What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489509 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5489509?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $3,750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,314.29 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $186.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,728.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14194551-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489509 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5489509?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $3,750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,314.29 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $186.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,728.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14194551-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Sudbury Terrace, Parnell, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489509 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

23 Sudbury Terrace, Parnell, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489509 — Rent arrears | 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 5489509 — net $1,708.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 April 2026	$3,314.29		Rent arrears to 8 April 2026
Cleaning	$230.00		Cleaning
Water rates	$1,728.15		Water rates
Repairs: Bedroom door	$186.30		Repairs: Bedroom door
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$3,750.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$5,458.74	$3,750.00
Net award	$1,708.74
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,708.74

Claims and awards for application 5489509 — net $1,708.74 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8 April 2026

Amount: $3,314.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8 April 2026

Cleaning

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $1,728.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: Bedroom door

Amount: $186.30
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom door

Compensation: Loss of amenity

Amount: $3,750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Loss of amenity

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Tenant’s application

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,708.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,708.74 [The tenant/s]: $1,491.26

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 10 September 2026.
The tenancy began on 16 October 2024 and ended on 8 April 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and refund of the bond. Landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced an exit inspection report dated 10 April 2026. The tenant produced a few photographs from after she cleaned the premises.
I am satisfied that some cleaning was required after the tenancy ended such as dusting, cleaning the shower glass, vacuuming the garage and removing some recyclable material. The landlord’s claim is reduced based on the evidence produced to $230.00.

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.
The landlord claims for damage to a bedroom door where a poster was attached to the door but caused damage when the tenant removed it. The landlord produced a photograph of the damaged door and the same door from before the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that the paint on the door was not primed and of poor quality. She said that if she knew the paint was not good then the poster would not have been stuck to the door.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused by this tenant during the tenancy. The claim is awarded.
The landlord had claimed for compensation due to blocked drains three weeks after the tenancy ended. The plumber’s invoice dated 4 May 2026 states, “I believe the whole bathroom is blocked which will require drainage.” The invoice also states, “Unsure cause of blockage.”
At the hearing the landlord said that the drains had been unblocked just before the tenancy began. This suggests that there may be an issue with the drains at the premises.
There is no evidence that any action of the tenant has caused or contributed to the drain blockage. At the hearing the landlord mentioned hair in the drain, but this was not included in the report from the plumber and even if it was, it is not unusual for some hair to be present in drainage from normal usage.
The landlord’s claim for compensation relating to the drain blockage is dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims that there was ongoing water ingress affecting the downstairs bedroom resulting in persistent moisture, mould growth and damage to flooring and walls. The tenant said that her daughter was unable to use the room and had to sleep in the garage or lounge for an extended period.
The tenant produced photographs of the damage caused by the water ingress. A photograph from June 2025 shows the wall in the corner deteriorating and the carpet gripper (wooden track used to install the carpet) appears wet, mouldy and rotten. Other photographs dated 28 August 2025 from just outside the bathroom show rotten and mouldy carpet gripper, mouldy underlay and carpet and a large wet patch. Some of the carpet gripper is so mouldy and rotten that it has broken away.
The tenant produced a doctor’s letter in relation to her daughter whose bedroom was affected and that letter states that she reports breathing difficulties and headaches in the mouldy room.
The water ingress issues were first reported in October 2024, the month that the tenancy began.
The landlord had arranged for a plumber to fix the sink disposal unit in October 2024. The plumber’s invoice dated 31 October 2024 states, “Also the tenant advised the downstairs shower had a leak and the carpet was a little damp. I checked but couldn’t find anything obvious. As it looks fairly new it may pay to contact the installer.”
The landlord said that the bathroom was newly installed before the tenancy began because the premises had been flooded during the Auckland floods and required to be completely renovated.
The tenant continued to complain about the damp carpet. In March 2025 the landlord contacted the contractor responsible for installing the new bathroom. The landlord produced text communication with the installer. A text message from the installer dated 12 June 2025 states, “We had a look last time and the plumber confirmed there is absolutely no leaks at all from our side of this and the exterior of the building was never touched by us – it is possible that the floor waste has been blocked at some point and flooded or the shower was left on and flooded – but nothing from our end of things we worked on.”
While the installer denied that there were any leaks there is no evidence that he was a qualified contractor or what investigation was carried out to identify where the leak was coming from. As the bathroom was under warranty there was no invoice, but the landlord could have requested a report or some evidence that the installer was qualified to carry out such an inspection.
The landlord asked the installer, “Any solution to keep the area dry, treat the mould and secure the carpet back?” He responded with, “Yeah, I think it just needs to be pulled back and cleaned and then resecured”.
The landlord said that the installer on three occasions 1 applied sealant to the shower. It is odd that he would apply sealant regularly when he thought that there was no issue.
During the tenancy the landlord thought that the problem was the door leading to the decking. She arranged for a glass company 2 to attend in early October 2025 and that company provided a report which stated, “My recommendation is that this water damage is originating from a leak in the recently replaced shower. I would expect that this would be covered by a warranty and would suggest that you follow this warranty up with the installer.”
The landlord’s representative wrote an email to the Body Corporate on 1 October 2025 which included, “Carpet was lifted up and the corner next to bathroom has mould and is wet underneath. They think that the shower was not installed properly. A shower seal hopefully will fix this. However, if the issue is worse, we will need to rip up the shower and install again. They suspect water travel underneath the shower into the bedroom. 1 October 2024, March 2025 and October 2025 2 Grey Lynn Glass Paint on bedroom wall near door to garden is also peeling badly. Some paint peel on corner of ensuite window as well.” This email is evidence that the landlord was aware of the issues from the leak.
The landlord failed to address the leak in a timely manner. The plumber in October 2024 and the glass company in October 2025 both advised the landlord to consult the installer as the new bathroom would be under warranty. The installer did not take responsibility for the leaking and applied sealant on three occasions even though his view was that there was no leak.
The landlord was aware of the presence of mould on the carpet gripper, the carpet and the underlay in August 2025 when the tenant provided evidence of it. The landlord had a work order in November 2025 for a handyperson to clean mould on the walls and under the carpet, but this did not happen before the end of the tenancy.
The evidence shows that there was a leak, and the landlord should have employed someone to investigate the cause when the installer denied responsibility.
The effect is that the tenant lived with a leak from the time that she moved into the premises, and this was not remedied at the time the tenancy ended. This meant that there was mould and dampness in one of the three bedrooms which caused it to be uninhabitable.
I have awarded the tenant compensation of $3,750.00 which I calculate at $50.00 for each of the 75 weeks from the date that the problem was reported until the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
In the application both the landlord and the tenant requested suppression. As they have been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

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 5489509 — net $1,708.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 April 2026	$3,314.29		Rent arrears to 8 April 2026
Cleaning	$230.00		Cleaning
Water rates	$1,728.15		Water rates
Repairs: Bedroom door	$186.30		Repairs: Bedroom door
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$3,750.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$5,458.74	$3,750.00
Net award	$1,708.74
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,708.74

Claims and awards for application 5489509 — net $1,708.74 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8 April 2026

Amount: $3,314.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8 April 2026

Cleaning

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $1,728.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: Bedroom door

Amount: $186.30
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom door

Compensation: Loss of amenity

Amount: $3,750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Loss of amenity

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Tenant’s application

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,708.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,708.74 [The tenant/s]: $1,491.26

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 10 September 2026.
The tenancy began on 16 October 2024 and ended on 8 April 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and refund of the bond. Landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced an exit inspection report dated 10 April 2026. The tenant produced a few photographs from after she cleaned the premises.
I am satisfied that some cleaning was required after the tenancy ended such as dusting, cleaning the shower glass, vacuuming the garage and removing some recyclable material. The landlord’s claim is reduced based on the evidence produced to $230.00.

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.
The landlord claims for damage to a bedroom door where a poster was attached to the door but caused damage when the tenant removed it. The landlord produced a photograph of the damaged door and the same door from before the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that the paint on the door was not primed and of poor quality. She said that if she knew the paint was not good then the poster would not have been stuck to the door.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused by this tenant during the tenancy. The claim is awarded.
The landlord had claimed for compensation due to blocked drains three weeks after the tenancy ended. The plumber’s invoice dated 4 May 2026 states, “I believe the whole bathroom is blocked which will require drainage.” The invoice also states, “Unsure cause of blockage.”
At the hearing the landlord said that the drains had been unblocked just before the tenancy began. This suggests that there may be an issue with the drains at the premises.
There is no evidence that any action of the tenant has caused or contributed to the drain blockage. At the hearing the landlord mentioned hair in the drain, but this was not included in the report from the plumber and even if it was, it is not unusual for some hair to be present in drainage from normal usage.
The landlord’s claim for compensation relating to the drain blockage is dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims that there was ongoing water ingress affecting the downstairs bedroom resulting in persistent moisture, mould growth and damage to flooring and walls. The tenant said that her daughter was unable to use the room and had to sleep in the garage or lounge for an extended period.
The tenant produced photographs of the damage caused by the water ingress. A photograph from June 2025 shows the wall in the corner deteriorating and the carpet gripper (wooden track used to install the carpet) appears wet, mouldy and rotten. Other photographs dated 28 August 2025 from just outside the bathroom show rotten and mouldy carpet gripper, mouldy underlay and carpet and a large wet patch. Some of the carpet gripper is so mouldy and rotten that it has broken away.
The tenant produced a doctor’s letter in relation to her daughter whose bedroom was affected and that letter states that she reports breathing difficulties and headaches in the mouldy room.
The water ingress issues were first reported in October 2024, the month that the tenancy began.
The landlord had arranged for a plumber to fix the sink disposal unit in October 2024. The plumber’s invoice dated 31 October 2024 states, “Also the tenant advised the downstairs shower had a leak and the carpet was a little damp. I checked but couldn’t find anything obvious. As it looks fairly new it may pay to contact the installer.”
The landlord said that the bathroom was newly installed before the tenancy began because the premises had been flooded during the Auckland floods and required to be completely renovated.
The tenant continued to complain about the damp carpet. In March 2025 the landlord contacted the contractor responsible for installing the new bathroom. The landlord produced text communication with the installer. A text message from the installer dated 12 June 2025 states, “We had a look last time and the plumber confirmed there is absolutely no leaks at all from our side of this and the exterior of the building was never touched by us – it is possible that the floor waste has been blocked at some point and flooded or the shower was left on and flooded – but nothing from our end of things we worked on.”
While the installer denied that there were any leaks there is no evidence that he was a qualified contractor or what investigation was carried out to identify where the leak was coming from. As the bathroom was under warranty there was no invoice, but the landlord could have requested a report or some evidence that the installer was qualified to carry out such an inspection.
The landlord asked the installer, “Any solution to keep the area dry, treat the mould and secure the carpet back?” He responded with, “Yeah, I think it just needs to be pulled back and cleaned and then resecured”.
The landlord said that the installer on three occasions 1 applied sealant to the shower. It is odd that he would apply sealant regularly when he thought that there was no issue.
During the tenancy the landlord thought that the problem was the door leading to the decking. She arranged for a glass company 2 to attend in early October 2025 and that company provided a report which stated, “My recommendation is that this water damage is originating from a leak in the recently replaced shower. I would expect that this would be covered by a warranty and would suggest that you follow this warranty up with the installer.”
The landlord’s representative wrote an email to the Body Corporate on 1 October 2025 which included, “Carpet was lifted up and the corner next to bathroom has mould and is wet underneath. They think that the shower was not installed properly. A shower seal hopefully will fix this. However, if the issue is worse, we will need to rip up the shower and install again. They suspect water travel underneath the shower into the bedroom. 1 October 2024, March 2025 and October 2025 2 Grey Lynn Glass Paint on bedroom wall near door to garden is also peeling badly. Some paint peel on corner of ensuite window as well.” This email is evidence that the landlord was aware of the issues from the leak.
The landlord failed to address the leak in a timely manner. The plumber in October 2024 and the glass company in October 2025 both advised the landlord to consult the installer as the new bathroom would be under warranty. The installer did not take responsibility for the leaking and applied sealant on three occasions even though his view was that there was no leak.
The landlord was aware of the presence of mould on the carpet gripper, the carpet and the underlay in August 2025 when the tenant provided evidence of it. The landlord had a work order in November 2025 for a handyperson to clean mould on the walls and under the carpet, but this did not happen before the end of the tenancy.
The evidence shows that there was a leak, and the landlord should have employed someone to investigate the cause when the installer denied responsibility.
The effect is that the tenant lived with a leak from the time that she moved into the premises, and this was not remedied at the time the tenancy ended. This meant that there was mould and dampness in one of the three bedrooms which caused it to be uninhabitable.
I have awarded the tenant compensation of $3,750.00 which I calculate at $50.00 for each of the 75 weeks from the date that the problem was reported until the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
In the application both the landlord and the tenant requested suppression. As they have been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489509 — Rent arrears at 23 Sudbury Terrace, Parnell, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489509 — Rent arrears at 23 Sudbury Terrace, Parnell, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.