What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007448?

The tribunal order states: Namrata Sejwal and Ashu Sejwal must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited New

How much money was awarded in case 5007448?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,130.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Difference During FTT: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Walls And Ceiling Interio…: $3,622.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007448?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11705416-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007448?

The tribunal order states: Namrata Sejwal and Ashu Sejwal must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited New

How much money was awarded in case 5007448?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,130.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Difference During FTT: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Walls And Ceiling Interio…: $3,622.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007448?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11705416-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Tamora Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007448 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007448 — net $7,309.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,130.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repainting walls and ceiling interior	$3,622.50	Repainting walls and ceiling interior
Rent difference during FTT	$1,050.00	Rent difference during FTT
Net award	$7,309.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,309.50

Order

Namrata Sejwal and Ashu Sejwal must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited New Lynn as Agent for Mark Li $7,309.50 immediately, being rent arrears to 12 September 2024, filing fee, rent difference and damages, as calculated, and set out in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$5,130.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Repainting walls and ceiling interior$3,622.50 Rent difference during FTT$1,050.00 Total award$9,829.50 Minus Bond-$2,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,309.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6484761-002) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited New Lynn as Agent for Mark Li immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenants did not attend. One of the tenants sent an email to the Tribunal on 8 April 2025 advising that he is overseas and had been since 25 February 2025. His wife is in Auckland but stressed. He sought an adjournment. An adjournment was not granted as the tenants left the property in July 2024 and these claims must be determined. Furthermore, the tenant had been notified of this hearing date some time ago and yet left it until 3 days before the hearing to seek an adjournment. Finally, there are two tenants, and one was available to attend, but chose not to.
For all these reasons I am proceeding with the hearing in their absence. Background:
This was a12- month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 4 April 2024.
In June 2024 the tenants contacted the landlord to say that the there was a mould issue with the house. They sent photos and a video of mould on walls and ceiling and moisture, to the landlord. Immediately the landlord attended and began an investigation into the moisture and mould claims.
The tenants sought an early release of the tenancy due to these issues. The landlord agreed on the condition that the tenants pay the rent until a new tenant was found.
The tenants left the property on 13 July 2024.
The landlord carried out extensive investigations into the mould and moisture claims. The landlord has provided the Tribunal with photos of what appears to be mould on the walls and ceiling, a report from a cleaning company and a report from the developer.
On 27 August 2024 Paradise Cleaning prepared a report which confirmed that there was some mould present initially but that in their professional opinion the damage and marks on the walls and ceiling were due to smoke damage. The report writer noted many walls were discoloured with smoke /soot likely due to the tenant’s burning candles or incense in the rooms. The landlord mentioned temple/ prayer areas in the house, with burning equipment.
The reporter writer said that they were unable to remove the soot off the wall despite using specialised chemicals, that normally would do the job. The recommendation was for the interior of the house to be repainted due to the extent of the damage to the walls.
The landlord needed to ensure that the property did not have an issue with moisture and mould and engaged the services of experts to investigate the tenants claim.
A roofer was sent to the property to check for roof leaks. None were located after lifting panels off the roof and advising no evidence of water or water marks and confirming that the roof insulation was dry.
Founders Group Limited provided a report and attached photos of their findings when they investigate the complaint. They cut holes into the ceiling and carried out thermal imaging. Their conclusion was there were no signs of any water with no watermarks on the gib and the insulation was dry. There were no signs of leaks or dampness. They concluded that as the previous and subsequent tenants had never experienced any mould issues, that the issue lay with these tenants. The report writer confirmed that the painters stated that the walls and ceilings would need to be washed and treated.
Once the landlord had been advised that the property did not have any inherent moisture issues, remediating the property began.
The landlord obtained several quotes for the repainting work. Eventually Sincere House Maintain Ltd repainted the walls and ceilings due to mould and soot issues. The landlord has provided an invoice for $4025.00 for the repainting.
New tenants moved into the property on 13 September 2024 with a reduced rental of $50.00 per week. The landlord advised that the property had been advertised for some time before a suitable tenant was found and that the rental market had changed over those months, and they had to reduce the rent to get a tenant. The landlord seeks to recoup the $50.00 difference in rent until the end of the fixed term tenancy period. Landlord claims:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount of $5130.00 owing as of 12 September 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
The landlord also sought the difference that they would have received in rent had the fixed term tenancy continued at the rate of $630.00 per week. To obtain a new tenant the rent was reduced to $580.00 per week. The landlord seeks the difference in rent until the end of the fixed term period.
The landlord seeks $1050.00 to cover the rent difference. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent difference.

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.
The tenants caused damage during the tenancy to the walls and ceiling by the use of burners, and/or candles which products soot and smoke stains on the paint work. Furthermore, by the lack of ventilation of the property allowed mould to build up on the walls and ceilings.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has provided photos of the mould and soot marks through out the property and an invoice for $4025.00 for the repainting work.
The landlord has made an insurance claim which was declined. The landlord provided the Tribunal with confirmation from Tower Insurance that they had declined the landlord claim. The reason for declining the claim was that they do not cover damage that was caused by an accumulation of soot from candle burning or incense. Their policy only covers sudden and accidental damage, and this damage must have happened on multiple occasions as the soot was present in multiple rooms. The insurance company stated this was a deliberate act that the tenants carried out on multiple occasions.
For these reasons I find the amounts ordered are proved.
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.
While the property was only 18 months old at the time the tenants left the property, I must consider depreciation. I am deducted 10% from the cost of repainting to reflect the depreciation. I am awarding the landlord $3622.50 for the repainting work.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited New Lynn as Agent for Mark Li has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord immediately to offset the debt owed to the landlord by the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007448 — net $7,309.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,130.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repainting walls and ceiling interior	$3,622.50	Repainting walls and ceiling interior
Rent difference during FTT	$1,050.00	Rent difference during FTT
Net award	$7,309.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,309.50

Order

Namrata Sejwal and Ashu Sejwal must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited New Lynn as Agent for Mark Li $7,309.50 immediately, being rent arrears to 12 September 2024, filing fee, rent difference and damages, as calculated, and set out in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$5,130.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Repainting walls and ceiling interior$3,622.50 Rent difference during FTT$1,050.00 Total award$9,829.50 Minus Bond-$2,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,309.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6484761-002) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited New Lynn as Agent for Mark Li immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenants did not attend. One of the tenants sent an email to the Tribunal on 8 April 2025 advising that he is overseas and had been since 25 February 2025. His wife is in Auckland but stressed. He sought an adjournment. An adjournment was not granted as the tenants left the property in July 2024 and these claims must be determined. Furthermore, the tenant had been notified of this hearing date some time ago and yet left it until 3 days before the hearing to seek an adjournment. Finally, there are two tenants, and one was available to attend, but chose not to.
For all these reasons I am proceeding with the hearing in their absence. Background:
This was a12- month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 4 April 2024.
In June 2024 the tenants contacted the landlord to say that the there was a mould issue with the house. They sent photos and a video of mould on walls and ceiling and moisture, to the landlord. Immediately the landlord attended and began an investigation into the moisture and mould claims.
The tenants sought an early release of the tenancy due to these issues. The landlord agreed on the condition that the tenants pay the rent until a new tenant was found.
The tenants left the property on 13 July 2024.
The landlord carried out extensive investigations into the mould and moisture claims. The landlord has provided the Tribunal with photos of what appears to be mould on the walls and ceiling, a report from a cleaning company and a report from the developer.
On 27 August 2024 Paradise Cleaning prepared a report which confirmed that there was some mould present initially but that in their professional opinion the damage and marks on the walls and ceiling were due to smoke damage. The report writer noted many walls were discoloured with smoke /soot likely due to the tenant’s burning candles or incense in the rooms. The landlord mentioned temple/ prayer areas in the house, with burning equipment.
The reporter writer said that they were unable to remove the soot off the wall despite using specialised chemicals, that normally would do the job. The recommendation was for the interior of the house to be repainted due to the extent of the damage to the walls.
The landlord needed to ensure that the property did not have an issue with moisture and mould and engaged the services of experts to investigate the tenants claim.
A roofer was sent to the property to check for roof leaks. None were located after lifting panels off the roof and advising no evidence of water or water marks and confirming that the roof insulation was dry.
Founders Group Limited provided a report and attached photos of their findings when they investigate the complaint. They cut holes into the ceiling and carried out thermal imaging. Their conclusion was there were no signs of any water with no watermarks on the gib and the insulation was dry. There were no signs of leaks or dampness. They concluded that as the previous and subsequent tenants had never experienced any mould issues, that the issue lay with these tenants. The report writer confirmed that the painters stated that the walls and ceilings would need to be washed and treated.
Once the landlord had been advised that the property did not have any inherent moisture issues, remediating the property began.
The landlord obtained several quotes for the repainting work. Eventually Sincere House Maintain Ltd repainted the walls and ceilings due to mould and soot issues. The landlord has provided an invoice for $4025.00 for the repainting.
New tenants moved into the property on 13 September 2024 with a reduced rental of $50.00 per week. The landlord advised that the property had been advertised for some time before a suitable tenant was found and that the rental market had changed over those months, and they had to reduce the rent to get a tenant. The landlord seeks to recoup the $50.00 difference in rent until the end of the fixed term tenancy period. Landlord claims:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount of $5130.00 owing as of 12 September 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
The landlord also sought the difference that they would have received in rent had the fixed term tenancy continued at the rate of $630.00 per week. To obtain a new tenant the rent was reduced to $580.00 per week. The landlord seeks the difference in rent until the end of the fixed term period.
The landlord seeks $1050.00 to cover the rent difference. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent difference.

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.
The tenants caused damage during the tenancy to the walls and ceiling by the use of burners, and/or candles which products soot and smoke stains on the paint work. Furthermore, by the lack of ventilation of the property allowed mould to build up on the walls and ceilings.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has provided photos of the mould and soot marks through out the property and an invoice for $4025.00 for the repainting work.
The landlord has made an insurance claim which was declined. The landlord provided the Tribunal with confirmation from Tower Insurance that they had declined the landlord claim. The reason for declining the claim was that they do not cover damage that was caused by an accumulation of soot from candle burning or incense. Their policy only covers sudden and accidental damage, and this damage must have happened on multiple occasions as the soot was present in multiple rooms. The insurance company stated this was a deliberate act that the tenants carried out on multiple occasions.
For these reasons I find the amounts ordered are proved.
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.
While the property was only 18 months old at the time the tenants left the property, I must consider depreciation. I am deducted 10% from the cost of repainting to reflect the depreciation. I am awarding the landlord $3622.50 for the repainting work.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited New Lynn as Agent for Mark Li has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord immediately to offset the debt owed to the landlord by the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007448 — Rent arrears at 34 Tamora Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007448 — Rent arrears at 34 Tamora Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions