What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5247212?

The tribunal order states: Agnes-Julizabel Kelemete and Molimau Iupati must pay Impression Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 5247212?

Cleaning: $718.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,254.28 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,565.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247212?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247212?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12101358-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5247212?

The tribunal order states: Agnes-Julizabel Kelemete and Molimau Iupati must pay Impression Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 5247212?

Cleaning: $718.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,254.28 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,565.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247212?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247212?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12101358-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 613, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247212 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247212 — net $3,538.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/05/2025	$1,254.28	Rent arrears to 21/05/2025
Repairs: Walls	$1,565.84	Repairs: Walls
Carpet Cleaning	$718.75	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$3,538.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,538.87

Order

Agnes-Julizabel Kelemete and Molimau Iupati must pay Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Shannon & Tammy Wishing Well Investments Ltd Linda Cheng $3,538.87 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
This order supersedes order 5247212. That order is no longer enforceable.
The Applicant seeks the following orders: a) Rent arrears of $2,162.85 to Monday, 2 June 2025. b) Costs of re-leasing the property: $652.00. c) Carpet replacement costs: $2,587.50. d) Wall repair costs: $1,957.30. e) Pest control for cockroach treatment: $165.00. f) Disposal of a broken 32-inch Panasonic television: $100.00. g) Replacement of a 32-inch Panasonic television: $400.00. h) Cleaning costs: $718.75. i) Application filing fee: $27.00. The respondents case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Relevant Legal Considerations:
Under s 55(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy upon the landlord’s application if, at the date of filing, rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
A landlord must establish that any damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear (ss 49A, 49B, 66K(2)(a), 66L RTA). If proven, the tenant must demonstrate that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Tenants are liable for damage caused by persons on the premises with their permission.
For careless damage covered by insurance, tenant liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).
If the damage is uninsurable or insurance is voided due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (ss 49B(3)(b), 49B(3A)(a) RTA).
Compensation awards must account for depreciation and avoid betterment, restoring the landlord to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
Under s 45(1)(a) RTA, landlords must provide, and tenants must return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with all rubbish removed.
The standard is “reasonably clean and tidy,” not immaculate, with the Tribunal assessing condition based on evidence, including photographs, tenancy duration, and the general condition of the premises.
Under s 40(2)(b) RTA, tenants must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose.
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof: the applicant must establish claims on the balance of probabilities (just over 50%). It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence, including independent witnesses and documentation, to discharge this burden, and failure to do so will result in dismissal irrespective of merit. The Tribunal will weigh all evidence, including oral testimony, and it is neither the Tribunal’s nor the respondent’s role to extract evidence on the applicant’s behalf.
Under s 44A RTA, a landlord may recover reasonable expenses incurred in relation to an assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination, provided the landlord first supplies the tenant with an itemised account. Failure to do so before recovery constitutes an unlawful act and an infringement offence under Schedule 1B RTA.

Reasons

I have superseded my adjournment order (5247212) for the benefit of both parties. The applicant tells me the balance of the arrears in that order have not been paid so I have added included the arrears in full in this order so that the parties can be clear about how much is owing and to save on enforcement fees if enforcement is required.
The Applicant seeks rent arrears of $2,162.00 to 2 June 2025, with the application seeking termination under s 55. The matter was heard on 21 May 2025, at which time rent was more than 21 days in arrears, obliging me to terminate the tenancy. No formal order was made, as possession was returned by consent already. The reason no final rent award was made at that time was due to the potential for a s 59B RTA application affecting rent arrears quantum. As no such application has eventuated, I am satisfied that full rent is owing to the 21 st of May 2025 date and the tenancy would have terminated on that date per the applicant’s application for orders under section 55 of the RTA 1986. I have deducted 12 days’ rent from the applicants claim to calculate arrears to the 21 st of May 2025, which total $1,254.28. I award this sum.
The Applicant claims $652.00 for break lease costs, supported by a standard letter sent to all tenants seeking early termination. Section 44A RTA requires itemised evidence of actual costs incurred. A generic letter does not constitute evidence of incurred costs, and in any event, as the landlord sought termination under s 55, compensation for re-letting costs is not available when termination is made under section 55. This claim is dismissed.
The Applicant claims $2,587.50 for carpet replacement. If liability is established, I must account for depreciation. The premises were built in 2015, and it is presumed the carpet was installed at that time, with no evidence to the contrary. The IRD depreciation guide provides an 8-year lifespan for carpet, and the carpet is now 10 years old. Additionally, the Applicant’s representative acknowledged the carpet was in poor condition at the tenancy’s commencement and had recommended replacement to the owner. Although damage and deterioration occurred during the tenancy, the carpet was due for replacement prior to its commencement. This claim is dismissed.
The Applicant claims $1,957.30 for wall repairs and repainting. I accept that most of the damage was either careless or intentional. However, the contractor’s invoice indicates the entire apartment was painted. I have made allowances for betterment and minor fair wear and tear, awarding 80% of the claim, being $1,565.84.
The Applicant claims $165.00 for pest control for cockroach treatment. The invoice does not confirm the presence of cockroaches. The Applicant’s photographic evidence purporting to show cockroaches appears, upon comparison with reference objects, to depict a tripod, with no evidence of food debris present. While cockroach presence is possible, the Applicant has not discharged the burden of proof. This claim is dismissed.
The Applicant claims $400.00 for the replacement of a 32-inch Panasonic television and $100.00 for its disposal. The television was not identified as broken at the exit inspection and does not appear on the property’s chattel list. It is also possible that the tv could have been damaged between the end of the tenancy and its transportation to the property managers office. It is also expected that the landlord would inspect all chattels at the time of the exit inspection. No evidence has been provided regarding the television’s age, precluding any depreciation calculation, and the Applicant has not provided evidence that they have replaced it since 12 June 2025, and have asked me to make an award based on a replacement estimate made on the spot. This raises doubt as to the intention to replace it at all. Regarding disposal, as the television was delivered to the Applicant’s office, where commercial disposal facilities are presumably available, no disposal costs have been shown to be necessary. Both claims are dismissed.
The Applicant claims $718.75 for cleaning. Exit inspection photographs clearly establish that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This claim is awarded in full.
I note the Applicant appeared frustrated when I declined to draw inferences unsupported by evidence, including the unexplained change in property management during material discussions with the Respondent. While some claims may have merit, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to adequately discharge the burden of proof.
The Applicant has achieved partial success. However, the outcome cannot be described as wholly nor substantially successful. Accordingly, the application filing fee is not awarded (s 102(4) RTA).
For the same reasons, I decline the Applicant’s request for suppression. No other factors have been advanced that would outweigh the public interest in publication of this order (s 95A(1) RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247212 — net $3,538.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/05/2025	$1,254.28	Rent arrears to 21/05/2025
Repairs: Walls	$1,565.84	Repairs: Walls
Carpet Cleaning	$718.75	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$3,538.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,538.87

Order

Agnes-Julizabel Kelemete and Molimau Iupati must pay Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Shannon & Tammy Wishing Well Investments Ltd Linda Cheng $3,538.87 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
This order supersedes order 5247212. That order is no longer enforceable.
The Applicant seeks the following orders: a) Rent arrears of $2,162.85 to Monday, 2 June 2025. b) Costs of re-leasing the property: $652.00. c) Carpet replacement costs: $2,587.50. d) Wall repair costs: $1,957.30. e) Pest control for cockroach treatment: $165.00. f) Disposal of a broken 32-inch Panasonic television: $100.00. g) Replacement of a 32-inch Panasonic television: $400.00. h) Cleaning costs: $718.75. i) Application filing fee: $27.00. The respondents case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Relevant Legal Considerations:
Under s 55(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy upon the landlord’s application if, at the date of filing, rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
A landlord must establish that any damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear (ss 49A, 49B, 66K(2)(a), 66L RTA). If proven, the tenant must demonstrate that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Tenants are liable for damage caused by persons on the premises with their permission.
For careless damage covered by insurance, tenant liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).
If the damage is uninsurable or insurance is voided due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (ss 49B(3)(b), 49B(3A)(a) RTA).
Compensation awards must account for depreciation and avoid betterment, restoring the landlord to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
Under s 45(1)(a) RTA, landlords must provide, and tenants must return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with all rubbish removed.
The standard is “reasonably clean and tidy,” not immaculate, with the Tribunal assessing condition based on evidence, including photographs, tenancy duration, and the general condition of the premises.
Under s 40(2)(b) RTA, tenants must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose.
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof: the applicant must establish claims on the balance of probabilities (just over 50%). It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence, including independent witnesses and documentation, to discharge this burden, and failure to do so will result in dismissal irrespective of merit. The Tribunal will weigh all evidence, including oral testimony, and it is neither the Tribunal’s nor the respondent’s role to extract evidence on the applicant’s behalf.
Under s 44A RTA, a landlord may recover reasonable expenses incurred in relation to an assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination, provided the landlord first supplies the tenant with an itemised account. Failure to do so before recovery constitutes an unlawful act and an infringement offence under Schedule 1B RTA.

Reasons

I have superseded my adjournment order (5247212) for the benefit of both parties. The applicant tells me the balance of the arrears in that order have not been paid so I have added included the arrears in full in this order so that the parties can be clear about how much is owing and to save on enforcement fees if enforcement is required.
The Applicant seeks rent arrears of $2,162.00 to 2 June 2025, with the application seeking termination under s 55. The matter was heard on 21 May 2025, at which time rent was more than 21 days in arrears, obliging me to terminate the tenancy. No formal order was made, as possession was returned by consent already. The reason no final rent award was made at that time was due to the potential for a s 59B RTA application affecting rent arrears quantum. As no such application has eventuated, I am satisfied that full rent is owing to the 21 st of May 2025 date and the tenancy would have terminated on that date per the applicant’s application for orders under section 55 of the RTA 1986. I have deducted 12 days’ rent from the applicants claim to calculate arrears to the 21 st of May 2025, which total $1,254.28. I award this sum.
The Applicant claims $652.00 for break lease costs, supported by a standard letter sent to all tenants seeking early termination. Section 44A RTA requires itemised evidence of actual costs incurred. A generic letter does not constitute evidence of incurred costs, and in any event, as the landlord sought termination under s 55, compensation for re-letting costs is not available when termination is made under section 55. This claim is dismissed.
The Applicant claims $2,587.50 for carpet replacement. If liability is established, I must account for depreciation. The premises were built in 2015, and it is presumed the carpet was installed at that time, with no evidence to the contrary. The IRD depreciation guide provides an 8-year lifespan for carpet, and the carpet is now 10 years old. Additionally, the Applicant’s representative acknowledged the carpet was in poor condition at the tenancy’s commencement and had recommended replacement to the owner. Although damage and deterioration occurred during the tenancy, the carpet was due for replacement prior to its commencement. This claim is dismissed.
The Applicant claims $1,957.30 for wall repairs and repainting. I accept that most of the damage was either careless or intentional. However, the contractor’s invoice indicates the entire apartment was painted. I have made allowances for betterment and minor fair wear and tear, awarding 80% of the claim, being $1,565.84.
The Applicant claims $165.00 for pest control for cockroach treatment. The invoice does not confirm the presence of cockroaches. The Applicant’s photographic evidence purporting to show cockroaches appears, upon comparison with reference objects, to depict a tripod, with no evidence of food debris present. While cockroach presence is possible, the Applicant has not discharged the burden of proof. This claim is dismissed.
The Applicant claims $400.00 for the replacement of a 32-inch Panasonic television and $100.00 for its disposal. The television was not identified as broken at the exit inspection and does not appear on the property’s chattel list. It is also possible that the tv could have been damaged between the end of the tenancy and its transportation to the property managers office. It is also expected that the landlord would inspect all chattels at the time of the exit inspection. No evidence has been provided regarding the television’s age, precluding any depreciation calculation, and the Applicant has not provided evidence that they have replaced it since 12 June 2025, and have asked me to make an award based on a replacement estimate made on the spot. This raises doubt as to the intention to replace it at all. Regarding disposal, as the television was delivered to the Applicant’s office, where commercial disposal facilities are presumably available, no disposal costs have been shown to be necessary. Both claims are dismissed.
The Applicant claims $718.75 for cleaning. Exit inspection photographs clearly establish that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This claim is awarded in full.
I note the Applicant appeared frustrated when I declined to draw inferences unsupported by evidence, including the unexplained change in property management during material discussions with the Respondent. While some claims may have merit, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to adequately discharge the burden of proof.
The Applicant has achieved partial success. However, the outcome cannot be described as wholly nor substantially successful. Accordingly, the application filing fee is not awarded (s 102(4) RTA).
For the same reasons, I decline the Applicant’s request for suppression. No other factors have been advanced that would outweigh the public interest in publication of this order (s 95A(1) RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247212 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 613, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247212 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 613, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104,

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