is an address for service on his tenancy agreement, I am satisfied the service requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) have been satisfied, and the hearing could be conducted in his absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The landlord said the tenancy ended on 7 May 2026. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $7,100.00 for rent arrears and $874.42 for unpaid water rates.
- I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of these records.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord claims the tenant was provided with two garage remotes at the start of the tenancy and did not return either of them. The landlord is claiming $435.85 for the replacement of the two remotes.
- I have no reason to doubt the landlord’s information.
- This claim and the amount ordered are proved.
- The landlord says the tenant did not leave the gardens in a reasonably tidy condition.
- When I look at the gardens and patio area I can see there are some weeds growing in the gardens and through the pavers in the patio area. The lawns look well tended.
- When I consider the lawns and gardens in their entirety, I determine the lawns and gardens have been left in a reasonable tidy condition.
- This claim is not proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- 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. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- 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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- The landlord said that during the tenancy the following damage requiring repairs was caused by the tenant: a. Cupboard doors and wardrobe doors removed, door handles removed or broken, vanity door removed, gate off its hinges, toilet seat and alarm damaged, ($660 + GST) b. Walls chipped and scuffed, ($850 + GST) c. Heatlamps no longer working, ($210 + GST) d. Pergola beam burnt, ($1,500 + GST) e. Front door damaged, ($350 + GST)
- The landlord produced start of tenancy photographs and end of tenancy photographs and invoices for the repairs. I have looked carefully at the photographs.
- I am persuaded the damage as listed at (13. a.) above is proved. I determine the damage is careless damage.
- I determine that some of the damage to the walls such as dents, scuffs and scrapes is very minor and does not exceed fair wear and tear. In other places wall fixings amount to intentional damage. I find this claim partially proved and I make a partial award of the amount sought.
- The amount ordered is proved.
- I determine the heatlamps not working is a maintenance issue that is the responsibility of the landlord.
- The burn mark to the pergola beam is intentional damage. I determine the landlord has suffered some loss. This is proved.
- The landlord is claiming for a major repair, replacing the whole beam and repainting the entire pergola. I consider this claim includes significant betterment for the landlord and I reduce the award accordingly.
- The amount ordered is proved.
- The front door damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I determine the landlord’s claim includes betterment and I have reduced the claim accordingly.
- The amount ordered is proved.
- Because Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhen And Ting Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5487589?
The tribunal order states: Macaulay Oliver Marchant must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As
How much money was awarded in case 5487589?
2 Garage Remotes: $435.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,100.00 awarded to landlord; Cupboard Doors, Handles, Gate: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Pergola: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $874.42 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5487589?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5487589?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735676-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.