What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4168291?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4168291?

Cleaning: $340.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,714.29 awarded to landlord; Electricians Charges: $417.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,234.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $396.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4168291?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4168291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488877-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4168291?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4168291?

Cleaning: $340.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,714.29 awarded to landlord; Electricians Charges: $417.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,234.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $396.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4168291?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4168291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488877-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4168291 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

25 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4168291 — 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 4168291 — net $2,858.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019	$1,714.29	Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019
Water rates	$396.98	Water rates
Cleaning	$340.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,234.25	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$355.00	Repairs
Repairs: Electricians charges	$417.68	Repairs: Electricians charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,858.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,858.64

Claims and awards for application 4168291 — net $2,858.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019

Amount: $1,714.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019

Water rates

Amount: $396.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $340.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,234.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
ANGAD DHILLON, Vicky Mathaur and Amanveer Kaur must pay [The landlord/s] $2,858.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The landlord was joined to the hearing by telephone. Mr Dhillon and Mr Mathur were joined to the hearing by telephone.
Mr Kaur did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join her to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. History of the claim
The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2016.
On 13 December 2018, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. The hearing was not scheduled at that time.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord contacted Tenancy Services and requested a copy of his original application.
On or around 8 October 2024 the landlord contacted Tenancy Services and asked for the case to be reopened.
On 4 February 2025, the Tribunal considered the issue of service given the period that had passed since the tenancy ended. The Tribunal found that the tenants had not been served in accordance with section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) and ordered: i. The landlord is to provide the Tribunal with a current service address for the tenants. ii. The application is returned to Tenancy Services for further service. iii. If a service address for the tenants cannot be provided, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that the application is to be served by some other means or that service be dispensed with.
On 5 April 2025 the landlord e-mailed the Tribunal with contact addresses for Angad Dhillon and Manveer Kaur.
On 16 June 2025, the Tribunal was satisfied the landlord had provided the addresses for service for Angard Dhillon and Amanveer Kaur and the matter was set down for hearing.
At this hearing the Tribunal confirmed the landlord’s claims. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $2,050.00 and a provided a rent summary to prove the amount claimed.
At the hearing the landlord said the tenants stopped paying rent in early December 2018. He said he made regular visits to the property after the rent stopped but was unable to speak to the tenants. He said during those visits he discovered other people living inside the premises.
The landlord said he discovered the property empty on 3 January 2019 and took possession on 6 January 2019.
The tenants claimed they notified the landlord, via a telephone call, of their intention to leave the property in late December 2018. They said they could not recall the date they moved out as the tenancy ended six years ago. The tenants state that rent was paid in full until the end of their tenancy, and denied being in rent arrears.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenancy ended on 3 January 2019 and awards rent arrears to that date.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks water rates totalling $408.98 and provided a water rates bill in the amount claimed.
The Tribunal was not satisfied with the water rates bill provided. It did not include a break down of the previous overdue charges and was silent on whether the amount claimed included fixed charges.
Following the hearing the landlord produced water rates bills for the following periods: a. 8 March 2018 – 9 April 2018 totalling $57.06 for water use only. b. 9 April 2018 - 8 May 2018 totalling $83.28 for water use only. c. 8 May 2018 – 8 June 2018 totalling $69.40 for water use only. d. 9 June 2018 – 6 July 2018 totalling $202.54 for water use only. e. 11 October 2018 - 8 November 2018 totalling $60.74 for water use only. f. 8 November 2018 – 6 December 2018 totalling $64.30 for water use only.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenants failed to pay their water rates between May and December 2018. The landlord said he e-mailed the tenants copies of the water rates bills and the amounts claimed were properly demanded.
The tenants agreed the water rates were properly demanded but took issue with the amount claimed. The tenants said they did not receive any water rates bills after 10 October 2018 and claimed that had water rates been demanded they would have paid the bill prior to vacating the property.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to pay their water rates from May 2018 until the end of the tenancy. The amount of $396.98 is ordered.

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. Did the tenant’s leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord seeks $340.00 after paying for the property to be cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant disputes the amount claimed stating the property was not clean when they moved in. The tenants said the property was old and that they maintained it to the best of their ability.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property was was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with end of tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show the following: a. The oven had not been cleaned or and the hob wiped down. b. There was evidence of food not being cleaned up. c. The cupboards had not been wiped out. d. The light switches were dirty and marked. e. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped. f. There was visible fly dirt.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $1,234.25 after paying contractors to remove and dump 3 x 9m 3 skip bins of rubbish left behind by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. Two invoices were provided. The first invoice was for labour totalling $320.00. The second invoice was for $914.25 and included the costs of hiring, transporting and dumping three skip bins of rubbish.
The tenant’s disputed the amount claimed. The tenant stated that the amount claimed has been inflated, the volume of rubbish claimed to have been removed would have been months’ worth of rubbish, and that the tenants did not have a lot of possessions.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the property was provided to the tenants in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish.
The end of tenancy inspection photographs prove that rubbish was left behind at the end of the tenancy including: a. Mattresses and bedding; b. Couches/sofas; c. Clothing and footwear; d. Items of furniture; e. Multiple black sacks of rubbish; f. General household items; g. A plastic weed sprayer and large plastic container; and h. General rubbish and boxes littered throughout the section.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenants leave the lawns reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $100.00 after paying a contractor to mow the lawns following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states it took a contractor 90 minutes to mow the lawns twice due to the length.
The tenant stated that he had paid a contractor $50.00 a month to mow the lawns. The tenant said the lawns were last cut in October 2018, two months before the end of the tenancy, because he was of the opinion they hadn’t grown that much.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition following the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s evidence that lawns would not have grown that much between October and December – during the spring to early summer period. The amount claimed is ordered.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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. Did the tenant’s damage the blinds?
The landlord seeks $740.00 the cost of repairing and replacing the blinds following the end of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide an invoice from the supplier for the cost of the replacement blinds. The costs were included in the invoice the landlord prepared for the work his employees completed at the property.
The landlord claims the blinds were a year old at the commencement of the tenancy and were in good working condition. Following the end of the tenancy the landlord said the blinds had to be replaced in the front room and the three bedrooms.
The tenants dispute the amount claimed. The tenants said the blinds were used regularly for two and a half years and would show some evidence of general wear and tear.
There are insufficient, and where available, poor-quality photographs showing the condition of the blinds at the commencement and end of the tenancy. Because of this, the Tribunal is unable to make a proper before and after comparison of condition of the blinds at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties, and based on the available evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenants damaged the blinds during the tenancy and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $710.00 for the following damage that had to be repaired following the end of the tenancy: a. Holes in the walls repaired by either re-gibbing or patching and painting. b. Damaged tiles by the fireplace replaced. c. Damaged tiles by the ranch slider replaced. d. Repair of the house alarm. e. Replacing the front door lock. f. Repair the toilet ballcock and replaced the cistern cover. g. Repair and paint a hole in a kitchen cupboard. h. Repair or replace broken window latches. i. Patch repair of stained carpet. j. Install new interior bedroom door which was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by the landlord did not include a breakdown of costs for the repairs.
The landlord told the Tribunal he believes the tenants sublet the property and the damage was caused during a party.
The tenants deny subletting the property and told the Tribunal the property was old and in poor repair. The tenants made the following comments: a. The key to the front door was lost at the pools and the landlord was informed. The tenants were told the lock would be changed as the landlord had a spare lock. b. The toilet ballcock had a flush issue. The tenants needed to lift the ballcock to flush the toilet. The landlord was informed, but the issue was never remedied. c. The carpets were old and stained at the commencement of the tenancy. d. The holes in the gib board occurred during the tenancy. e. The tiles in front of the fireplace and ranch slider were old and came loose. f. The house alarm was used infrequently and was working at the end of the tenancy. g. The tenants do not recall any issues with the window latches. h. The tenants have no knowledge of a missing interior bedroom door.
The Tribunal was able to compare the pre-tenancy and exit inspection photographs. The Tribunal notes the following: a. There is evidence of additional holes in the gib board following the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the cost of these repairs. b. There is limited evidence showing the condition of tiles in front of the fireplace and the ranch slider at the commencement of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal is unable to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the tiles at the beginning and end of the tenancy and cannot be satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the damage. c. No evidence was provided showing damage to the house alarm or details of the repairs that were required to fix it. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant’s are responsible for the damage to the alarm. d. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenants lost the key to the front door of the property necessitating a lock change. The Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the cost of the lock change. e. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants are responsible for the damage to the toilet ballcock. The Tribunal accepts the tenants evidence that there was an issue with the toilets flush mechanism which was reported to the landlord. Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, landlords are responsible for providing and maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair. Repairing the ballcock is the responsibility of the landlord. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the cistern cover was missing at the end of the tenancy and the tenants are liable for the replacement costs. f. The Tribunal was satisfied that the hole in the kitchen cupboard was caused by the tenants and was more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal find the tenants are liable for the repair cost. g. The Tribunal was not provided with any photographic evidence proving the condition of the window latches at the beginning or end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenants are responsible for the damage to the window latches. h. The pre-tenancy inspection photographs showed that some areas of the carpet were stained at the commencement of the tenancy (the landlord acknowledged the carpet was at least ten years old). The end of tenancy photographs do not show the carpet in sufficient detail to prove the alleged additional staining. On that basis the Tribunal can not satisfied the tenants are responsible for damage to the carpet. i. There was no photographic evidence proving an internal bedroom door was missing at the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants are responsible for the missing internal bedroom door.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an itemised invoice detailing the costs of the repairs. On that basis the Tribunal must determine the level of compensation payable and the amount of $355.00 is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of electrical repairs to the property?

The landlord seeks $654.31 after paying a contractor to complete electrical repairs at the property following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The invoice details the following work was completed: a. Replacement of two large stove top elements. b. Replacement of four simmerstat switches (used to control the temperature of the elements on the stove top). c. Two batten holders (to hold a light bulb) were installed. d. One single light switch was replaced. e. One double light switch was replaced. f. Four plug in circuit breakers were replaced. g. Two LED lamps were replaced. h. Three hours labour plus GST was charged.
The landlord states the tenants damaged the stove during the course of the tenancy. Pre-tenancy inspection photographs show the oven was provided with four complete working elements. The end of tenancy inspection photographs show that one element was missing, and one element was broken.
The tenant’s told the Tribunal they e-mailed the landlord on 14 April 2018 asking for the stove to be replaced. They said that there was a fault with the electrics, and they were worried it could electrocute the user.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants damaged the stove top elements and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the replacement cost of the elemets. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants damaged the simmerstat switches. These switches are situated behind the front panel of the stove and wear out over time and allow for proper heat control of the element. In accordance with section 45(1)(b) the Tribunal finds the landlord responsible for that cost.
The Tribunal was only able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and exit inspection photographs of one of the batten holders as no other photographic evidence was provided. Those photographs show the batten holder in the hallway was provided in good working condition at the commencement of the tenancy but was broken at the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant damaged one batten holder and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs for the two light switches at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal was satisfied the light switches were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants removed four plug in circuit breakers at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants are liable for the replacement costs.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs which proved two light bulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants are liable for the replacement costs.
Accordingly, the Tribunal orders electrical repair costs totalling $417.68. Exemplary damages
The landlord seeks exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for: a. Damage to the property; and b. Failure to pay rent.
While causing damage to a property and not paying rent are breaches of a tenant’s obligations under the Act, they are not considered to be unlawful acts as defined by section 2 or section 40 or as identified by schedule 1A of the Act.
On that basis the landlord’s claim for exemplary damage is dismissed.
At the hearing the landlord sought to amend his claim to include exemplary damages for abandonment.
The Tribunal declines to amend the landlord’s claim to include exemplary damages for abandonment. This matter has been a foot since December 2018. The landlord’s claims were confirmed during a hearing on 16 June 2025. The tenants were not made aware of the landlord’s intention to seek compensation for abandonment until the date of hearing. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim and is granted name suppression.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined. The have not substantially succeeded in their defence of the landlord’s claims.

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 4168291 — net $2,858.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019	$1,714.29	Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019
Water rates	$396.98	Water rates
Cleaning	$340.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,234.25	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$355.00	Repairs
Repairs: Electricians charges	$417.68	Repairs: Electricians charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,858.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,858.64

Claims and awards for application 4168291 — net $2,858.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019

Amount: $1,714.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 3 January 2019

Water rates

Amount: $396.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $340.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,234.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
ANGAD DHILLON, Vicky Mathaur and Amanveer Kaur must pay [The landlord/s] $2,858.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The landlord was joined to the hearing by telephone. Mr Dhillon and Mr Mathur were joined to the hearing by telephone.
Mr Kaur did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join her to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. History of the claim
The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2016.
On 13 December 2018, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. The hearing was not scheduled at that time.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord contacted Tenancy Services and requested a copy of his original application.
On or around 8 October 2024 the landlord contacted Tenancy Services and asked for the case to be reopened.
On 4 February 2025, the Tribunal considered the issue of service given the period that had passed since the tenancy ended. The Tribunal found that the tenants had not been served in accordance with section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) and ordered: i. The landlord is to provide the Tribunal with a current service address for the tenants. ii. The application is returned to Tenancy Services for further service. iii. If a service address for the tenants cannot be provided, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that the application is to be served by some other means or that service be dispensed with.
On 5 April 2025 the landlord e-mailed the Tribunal with contact addresses for Angad Dhillon and Manveer Kaur.
On 16 June 2025, the Tribunal was satisfied the landlord had provided the addresses for service for Angard Dhillon and Amanveer Kaur and the matter was set down for hearing.
At this hearing the Tribunal confirmed the landlord’s claims. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $2,050.00 and a provided a rent summary to prove the amount claimed.
At the hearing the landlord said the tenants stopped paying rent in early December 2018. He said he made regular visits to the property after the rent stopped but was unable to speak to the tenants. He said during those visits he discovered other people living inside the premises.
The landlord said he discovered the property empty on 3 January 2019 and took possession on 6 January 2019.
The tenants claimed they notified the landlord, via a telephone call, of their intention to leave the property in late December 2018. They said they could not recall the date they moved out as the tenancy ended six years ago. The tenants state that rent was paid in full until the end of their tenancy, and denied being in rent arrears.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenancy ended on 3 January 2019 and awards rent arrears to that date.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks water rates totalling $408.98 and provided a water rates bill in the amount claimed.
The Tribunal was not satisfied with the water rates bill provided. It did not include a break down of the previous overdue charges and was silent on whether the amount claimed included fixed charges.
Following the hearing the landlord produced water rates bills for the following periods: a. 8 March 2018 – 9 April 2018 totalling $57.06 for water use only. b. 9 April 2018 - 8 May 2018 totalling $83.28 for water use only. c. 8 May 2018 – 8 June 2018 totalling $69.40 for water use only. d. 9 June 2018 – 6 July 2018 totalling $202.54 for water use only. e. 11 October 2018 - 8 November 2018 totalling $60.74 for water use only. f. 8 November 2018 – 6 December 2018 totalling $64.30 for water use only.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenants failed to pay their water rates between May and December 2018. The landlord said he e-mailed the tenants copies of the water rates bills and the amounts claimed were properly demanded.
The tenants agreed the water rates were properly demanded but took issue with the amount claimed. The tenants said they did not receive any water rates bills after 10 October 2018 and claimed that had water rates been demanded they would have paid the bill prior to vacating the property.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to pay their water rates from May 2018 until the end of the tenancy. The amount of $396.98 is ordered.

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. Did the tenant’s leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord seeks $340.00 after paying for the property to be cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant disputes the amount claimed stating the property was not clean when they moved in. The tenants said the property was old and that they maintained it to the best of their ability.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property was was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with end of tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show the following: a. The oven had not been cleaned or and the hob wiped down. b. There was evidence of food not being cleaned up. c. The cupboards had not been wiped out. d. The light switches were dirty and marked. e. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped. f. There was visible fly dirt.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $1,234.25 after paying contractors to remove and dump 3 x 9m 3 skip bins of rubbish left behind by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. Two invoices were provided. The first invoice was for labour totalling $320.00. The second invoice was for $914.25 and included the costs of hiring, transporting and dumping three skip bins of rubbish.
The tenant’s disputed the amount claimed. The tenant stated that the amount claimed has been inflated, the volume of rubbish claimed to have been removed would have been months’ worth of rubbish, and that the tenants did not have a lot of possessions.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the property was provided to the tenants in a clean and tidy condition free from rubbish.
The end of tenancy inspection photographs prove that rubbish was left behind at the end of the tenancy including: a. Mattresses and bedding; b. Couches/sofas; c. Clothing and footwear; d. Items of furniture; e. Multiple black sacks of rubbish; f. General household items; g. A plastic weed sprayer and large plastic container; and h. General rubbish and boxes littered throughout the section.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenants leave the lawns reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $100.00 after paying a contractor to mow the lawns following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states it took a contractor 90 minutes to mow the lawns twice due to the length.
The tenant stated that he had paid a contractor $50.00 a month to mow the lawns. The tenant said the lawns were last cut in October 2018, two months before the end of the tenancy, because he was of the opinion they hadn’t grown that much.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition following the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s evidence that lawns would not have grown that much between October and December – during the spring to early summer period. The amount claimed is ordered.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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. Did the tenant’s damage the blinds?
The landlord seeks $740.00 the cost of repairing and replacing the blinds following the end of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide an invoice from the supplier for the cost of the replacement blinds. The costs were included in the invoice the landlord prepared for the work his employees completed at the property.
The landlord claims the blinds were a year old at the commencement of the tenancy and were in good working condition. Following the end of the tenancy the landlord said the blinds had to be replaced in the front room and the three bedrooms.
The tenants dispute the amount claimed. The tenants said the blinds were used regularly for two and a half years and would show some evidence of general wear and tear.
There are insufficient, and where available, poor-quality photographs showing the condition of the blinds at the commencement and end of the tenancy. Because of this, the Tribunal is unable to make a proper before and after comparison of condition of the blinds at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties, and based on the available evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenants damaged the blinds during the tenancy and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $710.00 for the following damage that had to be repaired following the end of the tenancy: a. Holes in the walls repaired by either re-gibbing or patching and painting. b. Damaged tiles by the fireplace replaced. c. Damaged tiles by the ranch slider replaced. d. Repair of the house alarm. e. Replacing the front door lock. f. Repair the toilet ballcock and replaced the cistern cover. g. Repair and paint a hole in a kitchen cupboard. h. Repair or replace broken window latches. i. Patch repair of stained carpet. j. Install new interior bedroom door which was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by the landlord did not include a breakdown of costs for the repairs.
The landlord told the Tribunal he believes the tenants sublet the property and the damage was caused during a party.
The tenants deny subletting the property and told the Tribunal the property was old and in poor repair. The tenants made the following comments: a. The key to the front door was lost at the pools and the landlord was informed. The tenants were told the lock would be changed as the landlord had a spare lock. b. The toilet ballcock had a flush issue. The tenants needed to lift the ballcock to flush the toilet. The landlord was informed, but the issue was never remedied. c. The carpets were old and stained at the commencement of the tenancy. d. The holes in the gib board occurred during the tenancy. e. The tiles in front of the fireplace and ranch slider were old and came loose. f. The house alarm was used infrequently and was working at the end of the tenancy. g. The tenants do not recall any issues with the window latches. h. The tenants have no knowledge of a missing interior bedroom door.
The Tribunal was able to compare the pre-tenancy and exit inspection photographs. The Tribunal notes the following: a. There is evidence of additional holes in the gib board following the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the cost of these repairs. b. There is limited evidence showing the condition of tiles in front of the fireplace and the ranch slider at the commencement of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal is unable to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the tiles at the beginning and end of the tenancy and cannot be satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the damage. c. No evidence was provided showing damage to the house alarm or details of the repairs that were required to fix it. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant’s are responsible for the damage to the alarm. d. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenants lost the key to the front door of the property necessitating a lock change. The Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the cost of the lock change. e. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants are responsible for the damage to the toilet ballcock. The Tribunal accepts the tenants evidence that there was an issue with the toilets flush mechanism which was reported to the landlord. Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, landlords are responsible for providing and maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair. Repairing the ballcock is the responsibility of the landlord. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the cistern cover was missing at the end of the tenancy and the tenants are liable for the replacement costs. f. The Tribunal was satisfied that the hole in the kitchen cupboard was caused by the tenants and was more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal find the tenants are liable for the repair cost. g. The Tribunal was not provided with any photographic evidence proving the condition of the window latches at the beginning or end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenants are responsible for the damage to the window latches. h. The pre-tenancy inspection photographs showed that some areas of the carpet were stained at the commencement of the tenancy (the landlord acknowledged the carpet was at least ten years old). The end of tenancy photographs do not show the carpet in sufficient detail to prove the alleged additional staining. On that basis the Tribunal can not satisfied the tenants are responsible for damage to the carpet. i. There was no photographic evidence proving an internal bedroom door was missing at the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants are responsible for the missing internal bedroom door.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an itemised invoice detailing the costs of the repairs. On that basis the Tribunal must determine the level of compensation payable and the amount of $355.00 is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of electrical repairs to the property?

The landlord seeks $654.31 after paying a contractor to complete electrical repairs at the property following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The invoice details the following work was completed: a. Replacement of two large stove top elements. b. Replacement of four simmerstat switches (used to control the temperature of the elements on the stove top). c. Two batten holders (to hold a light bulb) were installed. d. One single light switch was replaced. e. One double light switch was replaced. f. Four plug in circuit breakers were replaced. g. Two LED lamps were replaced. h. Three hours labour plus GST was charged.
The landlord states the tenants damaged the stove during the course of the tenancy. Pre-tenancy inspection photographs show the oven was provided with four complete working elements. The end of tenancy inspection photographs show that one element was missing, and one element was broken.
The tenant’s told the Tribunal they e-mailed the landlord on 14 April 2018 asking for the stove to be replaced. They said that there was a fault with the electrics, and they were worried it could electrocute the user.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants damaged the stove top elements and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the replacement cost of the elemets. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants damaged the simmerstat switches. These switches are situated behind the front panel of the stove and wear out over time and allow for proper heat control of the element. In accordance with section 45(1)(b) the Tribunal finds the landlord responsible for that cost.
The Tribunal was only able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and exit inspection photographs of one of the batten holders as no other photographic evidence was provided. Those photographs show the batten holder in the hallway was provided in good working condition at the commencement of the tenancy but was broken at the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant damaged one batten holder and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs for the two light switches at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal was satisfied the light switches were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants removed four plug in circuit breakers at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants are liable for the replacement costs.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs which proved two light bulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants are liable for the replacement costs.
Accordingly, the Tribunal orders electrical repair costs totalling $417.68. Exemplary damages
The landlord seeks exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for: a. Damage to the property; and b. Failure to pay rent.
While causing damage to a property and not paying rent are breaches of a tenant’s obligations under the Act, they are not considered to be unlawful acts as defined by section 2 or section 40 or as identified by schedule 1A of the Act.
On that basis the landlord’s claim for exemplary damage is dismissed.
At the hearing the landlord sought to amend his claim to include exemplary damages for abandonment.
The Tribunal declines to amend the landlord’s claim to include exemplary damages for abandonment. This matter has been a foot since December 2018. The landlord’s claims were confirmed during a hearing on 16 June 2025. The tenants were not made aware of the landlord’s intention to seek compensation for abandonment until the date of hearing. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim and is granted name suppression.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined. The have not substantially succeeded in their defence of the landlord’s claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4168291 — Rent arrears at 25 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4168291 — Rent arrears at 25 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenants leave the lawns reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of electrical repairs to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenants leave the lawns reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of electrical repairs to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions