What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085308?

The tribunal order states: Kasey Palalagi and Raymond Waru must pay Tbt Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5085308?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12101897-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085308?

The tribunal order states: Kasey Palalagi and Raymond Waru must pay Tbt Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5085308?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12101897-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 53 Drake Street, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5085308 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085308 — net $5,817.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/03/2025	$8,500.00	Rent arrears to 10/03/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$390.00	Cleaning
Heat pump remote replacement	$100.00	Heat pump remote replacement
Wall Repairs	$200.00	Wall Repairs
Net award	$5,817.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,817.00

Kasey Palalagi and Raymond Waru must pay Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Jimmy Singh $5,817.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (3296918-010) to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Jimmy Singh immediately.

The applicant attended the hearing by video link.

The applicant has requested the following awards: a) Rent arrears of $8,500.00 to 10 March 2025. The applicant states that they began seeking new tenants after the respondent advised that they had vacated the property, and the property was re-tenanted on 11 March 2025. b) Cleaning costs of $390.00. Exit inspection photographs show grime build-up, unremoved rubbish, and vacuuming required. c) Wall repair costs of $750.00. An exit inspection report was provided, showing marks and dents to the walls. d) Heat pump remote replacement costs of $100.00, as the remote was missing when the applicant regained possession. The Respondent’s case:

The respondent attended the hearing by telephone.

The respondent stated they understood from the applicant that they were liable for rent arrears only until the keys were returned. They read out what they claimed were text messages indicating this was communicated to them by the applicant. I requested copies of these messages, and they subsequently provided emails in which the applicant stated that the respondent would remain liable for rent until the property was re-tenanted.

The respondent accepted liability for the cleaning costs.

The respondent stated that the alleged damage was largely scuff marks but acknowledged some may have been dents, indicating willingness to contribute $200.00 towards wall repair and repainting.

The respondent was adamant that the heat pump remote was left at the property but acknowledged that they left the property unsecured upon vacating by removing the batteries from the electronic lock. Relevant Legal Considerations:

Fixed-term tenancies terminate at the conclusion of the fixed term (s 50(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).

The landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear (ss 49A, 49B, 66K(2)(a), 66L RTA). If proven, the tenant must demonstrate that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Tenants are liable for damage caused by individuals present with their permission.

Where careless damage is covered by insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).

If damage is not covered by insurance or is uninsurable due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (ss 49B(3)(b), 49B(3A)(a) RTA).

Compensation must account for depreciation and must not result in betterment. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations.

Under s 45(1)(a) RTA, the landlord must provide, and the tenant must return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with all rubbish removed.

The standard required is “reasonably clean and tidy,” not immaculate. The Tribunal assesses the condition based on evidence, including photographs, and considers the duration of the tenancy and the general condition of the property.

The Tenancy Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof, requiring the applicant to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities, meaning it must be shown that the claim is more likely than not. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient evidence, including independent witnesses and corroborating documents, to discharge this burden. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the application regardless of its merits. The Tribunal will weigh all evidence presented, including oral testimony, to determine whether the applicant has satisfied this standard. It is neither the responsibility of the other party nor the Tribunal to extract evidence on the applicant’s behalf.

Reasons

In a fixed-term tenancy, both parties are bound to the terms of the tenancy agreement until the conclusion of the specified term. This is the default position, and even where the fixed term is ended early, the landlord may charge rent until a new tenant is found, along with the reasonable costs incurred in re-tenanting the property. Although the respondent claimed to have text messages indicating otherwise, these have not been provided. Even if provided, they are unlikely to outweigh the consistent communications exchanged between the parties indicating continued liability until re-tenanting. The evidence also shows that the respondent was generally disengaged and did not adequately engage with the applicant to conclude the matter, with many communications going unanswered. I am satisfied that the rent summary provided by the applicant is accurate, and the respondent is liable for rent arrears up to 10 March 2025. Rent arrears of $8,500.00 to the 10 th of March 2025 are awarded.

The exit inspection confirms that cleaning was required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The respondent has accepted this cost. $390.00 is awarded for cleaning.

The damage to the walls requiring repainting appears more likely to have been as described by the respondent as scuff marks, with some potentially being careless damage requiring repair and painting. The respondent agreed that some repairs may have been required and indicated that a claim of $200.00 would be reasonable. I am inclined to agree that some repairs may have been required but most could have been remedied with cleaning. In any event, I would not have awarded any more than $200.00. $200.00 is awarded for wall repairs.

The applicant claims $100.00 for the replacement of a missing heat pump remote. Although the respondent states the remote was left at the property, they acknowledged leaving the property unsecured upon vacating. I accept that the remote was missing when the applicant regained possession. $100.00 is awarded for the replacement of the heat pump remote.

As the applicant has been substantially successful in their application, I award the filing fee pursuant to s 102(4)(b) RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085308 — net $5,817.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/03/2025	$8,500.00	Rent arrears to 10/03/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$390.00	Cleaning
Heat pump remote replacement	$100.00	Heat pump remote replacement
Wall Repairs	$200.00	Wall Repairs
Net award	$5,817.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,817.00

Kasey Palalagi and Raymond Waru must pay Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Jimmy Singh $5,817.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (3296918-010) to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Jimmy Singh immediately.

The applicant attended the hearing by video link.

The respondent attended the hearing by telephone.

The respondent accepted liability for the cleaning costs.

The respondent stated that the alleged damage was largely scuff marks but acknowledged some may have been dents, indicating willingness to contribute $200.00 towards wall repair and repainting.

Fixed-term tenancies terminate at the conclusion of the fixed term (s 50(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).

Where careless damage is covered by insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).

If damage is not covered by insurance or is uninsurable due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (ss 49B(3)(b), 49B(3A)(a) RTA).

Compensation must account for depreciation and must not result in betterment. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations.

Under s 45(1)(a) RTA, the landlord must provide, and the tenant must return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with all rubbish removed.

Reasons

The exit inspection confirms that cleaning was required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The respondent has accepted this cost. $390.00 is awarded for cleaning.

As the applicant has been substantially successful in their application, I award the filing fee pursuant to s 102(4)(b) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085308 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 53 Drake Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085308 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 53 Drake Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

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