What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5027845?

The tribunal order states: Croydon Cole to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5027845?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door Scratches: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $80.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027845?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020545-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5027845?

The tribunal order states: Croydon Cole to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5027845?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door Scratches: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $80.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027845?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020545-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Browning Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5027845 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027845 — net $1,034.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$80.27	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$190.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$130.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: front door scratches	$207.00	Repairs: front door scratches
2 x damage to floors	$400.00	2 x damage to floors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,034.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,034.27

A representative (LG) from Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited, the landlord owner and the tenant attended a video conference hearing on 24 June 2025.

This is a rehearing of the landlord’s application and hearing of a tenant cross- application.

The tenant chose to leave the hearing before his evidence could be heard fully.

I continued the hearing in his absence.

All references to landlord generally mean the landlord’s agent acting at the relevant time. The claims

The tenancy started on 14 February 2022 and ended on 26 August 2024.

The landlord has applied for payment of water costs, cleaning and garden work, and compensation for repairs following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages alleging the landlord failed in its maintenance obligations and for compensation for stress and inconvenience. Some of the tenant’s claims are effectively disputing the landlord’s claims and I deal with them as such.

I have decided to confirm the orders I made at the first hearing of the landlord’s claim. The tenant has filed a large amount of new evidence, but it was difficult for me to assess because he was not present to explain it. Bond

The tenant says the bond is $5,000.00. This is what is recorded on the tenancy agreement.

The landlord appointed a new agent company part way through this tenancy. The previous agent dealt with the bond lodgement.

The current agent says that it discovered after telephoning the Bond Centre that half of the bond ($2,500.00) was refunded part-way through the tenancy, when the previous agent was acting.

The tenant has supplied a Bond Lodgement form in his evidence. This is dated 1 February 2022 and records two tenants each of whom have contributed $2,500.00 to the bond.

Tenant 1 is Croydon Cole and Tenant 2 is P------ C---- (I have used the initials “PC” to refer to the person named as Tenant 2 for privacy reasons however the full first and last name are recorded on the Bond lodgement form).

The Bond lodgement form appears to be signed by Croydon Cole as there is a signature in the correct space alongside his name. There is no signature in the space alongside PC’s name.

I contacted the Bond Centre (Tenancy Services) after the hearing. The Tribunal has now been sent a copy of a Bond refund form dated 19 December 2022 signed by the landlord’s agent at the time and by PC and authorising a refund of $2,500.00 to PC.

The Bond Centre says, and I agree, that it was entitled to refund $2,500.00 to PC based on the Bond refund form signed by the landlord and PC.

This is because Croydon Cole has authorised lodgement of $2,500.00 in the name of PC by signing the original Bond lodgement form.

My decision is that the amount of the bond held in Croydon Cole’s name is $2,500.00. The landlord’s claims:

The landlord seeks a contribution from the tenant of $30.00 per month for water usage charges for the period from 14 June 2024 to 14 August 2024. The final meter reading to 26 August 2024 equates to usage of $20.27.

There was a leaking toilet cistern for some of the tenancy and the parties negotiated to reduce the water invoices. I award the total claimed of $80.27.

Exit inspection photographs prove the lawns needed mowing and some weeding was required. The tenant had previously agreed to pay for mowing. Wood boxes and a bbq stored outside caused the grass to die in an area so this required reseeding. On review of the photos, I reduce the invoice by 50% to an amount I consider fair for the work. Garden tidy-up related to trees is for a landlord to pay for (such as removing palm tree fronds and large numbers of dead leaves).

Carpet cleaning: the tenant was allowed to keep a dog, so it is reasonable he pays the invoiced amount for carpet cleaning.

Cleaning: a tenant is required to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s photographs do not prove more cleaning was needed so this claim is dismissed.

Scratched paint on front door: the landlord proved the front door was moderately scratched (probably by the dog). A tenant is liable for damage caused by a pet whether or not the pet is allowed. I award the repair cost as invoiced as it is reasonable.

Two marks on wooden floorboards: the landlord’s oral and photographic evidence satisfies me that the wooden floorboards were marked in two places during the tenancy (water damage from a pot plant and a noticeable burn or heat mark in the lounge). I do not award the amount claimed because the floor was already marked (near the back door) at the start of this tenancy and the landlord has not yet re-sanded the floors so has not incurred a cost. It is fairer to assess compensation as a contribution towards any future cost. I award $150.00 for the water mark and $250.00 for the burn/heat mark. The tenant’s claims:

The tenant seeks reimbursement of $368.00 he paid a contractor for rodent pest control treatment on 9 and 16 July 2024. The landlord supplied evidence it also paid $379.50 also for rodent pest control in early April 2024.

The landlord says the tenant did not notify them that there was still a rat issue.

Pest control during a tenancy is not necessarily the responsibility of the landlord. The parties have each incurred cost and I consider this is reasonable. I make no award.

The tenant claims the landlord failed in its maintenance obligations by taking too long to fix the toilet cistern and other issues.

My decision is that without the assistance of the tenant to guide me through his evidence, the claim is not proven and is dismissed. Bond and filing fee

I award the landlord the filing fee.

The bond balance of $2,500.00 has already been refunded in the amounts shown in this order. No further action is required.

No suppression orders were sought or apply.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027845 — net $1,034.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$80.27	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$190.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$130.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: front door scratches	$207.00	Repairs: front door scratches
2 x damage to floors	$400.00	2 x damage to floors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,034.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,034.27

Order

Croydon Cole to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $1,034.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

A representative (LG) from Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited, the landlord owner and the tenant attended a video conference hearing on 24 June 2025.
This is a rehearing of the landlord’s application and hearing of a tenant cross- application.
The tenant chose to leave the hearing before his evidence could be heard fully.
I continued the hearing in his absence.
All references to landlord generally mean the landlord’s agent acting at the relevant time. The claims
The tenancy started on 14 February 2022 and ended on 26 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for payment of water costs, cleaning and garden work, and compensation for repairs following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages alleging the landlord failed in its maintenance obligations and for compensation for stress and inconvenience. Some of the tenant’s claims are effectively disputing the landlord’s claims and I deal with them as such.
I have decided to confirm the orders I made at the first hearing of the landlord’s claim. The tenant has filed a large amount of new evidence, but it was difficult for me to assess because he was not present to explain it. Bond
The tenant says the bond is $5,000.00. This is what is recorded on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord appointed a new agent company part way through this tenancy. The previous agent dealt with the bond lodgement.
The current agent says that it discovered after telephoning the Bond Centre that half of the bond ($2,500.00) was refunded part-way through the tenancy, when the previous agent was acting.
The tenant has supplied a Bond Lodgement form in his evidence. This is dated 1 February 2022 and records two tenants each of whom have contributed $2,500.00 to the bond.
Tenant 1 is Croydon Cole and Tenant 2 is P------ C---- (I have used the initials “PC” to refer to the person named as Tenant 2 for privacy reasons however the full first and last name are recorded on the Bond lodgement form).
The Bond lodgement form appears to be signed by Croydon Cole as there is a signature in the correct space alongside his name. There is no signature in the space alongside PC’s name.
I contacted the Bond Centre (Tenancy Services) after the hearing. The Tribunal has now been sent a copy of a Bond refund form dated 19 December 2022 signed by the landlord’s agent at the time and by PC and authorising a refund of $2,500.00 to PC.
The Bond Centre says, and I agree, that it was entitled to refund $2,500.00 to PC based on the Bond refund form signed by the landlord and PC.
This is because Croydon Cole has authorised lodgement of $2,500.00 in the name of PC by signing the original Bond lodgement form.
My decision is that the amount of the bond held in Croydon Cole’s name is $2,500.00. The landlord’s claims:
The landlord seeks a contribution from the tenant of $30.00 per month for water usage charges for the period from 14 June 2024 to 14 August 2024. The final meter reading to 26 August 2024 equates to usage of $20.27.
There was a leaking toilet cistern for some of the tenancy and the parties negotiated to reduce the water invoices. I award the total claimed of $80.27.
Exit inspection photographs prove the lawns needed mowing and some weeding was required. The tenant had previously agreed to pay for mowing. Wood boxes and a bbq stored outside caused the grass to die in an area so this required reseeding. On review of the photos, I reduce the invoice by 50% to an amount I consider fair for the work. Garden tidy-up related to trees is for a landlord to pay for (such as removing palm tree fronds and large numbers of dead leaves).
Carpet cleaning: the tenant was allowed to keep a dog, so it is reasonable he pays the invoiced amount for carpet cleaning.
Cleaning: a tenant is required to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s photographs do not prove more cleaning was needed so this claim is dismissed.
Scratched paint on front door: the landlord proved the front door was moderately scratched (probably by the dog). A tenant is liable for damage caused by a pet whether or not the pet is allowed. I award the repair cost as invoiced as it is reasonable.
Two marks on wooden floorboards: the landlord’s oral and photographic evidence satisfies me that the wooden floorboards were marked in two places during the tenancy (water damage from a pot plant and a noticeable burn or heat mark in the lounge). I do not award the amount claimed because the floor was already marked (near the back door) at the start of this tenancy and the landlord has not yet re-sanded the floors so has not incurred a cost. It is fairer to assess compensation as a contribution towards any future cost. I award $150.00 for the water mark and $250.00 for the burn/heat mark. The tenant’s claims:
The tenant seeks reimbursement of $368.00 he paid a contractor for rodent pest control treatment on 9 and 16 July 2024. The landlord supplied evidence it also paid $379.50 also for rodent pest control in early April 2024.
The landlord says the tenant did not notify them that there was still a rat issue.
Pest control during a tenancy is not necessarily the responsibility of the landlord. The parties have each incurred cost and I consider this is reasonable. I make no award.
The tenant claims the landlord failed in its maintenance obligations by taking too long to fix the toilet cistern and other issues.
My decision is that without the assistance of the tenant to guide me through his evidence, the claim is not proven and is dismissed. Bond and filing fee
I award the landlord the filing fee.
The bond balance of $2,500.00 has already been refunded in the amounts shown in this order. No further action is required.
No suppression orders were sought or apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027845 — Property damage at 14 Browning Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027845 — Property damage at 14 Browning Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions