What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5233311?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,160.00 (3768601-006) to SUGANYA

How much money was awarded in case 5233311?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233311?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098261-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5233311?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,160.00 (3768601-006) to SUGANYA

How much money was awarded in case 5233311?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233311?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098261-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233311 — Leaks

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,160.00 (3768601-006) to SUGANYA GANESAN, MADHANRAJ SATHIYAVELU, INDUMATHY DEVANATHASAMY and PRABU SANJEEVI immediately.
The application by Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited for compensation of $2,606.31 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and all the tenants attended the initial hearing on 9/7/2025, two of the tenants by telephone.
One tenant was unable to attend the reconvened hearing on 10/7/2025.
A senior reporter from stuff also attended the reconvened hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants cross applied for refund of their bond of $4,160.00.
When the submissions of the tenants were received on the day of the initial hearing, they also sought compensation and or exemplary damages for breach of sections 38 and 45.
However, I declined to hear the compensation/exemplary damages claim. This was because the claim was only made on the day of the initial hearing and the landlord had no prior knowledge of what was being claimed.
It is open to the tenants to file a further claim for compensation and or exemplary damages if they wish.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 19/2/2024, originally to 15/2/2025 but varied by agreement to end on 31/12/2024.
The weekly rent was $1,040.00.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $800.31 as follows: a. $10.00 electricity costs for cleaning, b. $15.12 replacement light bulbs, c. $2.93 replacement of heat pump batteries, d. $20.00 replacement of pot stand, e. $434.00 cleaning, f. $318.26 carpet and rug cleaning.
In support of the claim the landlord provided extensive photographs taken in January 2025, an invoice for carpet and rug cleaning and significant submissions.
On the other hand, the tenants also provided extensive submissions, videos taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, photographs and emails between the parties during the tenancy, in particular over the issue of water seepage.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenants, in particular the seven videos, that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and removed most of their rubbish.
Further I am not satisfied that the landlord had to replace light bulbs or batteries for the heat pump remote control, or that a pot stand was missing.
The claim for compensation fails.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,806.00 as follows: a. $1,380.00 repairs to baths, b. $420.00 replacement of sofa bed, c. $6.00 replacement of a mop.
In support of the claim the landlord relied on the photographs taken in January 2024 and an invoice about repairs to a “chip on right hand back of shower base and large crack on shower liner soap tray” and an unsigned leak assessment report from a roofer dated 29/7/2024.
On the other hand, the tenants disputed they had caused any damage, except for the replacement of the mop which they suggested broke.
The tenants relied on their submissions, videos and photographs.
The landlord submitted that there was no insurance to cover any damage.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I find the landlord has failed to satisfy me that damage was caused during the tenancy to the baths or sofa bed.
While I accept that one mop had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy, I consider this was due to fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation for damage fails. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
While it is possible that the tenants did not clean the premises as well as they might have, for example the stove top, or that some damage did occur during the tenancy, for example the mop, the evidence is simply not enough to move this to a probability to support the amounts claimed by the landlord.
Although the parties confirmed that around 23 or 24 February the landlord undertook an initial property inspection of the premises, the landlord confirmed that the report was “missing”.
This meant that the Tribunal had no baseline with which to assess the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord agreed that when the tenancy began on 19/2/2024 the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy and work by a builder still needed to be completed.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Sections 36 and 37 provide that a landlord shall ensure that at the commencement of a tenancy there is no legal impediment to occupation and that a tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises.
It is not open to a landlord to use the fact that work has not been completed, as was the case here, to avoid their obligations that premises must be ready for the tenants to move into from the commencement date.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Taking into account all the circumstances in this instance I consider it reasonable that tenants receive a refund of all their bond.
No filing fee is awarded because, although the tenants claim was successful, I do not consider it reasonable to prolong the dispute by awarding the fee.
Suppression is not available to the landlord because she was not successful in the proceedings.
The tenants did not want name suppression.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,160.00 (3768601-006) to SUGANYA GANESAN, MADHANRAJ SATHIYAVELU, INDUMATHY DEVANATHASAMY and PRABU SANJEEVI immediately.
The application by Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited for compensation of $2,606.31 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and all the tenants attended the initial hearing on 9/7/2025, two of the tenants by telephone.
One tenant was unable to attend the reconvened hearing on 10/7/2025.
A senior reporter from stuff also attended the reconvened hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants cross applied for refund of their bond of $4,160.00.
When the submissions of the tenants were received on the day of the initial hearing, they also sought compensation and or exemplary damages for breach of sections 38 and 45.
However, I declined to hear the compensation/exemplary damages claim. This was because the claim was only made on the day of the initial hearing and the landlord had no prior knowledge of what was being claimed.
It is open to the tenants to file a further claim for compensation and or exemplary damages if they wish.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 19/2/2024, originally to 15/2/2025 but varied by agreement to end on 31/12/2024.
The weekly rent was $1,040.00.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $800.31 as follows: a. $10.00 electricity costs for cleaning, b. $15.12 replacement light bulbs, c. $2.93 replacement of heat pump batteries, d. $20.00 replacement of pot stand, e. $434.00 cleaning, f. $318.26 carpet and rug cleaning.
In support of the claim the landlord provided extensive photographs taken in January 2025, an invoice for carpet and rug cleaning and significant submissions.
On the other hand, the tenants also provided extensive submissions, videos taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, photographs and emails between the parties during the tenancy, in particular over the issue of water seepage.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenants, in particular the seven videos, that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and removed most of their rubbish.
Further I am not satisfied that the landlord had to replace light bulbs or batteries for the heat pump remote control, or that a pot stand was missing.
The claim for compensation fails.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,806.00 as follows: a. $1,380.00 repairs to baths, b. $420.00 replacement of sofa bed, c. $6.00 replacement of a mop.
In support of the claim the landlord relied on the photographs taken in January 2024 and an invoice about repairs to a “chip on right hand back of shower base and large crack on shower liner soap tray” and an unsigned leak assessment report from a roofer dated 29/7/2024.
On the other hand, the tenants disputed they had caused any damage, except for the replacement of the mop which they suggested broke.
The tenants relied on their submissions, videos and photographs.
The landlord submitted that there was no insurance to cover any damage.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I find the landlord has failed to satisfy me that damage was caused during the tenancy to the baths or sofa bed.
While I accept that one mop had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy, I consider this was due to fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation for damage fails. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
While it is possible that the tenants did not clean the premises as well as they might have, for example the stove top, or that some damage did occur during the tenancy, for example the mop, the evidence is simply not enough to move this to a probability to support the amounts claimed by the landlord.
Although the parties confirmed that around 23 or 24 February the landlord undertook an initial property inspection of the premises, the landlord confirmed that the report was “missing”.
This meant that the Tribunal had no baseline with which to assess the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord agreed that when the tenancy began on 19/2/2024 the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy and work by a builder still needed to be completed.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Sections 36 and 37 provide that a landlord shall ensure that at the commencement of a tenancy there is no legal impediment to occupation and that a tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises.
It is not open to a landlord to use the fact that work has not been completed, as was the case here, to avoid their obligations that premises must be ready for the tenants to move into from the commencement date.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Taking into account all the circumstances in this instance I consider it reasonable that tenants receive a refund of all their bond.
No filing fee is awarded because, although the tenants claim was successful, I do not consider it reasonable to prolong the dispute by awarding the fee.
Suppression is not available to the landlord because she was not successful in the proceedings.
The tenants did not want name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233311 — Leaks at 49 Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233311 — Leaks at 49 Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions