What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167732?

The tribunal order states: Joseph Anton Harris must pay Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents

How much money was awarded in case 5167732?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,722.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,385.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Washing Machine: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $698.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167732?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12060011-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167732?

The tribunal order states: Joseph Anton Harris must pay Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents

How much money was awarded in case 5167732?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,722.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,385.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Washing Machine: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $698.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167732?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12060011-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

88 Karaka Road, Beachlands, Auckland 2018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167732 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167732 — net $9,052.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2025	$7,385.71	Rent arrears to 17 March 2025
Lock/key replacement	$219.51	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: washing machine	$200.00	Replace furnishings: washing machine
Rubbish removal	$698.00	Rubbish removal
Painting	$2,722.00	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,052.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,052.22

Order

Joseph Anton Harris must pay Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents For Dave Cochrane $9,052.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (3504710-009) to Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents For Dave Cochrane immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
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 not filed any claim with their insurer.
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 landlord gave evidence the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears up to 17 March 2025 are $7,385.71.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $7,385.71. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with these obligations and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Lock/key replacement:$219.51 b. Rubbish removal:$698.00 c. Replace washing machine:$2,474.00
I deal with each issue in turn below. Lock/key replacement
The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises and did not return the keys. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $219.51 to replace the keys and locks.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $219.51. Rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish, personal belongings and building materials have been left outside the premises by the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $698.00 for the hiring of two skip bins to remove the rubbish.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $698.00. Washing machine replacement
The landlord gave evidence that a Bosch washing machine was provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which show a Bosch washing machine is present in the kitchen. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
The landlord also submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the washing machine is missing.
The landlord submitted an advertisement of what they claim is an identical washing machine for $2,474.00. The landlord claims the owner has purchased this exact washing machine but did not submit a receipt.
The landlord estimates the age of the original washing machine to be approximately 5 years old.
On the basis of a comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord provided the tenant with a washing machine at the beginning of the tenancy that was not returned at the end.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the washing machine in the advertisement is identical to the one provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. They look different. The washing machine provided at the beginning of the tenancy looks older than the washing machine in the advertisement.
In the absence of a receipt, I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the owner has purchased a new washing machine at a cost of $2,474.00.
In these circumstances, I find it fair and reasonable to order the tenant to compensate the landlord a nominal sum of $200.00. In settling on this amount, I have considered the fact that the landlord estimated the age of the washing machine to be approximately 5 years old. The estimated useful lifespan of a domestic washing machine is 6.6 years according to the Inland Revenue General Depreciation Rates IR265. 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.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the washing machine is granted for $200.00.

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. 2 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
The landlord claims the tenant was given permission to paint the inside of the premises, provided the work was completed to a professional standard. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the premises have been partially painted. The landlord had to have the painting completed and submitted a quote for $10,638.00. The landlord seeks compensation of $2,722.00 towards this amount.
The landlord did not submit and invoice and claims they paid out on the quote.
A comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy prove the tenant began painting the interior of the premises, but did not finish the job. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some walls prepped for painting with patches of plaster on them. Other walls are partially painted in one colour with the original colour still present on the rest of the wall.
In failing to complete the painting inside the premises to a professional standard and leaving the job half done, I find the tenant damaged the premises.
Considering the state of the walls at the end of the tenancy, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has had the job completed and accept their evidence that they paid the painter out on the quote.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $2,722.00 towards the total cost of $10,638.00 to paint the inside of the premises is reasonable and granted in full.
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.

FILING FEE

Because Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents For Dave Cochrane has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167732 — net $9,052.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2025	$7,385.71	Rent arrears to 17 March 2025
Lock/key replacement	$219.51	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: washing machine	$200.00	Replace furnishings: washing machine
Rubbish removal	$698.00	Rubbish removal
Painting	$2,722.00	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,052.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,052.22

Order

Joseph Anton Harris must pay Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents For Dave Cochrane $9,052.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (3504710-009) to Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents For Dave Cochrane immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
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 not filed any claim with their insurer.
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 landlord gave evidence the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears up to 17 March 2025 are $7,385.71.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $7,385.71. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with these obligations and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Lock/key replacement:$219.51 b. Rubbish removal:$698.00 c. Replace washing machine:$2,474.00
I deal with each issue in turn below. Lock/key replacement
The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises and did not return the keys. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $219.51 to replace the keys and locks.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $219.51. Rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish, personal belongings and building materials have been left outside the premises by the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $698.00 for the hiring of two skip bins to remove the rubbish.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $698.00. Washing machine replacement
The landlord gave evidence that a Bosch washing machine was provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which show a Bosch washing machine is present in the kitchen. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
The landlord also submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the washing machine is missing.
The landlord submitted an advertisement of what they claim is an identical washing machine for $2,474.00. The landlord claims the owner has purchased this exact washing machine but did not submit a receipt.
The landlord estimates the age of the original washing machine to be approximately 5 years old.
On the basis of a comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord provided the tenant with a washing machine at the beginning of the tenancy that was not returned at the end.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the washing machine in the advertisement is identical to the one provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. They look different. The washing machine provided at the beginning of the tenancy looks older than the washing machine in the advertisement.
In the absence of a receipt, I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the owner has purchased a new washing machine at a cost of $2,474.00.
In these circumstances, I find it fair and reasonable to order the tenant to compensate the landlord a nominal sum of $200.00. In settling on this amount, I have considered the fact that the landlord estimated the age of the washing machine to be approximately 5 years old. The estimated useful lifespan of a domestic washing machine is 6.6 years according to the Inland Revenue General Depreciation Rates IR265. 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.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the washing machine is granted for $200.00.

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. 2 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
The landlord claims the tenant was given permission to paint the inside of the premises, provided the work was completed to a professional standard. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the premises have been partially painted. The landlord had to have the painting completed and submitted a quote for $10,638.00. The landlord seeks compensation of $2,722.00 towards this amount.
The landlord did not submit and invoice and claims they paid out on the quote.
A comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy prove the tenant began painting the interior of the premises, but did not finish the job. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some walls prepped for painting with patches of plaster on them. Other walls are partially painted in one colour with the original colour still present on the rest of the wall.
In failing to complete the painting inside the premises to a professional standard and leaving the job half done, I find the tenant damaged the premises.
Considering the state of the walls at the end of the tenancy, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has had the job completed and accept their evidence that they paid the painter out on the quote.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $2,722.00 towards the total cost of $10,638.00 to paint the inside of the premises is reasonable and granted in full.
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.

FILING FEE

Because Legacy Portfolio Management Limited As Agents For Dave Cochrane has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167732 — Rent arrears at 88 Karaka Road, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167732 — Rent arrears at 88 Karaka Road, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

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

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions