What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5155114?

The tribunal order states: He Zhang and Meilin Chen must immediately pay $1,611.93 (as calculated in the

How much money was awarded in case 5155114?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $234.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,011.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $116.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11985254-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5155114?

The tribunal order states: He Zhang and Meilin Chen must immediately pay $1,611.93 (as calculated in the

How much money was awarded in case 5155114?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $234.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,011.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $116.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11985254-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 169 Portland Road, Remuera, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155114 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155114 — net $1,611.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,011.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$116.55	Water rates
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$102.35	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$234.60	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,611.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,611.93

Order

He Zhang and Meilin Chen must immediately pay $1,611.93 (as calculated in the table below) to Auckland Property Management Limited.
The Bond Centre is to release the Bond to the Landlord.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not.
The Landlord has applied to recover rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 31 January 2025. The Landlord provided a Rent Summary dated 4 February 2025 which proves rent arrears of $3,011.43 at the end of the tenancy. I accept that evidence and the Landlord is entitled to recover that amount from the Tenants.
In an email provided to the Tribunal before the hearing, the Tenants accepted that they are liable for unpaid rent of $594.35. I am unsure as to how the Tenants have calculated that number and after the hearing the Landlord confirmed that the Tenants had made no further payments to reduce the rent arrears.
The evidence presented by the Landlords shows unpaid rent of $3,011.43, and that is the amount I award. Water rates
Under section 38(3) and (4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Water is supplied to the premises by Watercare and is charged on the basis of consumption. The evidence supplied by the Landlord – invoices from Watercare and its own internal records – shows that there are unpaid water charges of $116.55 for December 2024 and January 2025 directly attributable to the premises during the tenancy. The Tenants are liable for that amount.
In an email to the Tribunal, the Tenants disputed their liability for unpaid water rates. They say that the Landlord used the Tenant’s water supply to clean the exterior of other units at 169 Portland Rd. I understood the Tenant to therefore claim that the cost of the water used should be offset against the outstanding water rates.
The Landlord agrees that it used the Tenant’s water supply to clean other units. To recognise this, the Landlord says that it is not seeking to recover the unpaid water rates from November 2024, totalling $50.67. I accept this evidence from the Landlord and find that any additional water charges incurred by the Tenant due to the Landlord’s use of the water has been adequately compensated. Cleaning costs
The RTA requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the Tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition,and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the Landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the Landlord who must prove that the Tenants have breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the Landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The Landlord has provided a video dated 29 July 2023, which shows the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. That video shows that the premises were clean and tidy throughout.
The Landlord produced photographs to show that the premises were not left reasonably clean or tidy. The Landlord has since paid $800 to Jack Zhang to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord now seeks to recover that cost from the Tenants.
The Landlord’s photographs show that the oven was left dirty, there was dust and grime in numerous locations, remnants of toothpaste or similar in a bathroom sink, water stains on the kitchen floor, marks, drawings and paint on walls, doors and the floor and the shower cubicle required cleaning. It seems the Tenants made no real effort to clean the premises before vacating, necessitating a cleaning effort greater than would normally be expected at the end of a tenancy.
I am satisfied that the Landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of returning the premises to the required standard, but the amount it seeks is too high. I consider at least some of the cost was not necessary to return the premises to the required standard – such as wiping and cleaning of some of the surfaces. I therefore reduce the amount awarded to the Landlord for cleaning the premises to $600 – a reduction of $200. Damage, rubbish removal and outdoor cleaning
The Landlord also seeks to recover $450.80 for the cost of remedying damage and removing rubbish from the premises. It has provided an invoice from DIFM Property Management dated 3 April 2025 for the following costs: Rubbish removal$102.35 ($89 + GST) Clean up of outside area under stairs$113.85 ($99 + GST) Replace Door Knob$86.25 ($75 + GST) Repair cupboard door hole$148.35 ($129 + GST)
The Landlord provided photographs showing the rubbish, the condition of the area under the stairs, the missing door knob on a hot water cupboard door and a hole in a bedroom cupboard door. Rubbish removal and outdoor cleaning
Those photographs show that the Tenants left belongings behind, including a seat cushion, a ride-on children’s car and various plastic bottles. The Landlord is entitled to recover the rubbish removal cost it incurred.
I am not satisfied that the Landlord can recover the cost of cleaning up the area under the stairs. The photographs show that most of the mess under the stairs was caused by the rubbish left behind by the Tenants. The Landlord has recovered the cost of removing that rubbish. There was some dirt on the tiles beneath the stairs, but I struggle to see how it could reasonably have cost $113.85 to remove that dirt. I therefore decline to award those costs to the Landlord. Damage
Under section 49A of the RTA, there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises, including damage that was due to fair wear and tear. However, under section 49B, a tenant can be liable where that damage has occurred during the tenancy and was intentional or careless.
The damage claimed by the Landlord occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord’s pre-tenancy video shows that the hot water cupboard door knob was intact and there was no hole in the bedroom cupboard door. The post-tenancy photographs show that the door knob was missing and the cupboard door was damaged at the end of the tenancy.
I accept that the hole in the cupboard door was more than fair wear and tear and that the damage was, at least, careless. The hole was clearly caused by impact with a sharp-edged solid object. In the absence of any explanation by the Tenants, I find it most likely that this damage was caused carelessly.
I also accept that the missing door handle was more than fair wear and tear. Regardless of how the door handle came to be detached, the Tenants appear to have disposed of the handle. The Landlord’s representative advised that the door handle was not at the premises at the end of the tenancy and the Landlord has since paid to have it replaced. Again, the disposal of that door handle by the Tenant was at least careless.
As in the case, 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) of the RTA.
The Tenancy Agreement between the parties notes that the Landlord has insurance and that the excess is “available upon request”. The Landlord has not provided evidence as to its insurance excess in support of this claim, but in this Tribunal’s experience the lowest excess level is about $250, which is less than the amount the Landlord is entitled to recover. I therefore allow the Landlord to recover $234.60, being the cost of replacing the door knob and repairing the hole in the bedroom cupboard door. four week’s rent. Filing fee
Because it has largely succeeded in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to name recover the filing fee of $27 from the Tenant. I order accordingly. The Landlord does not seek name suppression. Release of bond
The Landlord is entitled to receive the bond in part payment of the debt owed. I order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155114 — net $1,611.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,011.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$116.55	Water rates
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$102.35	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$234.60	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,611.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,611.93

Order

He Zhang and Meilin Chen must immediately pay $1,611.93 (as calculated in the table below) to Auckland Property Management Limited.
The Bond Centre is to release the Bond to the Landlord.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not.
The Landlord has applied to recover rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 31 January 2025. The Landlord provided a Rent Summary dated 4 February 2025 which proves rent arrears of $3,011.43 at the end of the tenancy. I accept that evidence and the Landlord is entitled to recover that amount from the Tenants.
In an email provided to the Tribunal before the hearing, the Tenants accepted that they are liable for unpaid rent of $594.35. I am unsure as to how the Tenants have calculated that number and after the hearing the Landlord confirmed that the Tenants had made no further payments to reduce the rent arrears.
The evidence presented by the Landlords shows unpaid rent of $3,011.43, and that is the amount I award. Water rates
Under section 38(3) and (4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Water is supplied to the premises by Watercare and is charged on the basis of consumption. The evidence supplied by the Landlord – invoices from Watercare and its own internal records – shows that there are unpaid water charges of $116.55 for December 2024 and January 2025 directly attributable to the premises during the tenancy. The Tenants are liable for that amount.
In an email to the Tribunal, the Tenants disputed their liability for unpaid water rates. They say that the Landlord used the Tenant’s water supply to clean the exterior of other units at 169 Portland Rd. I understood the Tenant to therefore claim that the cost of the water used should be offset against the outstanding water rates.
The Landlord agrees that it used the Tenant’s water supply to clean other units. To recognise this, the Landlord says that it is not seeking to recover the unpaid water rates from November 2024, totalling $50.67. I accept this evidence from the Landlord and find that any additional water charges incurred by the Tenant due to the Landlord’s use of the water has been adequately compensated. Cleaning costs
The RTA requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the Tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition,and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the Landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the Landlord who must prove that the Tenants have breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the Landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The Landlord has provided a video dated 29 July 2023, which shows the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. That video shows that the premises were clean and tidy throughout.
The Landlord produced photographs to show that the premises were not left reasonably clean or tidy. The Landlord has since paid $800 to Jack Zhang to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord now seeks to recover that cost from the Tenants.
The Landlord’s photographs show that the oven was left dirty, there was dust and grime in numerous locations, remnants of toothpaste or similar in a bathroom sink, water stains on the kitchen floor, marks, drawings and paint on walls, doors and the floor and the shower cubicle required cleaning. It seems the Tenants made no real effort to clean the premises before vacating, necessitating a cleaning effort greater than would normally be expected at the end of a tenancy.
I am satisfied that the Landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of returning the premises to the required standard, but the amount it seeks is too high. I consider at least some of the cost was not necessary to return the premises to the required standard – such as wiping and cleaning of some of the surfaces. I therefore reduce the amount awarded to the Landlord for cleaning the premises to $600 – a reduction of $200. Damage, rubbish removal and outdoor cleaning
The Landlord also seeks to recover $450.80 for the cost of remedying damage and removing rubbish from the premises. It has provided an invoice from DIFM Property Management dated 3 April 2025 for the following costs: Rubbish removal$102.35 ($89 + GST) Clean up of outside area under stairs$113.85 ($99 + GST) Replace Door Knob$86.25 ($75 + GST) Repair cupboard door hole$148.35 ($129 + GST)
The Landlord provided photographs showing the rubbish, the condition of the area under the stairs, the missing door knob on a hot water cupboard door and a hole in a bedroom cupboard door. Rubbish removal and outdoor cleaning
Those photographs show that the Tenants left belongings behind, including a seat cushion, a ride-on children’s car and various plastic bottles. The Landlord is entitled to recover the rubbish removal cost it incurred.
I am not satisfied that the Landlord can recover the cost of cleaning up the area under the stairs. The photographs show that most of the mess under the stairs was caused by the rubbish left behind by the Tenants. The Landlord has recovered the cost of removing that rubbish. There was some dirt on the tiles beneath the stairs, but I struggle to see how it could reasonably have cost $113.85 to remove that dirt. I therefore decline to award those costs to the Landlord. Damage
Under section 49A of the RTA, there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises, including damage that was due to fair wear and tear. However, under section 49B, a tenant can be liable where that damage has occurred during the tenancy and was intentional or careless.
The damage claimed by the Landlord occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord’s pre-tenancy video shows that the hot water cupboard door knob was intact and there was no hole in the bedroom cupboard door. The post-tenancy photographs show that the door knob was missing and the cupboard door was damaged at the end of the tenancy.
I accept that the hole in the cupboard door was more than fair wear and tear and that the damage was, at least, careless. The hole was clearly caused by impact with a sharp-edged solid object. In the absence of any explanation by the Tenants, I find it most likely that this damage was caused carelessly.
I also accept that the missing door handle was more than fair wear and tear. Regardless of how the door handle came to be detached, the Tenants appear to have disposed of the handle. The Landlord’s representative advised that the door handle was not at the premises at the end of the tenancy and the Landlord has since paid to have it replaced. Again, the disposal of that door handle by the Tenant was at least careless.
As in the case, 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) of the RTA.
The Tenancy Agreement between the parties notes that the Landlord has insurance and that the excess is “available upon request”. The Landlord has not provided evidence as to its insurance excess in support of this claim, but in this Tribunal’s experience the lowest excess level is about $250, which is less than the amount the Landlord is entitled to recover. I therefore allow the Landlord to recover $234.60, being the cost of replacing the door knob and repairing the hole in the bedroom cupboard door. four week’s rent. Filing fee
Because it has largely succeeded in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to name recover the filing fee of $27 from the Tenant. I order accordingly. The Landlord does not seek name suppression. Release of bond
The Landlord is entitled to receive the bond in part payment of the debt owed. I order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155114 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 169 Portland Road, Remuera, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155114 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 169 Portland Road, Remuera, Auckland

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