How much money was awarded in case 5209593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5209593?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5209593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12308319-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5209593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5209593?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5209593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12308319-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 37 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5209593 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5209593?

The tribunal order states: Taylah Dannielle Ann Neale and Zane Kelly Palmer Ruifrok must pay Sunshine

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Taylah Dannielle Ann Neale and Zane Kelly Palmer Ruifrok must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Xiaodi Zhang $200.00 immediately, as contribution towards damage repair and cleaning costs. Background:

On 25 June 2025, I conducted the initial hearing of this application. On that date, I made an award for rent arrears up to 22 June 2025 and adjourned the balance of the application for further service. The adjournment was necessary because the respondent was not on notice of the additional claims relating to vacated damages, cleaning, and water arrears.

I am satisfied that the respondent has since been served, and I have heard the balance of the application. The claims before me relate to damages, cleaning, and water charges. Relevant Legal Considerations: Burden of proof

The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

One of the central expectations relates to the onus of proof. With any claim before the Tribunal, it is the applicant who must establish the claim. Put another way, the applicant must prove the claim. If the applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish the claim, then it must be dismissed.

The Tribunal requires the applicant to establish their claim to the balance of probabilities. That means the applicant must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. To put this in a mathematical context, the applicant must prove their claim to just over the 50% probability mark. Again, if the claim is not established to the balance of probabilities, it must be dismissed. Compensation

With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it 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 (Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L). Fair Wear and Tear

With any claim, it is for the landlord to establish that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability (s 49A(2) RTA).

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant (Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403). Cleaning

Cleaning and Rubbish Removal

The RTA requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s 45(1)(a)), and imposes an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy in a similar condition:

The onus of proof sits with the person making the claim. Where the landlord seeks to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, the landlord must prove that the tenant breached their obligations under the RTA in how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probabilities, then the claim must be dismissed. What the Respondent told me:

The respondent did not attend the hearing. Assessment of the Evidence:

Despite the respondent not attending, the onus of proof remains with the applicant. I must still be satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

The issue I have with the claims that the property manager, Mr Alan Bai, is making is that whilst the photographs of the property show that the respondent has not left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition(contrary to s 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA), and that the respondent has caused damage to the property (contrary to s 40(2)(a) RTA), there is no relation between the evidence in the photographs and the invoices and explanations that Mr Bai has provided me at the hearing for the award being sought.

When I asked Mr Bai about the invoices from Juan Property and Shiny Service Limited, as well as the water invoices, he responded in a way that has led me to question whether those invoices are bona fide and whether they have any evidential value.

For example, Mr Bai has sought costs for the replacement of light fixtures. When I asked him what was wrong with them, he told me that “they don’t work.” The photographs, however, show no evidence of impact damage or interference. In another photograph, what appears to be the slight detachment of vinyl tiles from the floor is shown which is most likely due to fair wear and tear. Mr Bai has advised that this required the replacement of the floorboards.

For

Reasons

like this, I had difficulty understanding what these invoices are for, how they were formulated, and who they are from. When I asked him about the items on the invoices, he was able to offer little explanation and stated that he had never used or spoken to these contractors, who he said were engaged directly by the landlord. While some costs—such as broken windows and lawn mowing—he was able to explain and show what the damage related to, he could not account for why the charges were so high. Other costs were not credible at all, and he offered no explanation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal’s records contradict Mr Bai’s claim that this is the landlord’s contact. In the past month alone, Mr Bai has appeared before the Tribunal in relation to another property owned by a different landlord, and in that matter also presented invoices from Juan Property and Shiny Service as evidence of vacated damages. In addition, the last six files related to vacated claims I have reviewed from Sunshine Property Group — including 5300399, 4732129, 4639291, 5300402, 5142529, and 5188442 — have all been supported with invoices from Juan Property and Shiny Service Limited. The fact that Mr Bai attempted to deceive me by asserting that Sunshine has no relationship with these contractors, when the records show otherwise, casts serious doubt on his credibility. Because he has lied to me in this respect, it casts a shadow over these invoices as a whole and means that I cannot place any reliance on them.

I asked Mr Bai whether any of the work set out in the invoices had in fact been completed, and whether he had any proof of payment in relation to them. Mr Bai told me that, in respect of the cleaning invoice, the work was carried out over a month ago, and in respect of the damage repair invoice, the work was completed approximately a week ago. He further stated that neither contractor has been paid, as the outcome of the Tribunal hearing remains unknown. This explanation is not credible. It is inherently questionable why a contractor would undertake work of this scale without any payment and with no guarantee of being paid. Regardless of the Tribunal’s decision, a commercial operator engaged by a property owner to complete cleaning or repairs would reasonably expect to be paid for the work undertaken upon completion of the work.

In light of this, I cannot say what the invoices are for, whether any costs have been incurred, or whether any work has been completed. The compensation sought has not been proven on the balance of probabilities.

What is proven, however, is that the respondent has caused some damage to the property and has not left it in a reasonably clean and tidy state of repair at the end of the tenancy. For this breach of the tenant’s obligations under s 40(1)(e)(iii) and s 40(2)(a) RTA, I consider it appropriate to make a nominal award of $200.00.

The final claim before me is for water charges in the amount of $172.90. The invoice presented shows units of water said to have been used and invoiced. There is no cost per unit. I asked Mr Bai to produce either a water rates summary or a corresponding invoice from Watercare. He was not done so.

I am not suggesting that there is no outstanding water owed. However, given the lack of supporting documentation, and in light of the misleading evidence presented elsewhere, I cannot place any weight on the water invoice. This claim is dismissed. Decision:

The claims supported by invoices from Juan Property are dismissed.

The claims supported by invoices from Shiny Service Limited are dismissed.

The claim for water rates is dismissed.

A nominal award of $200.00 is made against the respondent to reflect proven damage and failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Order

The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

With any claim, it is for the landlord to establish that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability (s 49A(2) RTA).

Cleaning and Rubbish Removal

The respondent did not attend the hearing. Assessment of the Evidence:

Despite the respondent not attending, the onus of proof remains with the applicant. I must still be satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

For

Reasons

The claims supported by invoices from Juan Property are dismissed.

The claims supported by invoices from Shiny Service Limited are dismissed.

The claim for water rates is dismissed.

A nominal award of $200.00 is made against the respondent to reflect proven damage and failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5209593 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 37 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5209593 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 37 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions