What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103948?

The tribunal order states: Breyton Zain Fynn, Enid Dolores Fynn and Robert Edward Fynn must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5103948?

Cleaning: $665.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $89.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,507.15 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $629.20 awarded to landlord; Painting: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Door Lock: $118.45 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $227.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103948?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11994177-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103948?

The tribunal order states: Breyton Zain Fynn, Enid Dolores Fynn and Robert Edward Fynn must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5103948?

Cleaning: $665.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $89.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,507.15 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $629.20 awarded to landlord; Painting: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Door Lock: $118.45 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $227.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103948?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11994177-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Brashier Circle, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103948 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

14 Brashier Circle, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103948 — 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 5103948 — net $3,024.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 January 2025	$2,507.15	Rent arrears to 1 January 2025
Exemplary damages (section 61(5	$500.00	Exemplary damages (section 61(5
Lawns and Garden work	$89.70	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$665.70	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$227.70	Rubbish removal
Repairs: ranch slider door lock	$118.45	Repairs: ranch slider door lock
Repairs: painting	$600.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: blinds	$629.20	Repairs: blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,024.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,024.90

Claims and awards for application 5103948 — net $3,024.90 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 1 January 2025

Amount: $2,507.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 1 January 2025

Exemplary damages (section 61(5

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages (section 61(5

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $89.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Cleaning

Amount: $665.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $227.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

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

Order

Breyton Zain Fynn, Enid Dolores Fynn and Robert Edward Fynn must pay Trailblazer Holdings Limited Trading As Healthy Homes Property Management As Agent For Mr And Mrs Naggapan $3,024.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (5124976-007) to Trailblazer Holdings Limited Trading As Healthy Homes Property Management As Agent For Mr And Mrs Naggapan immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 11 June 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises. The landlord seeks rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

RENT ARREARS

The law

A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
In the case of a periodic tenancy, a tenant who abandons the premises is liable to pay rent up to 21 days after the date the landlord became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware that the tenant had abandoned the premises, or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever occurs first. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 61 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant stopped paying rent in early December 2024. The landlord was unable to contact the tenant and therefore entered the premises on 11 December 2024 to complete an inspection after giving the tenant 48 hours’ notice. The landlord gave evidence that all of the tenant’s belongings and furniture had been removed. There was rubbish inside and outside the premises and no one appeared to be living there.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 11 December 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not give any notice to end the tenancy and left without communicating with the landlord.
The landlord seeks rent up to 1 January 2025, which is 21 days after 11 December 2024.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $2,507.15 up to 1 January 2025. Analysis
The photographs taken by the landlord on 11 December 2024 confirm their description of the premises. The inside of the premises is empty without any furniture or personal belongings. There is rubbish inside and outside of the premises. Noone appears to have been living in the premises on 11 December 2024.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not notify the landlord of their intention to leave the premises. No evidence was submitted to indicate any reasonable excuse the tenant may have had for leaving the premises without notice.
The rent summary shows the tenant last paid their rent on 29 November 2024. No further payments of rent were made.
For these reasons, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant abandoned the premises.
The landlord became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware that the tenant abandoned the premises on 11 December 2024. 1 January 2025 is 21 days later. The landlord gave evidence that the premises were not re- tenanted until after 1 January 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $2,507.15 up to 1 January 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $2,507.15. ABANDONMENT – EXEMPLARY DAMAGES The law
A tenant commits an unlawful act if, without reasonable excuse, he or she abandons the premises when the rent is in arrears. 2 Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 3
Section 109 of the RTA states that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
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.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
His Honour Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 4 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 61(5). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Schedule 1A. 4 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92. been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
His Honour Judge Neave accepted that the unlawful entry was made in error and no intention was established. Therefore, there was no basis to order exemplary damages. Analysis
I have found the tenant abandoned the premises on 11 December 2024 for the reasons given at paragraphs [8] – [11] above. Rent was in arrears of $557.10 at the time.
By abandoning the premises when the rent was in arrears, I find the tenant committed an unlawful act under section 61(5) RTA.
No evidence was submitted to suggest that the tenant abandoned the premises in error. I accept the landlord’s evidence that no notice to vacate the premises was given. On the balance of probabilities, I find the unlawful act was committed intentionally.
The landlord gave evidence that the abandonment of the premises meant that the landlord did not receive rent during the period that would have been the usual notice period. Further, due to the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, prospective tenants could not be shown the property immediately. Cleaning and repairs needed to be completed. This meant that the ability to re- tenant the premises was delayed and the landlord suffered financial loss.
I consider there is a public interest in deterring tenants from abandoning tenancies without notice.
Considering these factors, I find it just to make an award for exemplary damages.
I consider an award of $500.00 to be fair and reasonable. This figure reflects the fact that I was not referred to any previous instances where the tenant has abandoned a tenancy. Further, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted up to 1 January 2025, which goes some way towards addressing the financial loss suffered as a result of the abandonment.

WATER RATES

The landlord submitted original invoices from the water rates authority, which prove the tenant owes $145.41 in outstanding water rates.
The landlord’s claim for water rates is granted for $145.41. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the keys, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. 5
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 6
Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which they say prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord gave evidence that no attempt to clean the premises was made by the tenant and the carpets needed to be professionally cleaned, as they were stained and smelt bad.
The landlord submitted invoices for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$89.70 b. Internal cleaning and carpet cleaning:$665.70 c. Rubbish removal:$227.70 Analysis
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some miscellaneous household items were left inside the property. The floors do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped and the bench surfaces have not been wiped clean. The oven is dirty and the drawers in the kitchen and bathroom have not been 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii) & (iv). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. cleaned. There is rubbish outside the premises and broken glass in the lawn. The lawn has not been mowed and is full of weeds.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$89.70 b. Internal cleaning and carpet cleaning:$665.70 c. Rubbish removal:$227.70

DAMAGE

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. 7
The landlord claims the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken ranch slider door lock:$118.45 b. Marks, scratches and dents to walls:$839.50 c. Vertical blinds removed:$629.20
The landlord submitted invoices for the above amounts. Analysis
The landlord gave evidence that the lock on the ranch slider door was broken and needed to be replaced. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning show vertical blinds in some of the rooms in the premises. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show a number of vertical blinds missing and piled in a corner in the lounge.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls to be in good condition. No dents, scratches or marks are apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a dent in the wall by the stairs and a number of marks and scratches. This tenancy was four years long. Therefore, I find some of the smaller marks and scratches to be fair wear and 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. tear. I accept the landlord’s submission that the larger marks are not consistent with reasonable use of the premises. For example, there are liquid stains on some of the walls and doors, as well as large marks and scratches, which are more consistent with careless damage.
On the basis of the photographs submitted and evidence given at the hearing, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken ranch slider door lock b. Marks, scratches and dents to walls c. Vertical blinds removed
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord does not have insurance.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Broken ranch slider door lock:$118.45 b. Marks, scratches and dents to walls:$600.00 c. Vertical blinds removed:$629.20
I have reduced the amount of compensation to paint the walls to reflect the fact that some of the marks and scratches are fair wear and tear, which the tenant is not responsible for.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be any better or worse off.

FILING FEE

Because Trailblazer Holdings Limited Trading As Healthy Homes Property Management As Agent For Mr And Mrs Naggapan has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 5103948 — net $3,024.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 January 2025	$2,507.15	Rent arrears to 1 January 2025
Exemplary damages (section 61(5	$500.00	Exemplary damages (section 61(5
Lawns and Garden work	$89.70	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$665.70	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$227.70	Rubbish removal
Repairs: ranch slider door lock	$118.45	Repairs: ranch slider door lock
Repairs: painting	$600.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: blinds	$629.20	Repairs: blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,024.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,024.90

Claims and awards for application 5103948 — net $3,024.90 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 1 January 2025

Amount: $2,507.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 1 January 2025

Exemplary damages (section 61(5

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages (section 61(5

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $89.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Cleaning

Amount: $665.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $227.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

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

Order

Breyton Zain Fynn, Enid Dolores Fynn and Robert Edward Fynn must pay Trailblazer Holdings Limited Trading As Healthy Homes Property Management As Agent For Mr And Mrs Naggapan $3,024.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (5124976-007) to Trailblazer Holdings Limited Trading As Healthy Homes Property Management As Agent For Mr And Mrs Naggapan immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 11 June 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises. The landlord seeks rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

RENT ARREARS

The law

A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
In the case of a periodic tenancy, a tenant who abandons the premises is liable to pay rent up to 21 days after the date the landlord became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware that the tenant had abandoned the premises, or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever occurs first. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 61 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant stopped paying rent in early December 2024. The landlord was unable to contact the tenant and therefore entered the premises on 11 December 2024 to complete an inspection after giving the tenant 48 hours’ notice. The landlord gave evidence that all of the tenant’s belongings and furniture had been removed. There was rubbish inside and outside the premises and no one appeared to be living there.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 11 December 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not give any notice to end the tenancy and left without communicating with the landlord.
The landlord seeks rent up to 1 January 2025, which is 21 days after 11 December 2024.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $2,507.15 up to 1 January 2025. Analysis
The photographs taken by the landlord on 11 December 2024 confirm their description of the premises. The inside of the premises is empty without any furniture or personal belongings. There is rubbish inside and outside of the premises. Noone appears to have been living in the premises on 11 December 2024.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not notify the landlord of their intention to leave the premises. No evidence was submitted to indicate any reasonable excuse the tenant may have had for leaving the premises without notice.
The rent summary shows the tenant last paid their rent on 29 November 2024. No further payments of rent were made.
For these reasons, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant abandoned the premises.
The landlord became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware that the tenant abandoned the premises on 11 December 2024. 1 January 2025 is 21 days later. The landlord gave evidence that the premises were not re- tenanted until after 1 January 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $2,507.15 up to 1 January 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $2,507.15. ABANDONMENT – EXEMPLARY DAMAGES The law
A tenant commits an unlawful act if, without reasonable excuse, he or she abandons the premises when the rent is in arrears. 2 Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 3
Section 109 of the RTA states that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
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.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
His Honour Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 4 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 61(5). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Schedule 1A. 4 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92. been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
His Honour Judge Neave accepted that the unlawful entry was made in error and no intention was established. Therefore, there was no basis to order exemplary damages. Analysis
I have found the tenant abandoned the premises on 11 December 2024 for the reasons given at paragraphs [8] – [11] above. Rent was in arrears of $557.10 at the time.
By abandoning the premises when the rent was in arrears, I find the tenant committed an unlawful act under section 61(5) RTA.
No evidence was submitted to suggest that the tenant abandoned the premises in error. I accept the landlord’s evidence that no notice to vacate the premises was given. On the balance of probabilities, I find the unlawful act was committed intentionally.
The landlord gave evidence that the abandonment of the premises meant that the landlord did not receive rent during the period that would have been the usual notice period. Further, due to the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, prospective tenants could not be shown the property immediately. Cleaning and repairs needed to be completed. This meant that the ability to re- tenant the premises was delayed and the landlord suffered financial loss.
I consider there is a public interest in deterring tenants from abandoning tenancies without notice.
Considering these factors, I find it just to make an award for exemplary damages.
I consider an award of $500.00 to be fair and reasonable. This figure reflects the fact that I was not referred to any previous instances where the tenant has abandoned a tenancy. Further, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted up to 1 January 2025, which goes some way towards addressing the financial loss suffered as a result of the abandonment.

WATER RATES

The landlord submitted original invoices from the water rates authority, which prove the tenant owes $145.41 in outstanding water rates.
The landlord’s claim for water rates is granted for $145.41. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the keys, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. 5
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 6
Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which they say prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord gave evidence that no attempt to clean the premises was made by the tenant and the carpets needed to be professionally cleaned, as they were stained and smelt bad.
The landlord submitted invoices for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$89.70 b. Internal cleaning and carpet cleaning:$665.70 c. Rubbish removal:$227.70 Analysis
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some miscellaneous household items were left inside the property. The floors do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped and the bench surfaces have not been wiped clean. The oven is dirty and the drawers in the kitchen and bathroom have not been 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii) & (iv). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. cleaned. There is rubbish outside the premises and broken glass in the lawn. The lawn has not been mowed and is full of weeds.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$89.70 b. Internal cleaning and carpet cleaning:$665.70 c. Rubbish removal:$227.70

DAMAGE

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. 7
The landlord claims the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken ranch slider door lock:$118.45 b. Marks, scratches and dents to walls:$839.50 c. Vertical blinds removed:$629.20
The landlord submitted invoices for the above amounts. Analysis
The landlord gave evidence that the lock on the ranch slider door was broken and needed to be replaced. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning show vertical blinds in some of the rooms in the premises. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show a number of vertical blinds missing and piled in a corner in the lounge.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls to be in good condition. No dents, scratches or marks are apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a dent in the wall by the stairs and a number of marks and scratches. This tenancy was four years long. Therefore, I find some of the smaller marks and scratches to be fair wear and 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. tear. I accept the landlord’s submission that the larger marks are not consistent with reasonable use of the premises. For example, there are liquid stains on some of the walls and doors, as well as large marks and scratches, which are more consistent with careless damage.
On the basis of the photographs submitted and evidence given at the hearing, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken ranch slider door lock b. Marks, scratches and dents to walls c. Vertical blinds removed
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord does not have insurance.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Broken ranch slider door lock:$118.45 b. Marks, scratches and dents to walls:$600.00 c. Vertical blinds removed:$629.20
I have reduced the amount of compensation to paint the walls to reflect the fact that some of the marks and scratches are fair wear and tear, which the tenant is not responsible for.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be any better or worse off.

FILING FEE

Because Trailblazer Holdings Limited Trading As Healthy Homes Property Management As Agent For Mr And Mrs Naggapan has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103948 — Rent arrears at 14 Brashier Circle, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103948 — Rent arrears at 14 Brashier Circle, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions