What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5260546?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $550.36 of the bond (6550865-001) to Fenika Misa

How much money was awarded in case 5260546?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $413.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $156.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $35.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5260546?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5260546?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12124644-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5260546?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $550.36 of the bond (6550865-001) to Fenika Misa

How much money was awarded in case 5260546?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $413.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $156.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $35.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5260546?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5260546?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12124644-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 48 McLeod Road, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5260546 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5260546. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$195.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$156.40	Rubbish removal
Repairs: flooded flooring (insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs: flooded flooring (insurance excess
Repairs: internal repairs: wallpaper, walls, toilet seat	$413.28	Repairs: internal repairs: wallpaper, walls, toilet seat
Lock/key replacement	$199.00	Lock/key replacement
Water rates	$35.46	Water rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay $550.36 of the bond (6550865-001) to Fenika Misa immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,649.64 of the bond (6550865-001) to Country Living Realty Hobsonville Limited As Agent For Cyndie And Kevin Augustin immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the face-to-face hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage. The landlord also seeks payment of a final water invoice. The landlord seeks refund of the bond.
At the end of the hearing, the landlord raised an additional claim for rent arrears, being $1,100. The tenant disputed the claim. As it did not form a part of the landlord’s application, and because no evidence had been filed in support of the claim, I did not accept the claim could be adjudicated today.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant accepts she owes $35.46 for a final water invoice. Accordingly, the order is made by consent.

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

(a) Cleaning

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord produced photographs taken on 6 March 2025, the last day of the tenancy. The photographs show the property was not left reasonably clean. The landlord produced an invoice for $391 for “move out clean.” The invoice does not break down how long the clean took, or what items were cleaned.
The tenant accepts she did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition but says the amount sought is excessive. In correspondence referred to by the landlord in the hearing, the tenant offered to pay $80 towards cleaning.
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
A professional cleaner is likely to bring a property to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of a professional clean.
I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $195.50 towards the cost of cleaning, being half the cost of the professional cleaner. (b) Rubbish
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA.
The landlord produced a photograph taken on 6 March 2025, the last day of the tenancy, which shows the recycling bin was full, including of non-recyclable items. The landlord says the bin was placed out on the kerb by a contractor, however it was not emptied as it contained non-recyclable material.
The landlord produced an invoice for $156.40 for a contractor who emptied the rubbish out of the recycling bin and disposed of the items at the refuse station. The invoice is dated 3 April 2025. The landlord also produced a further invoice for “located recycle bin on road, bin was full of rubbish and returned it to house” for which the landlord was charged $20.00. That invoice was dated 13 March 2025.
The tenant says she placed the recycling bin out on the kerb on 5 March 2025 for collection. The tenant says she does not know how the bin came to be beside the house, as photographed on 6 March 2025. At the hearing, the tenant said she does not accept that the rubbish in the bin was hers. However, in written submissions handed up by the tenant as she was leaving the hearing room, 1 the tenant states, “I acknowledge that rubbish was left behind and, while the council collection was out of my control, I do accept I could have emptied the bin before leaving. Therefore, I offer to pay some of the bin fee.”
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the rubbish left in the recycling bin was left by the tenant, as per her written submissions. I also accept that it is more likely than not that the Council declined to empty the bin because it contained items that were not recyclable (such as a McDonalds bag which is visible in the photograph taken 6 March 2025).
I am satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of removing the rubbish in the recycling bin, being $156.40. I do not consider the additional charge of $20.00 is reasonable. Had the recycling bin been emptied by the council, the landlord would have had to retrieve the (empty) recycling bin from the roadside. There are no grounds for compensation simply because the landlord chose to employ a contractor to do that task. (c) Keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security or pass cards or other such devices provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA.
The tenant accepts she owes $199.00 for the cost of replacement keys. Accordingly, the order is made by consent. 1 The tenant stated she had emailed these to the registry, and the property manager, prior to the hearing. I note I did not have these submissions on file at the time of the hearing.

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.
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) RTA.
The tenant accepts liability for the cost of repairing some damage, being: a. Wallpaper damage; b. Holes in walls; c. Broken toilet seat.
The tenant accepts liability for the above damages, being $413.28. The invoice provided by the tradesperson was for $433.28. It included a $20.00 charge for retrieving the recycling bin from the roadside, as discussed above.
The landlord also seeks $650 being the insurance excess for a claim relating to damage to the flooring caused by the tenant’s washing machine leaking while she was out of the house. The landlord produced a copy of correspondence with the insurer which showed the landlord made a claim to replace damaged flooring and flooring fixtures. The correspondence shows the landlord accepted a settlement offered by the insurer of $3,000, less the excess of $650.
The tenant acknowledges the washing machine leaked while she was out of the house for a few hours on 13 January 2025. She says when she returned, she immediately took action to mop up the water and immediately notified the property manager. The tenant says the particle board under the carpet was particularly susceptible to damage as it was old and already sagging in places.
The tenant says the leak was accidental, and the floor already old and sagging, therefore she submits she is not liable to reimburse the landlord for the cost of remedying the damage (or the insurance excess).
In Guo v Korck, 2 the High Court referred to accidental damage and carelessness and said, “Accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence”. 3 In doing so, Justice Walker linked accidental damage and carelessness. 2 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 3 Ibid., at [38].
In Tekoa Trust v Stewart, 4 Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether a tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
In this case, the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness or negligence in relation to the maintenance or operation of the washing machine. I therefore find the damage caused by the washing machine flooding was damage that was caused by a careless act or omission of the tenant pursuant to s49B(2) of the RTA, and the tenant is liable to pay the insurance excess (being less than 4 week’s rent).
The tenant is ordered to pay the insurance excess of $650 for damage caused by the overflowing washing machine. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
As the tenant left the hearing room, she handed up written submissions which included a request for suppression her name. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claim(s), so is not automatically entitled to suppression.
I have considered whether I should grant name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests. 4 Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5260546. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$195.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$156.40	Rubbish removal
Repairs: flooded flooring (insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs: flooded flooring (insurance excess
Repairs: internal repairs: wallpaper, walls, toilet seat	$413.28	Repairs: internal repairs: wallpaper, walls, toilet seat
Lock/key replacement	$199.00	Lock/key replacement
Water rates	$35.46	Water rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay $550.36 of the bond (6550865-001) to Fenika Misa immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,649.64 of the bond (6550865-001) to Country Living Realty Hobsonville Limited As Agent For Cyndie And Kevin Augustin immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the face-to-face hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage. The landlord also seeks payment of a final water invoice. The landlord seeks refund of the bond.
At the end of the hearing, the landlord raised an additional claim for rent arrears, being $1,100. The tenant disputed the claim. As it did not form a part of the landlord’s application, and because no evidence had been filed in support of the claim, I did not accept the claim could be adjudicated today.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant accepts she owes $35.46 for a final water invoice. Accordingly, the order is made by consent.

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

(a) Cleaning

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord produced photographs taken on 6 March 2025, the last day of the tenancy. The photographs show the property was not left reasonably clean. The landlord produced an invoice for $391 for “move out clean.” The invoice does not break down how long the clean took, or what items were cleaned.
The tenant accepts she did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition but says the amount sought is excessive. In correspondence referred to by the landlord in the hearing, the tenant offered to pay $80 towards cleaning.
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
A professional cleaner is likely to bring a property to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of a professional clean.
I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $195.50 towards the cost of cleaning, being half the cost of the professional cleaner. (b) Rubbish
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA.
The landlord produced a photograph taken on 6 March 2025, the last day of the tenancy, which shows the recycling bin was full, including of non-recyclable items. The landlord says the bin was placed out on the kerb by a contractor, however it was not emptied as it contained non-recyclable material.
The landlord produced an invoice for $156.40 for a contractor who emptied the rubbish out of the recycling bin and disposed of the items at the refuse station. The invoice is dated 3 April 2025. The landlord also produced a further invoice for “located recycle bin on road, bin was full of rubbish and returned it to house” for which the landlord was charged $20.00. That invoice was dated 13 March 2025.
The tenant says she placed the recycling bin out on the kerb on 5 March 2025 for collection. The tenant says she does not know how the bin came to be beside the house, as photographed on 6 March 2025. At the hearing, the tenant said she does not accept that the rubbish in the bin was hers. However, in written submissions handed up by the tenant as she was leaving the hearing room, 1 the tenant states, “I acknowledge that rubbish was left behind and, while the council collection was out of my control, I do accept I could have emptied the bin before leaving. Therefore, I offer to pay some of the bin fee.”
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the rubbish left in the recycling bin was left by the tenant, as per her written submissions. I also accept that it is more likely than not that the Council declined to empty the bin because it contained items that were not recyclable (such as a McDonalds bag which is visible in the photograph taken 6 March 2025).
I am satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of removing the rubbish in the recycling bin, being $156.40. I do not consider the additional charge of $20.00 is reasonable. Had the recycling bin been emptied by the council, the landlord would have had to retrieve the (empty) recycling bin from the roadside. There are no grounds for compensation simply because the landlord chose to employ a contractor to do that task. (c) Keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security or pass cards or other such devices provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA.
The tenant accepts she owes $199.00 for the cost of replacement keys. Accordingly, the order is made by consent. 1 The tenant stated she had emailed these to the registry, and the property manager, prior to the hearing. I note I did not have these submissions on file at the time of the hearing.

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.
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) RTA.
The tenant accepts liability for the cost of repairing some damage, being: a. Wallpaper damage; b. Holes in walls; c. Broken toilet seat.
The tenant accepts liability for the above damages, being $413.28. The invoice provided by the tradesperson was for $433.28. It included a $20.00 charge for retrieving the recycling bin from the roadside, as discussed above.
The landlord also seeks $650 being the insurance excess for a claim relating to damage to the flooring caused by the tenant’s washing machine leaking while she was out of the house. The landlord produced a copy of correspondence with the insurer which showed the landlord made a claim to replace damaged flooring and flooring fixtures. The correspondence shows the landlord accepted a settlement offered by the insurer of $3,000, less the excess of $650.
The tenant acknowledges the washing machine leaked while she was out of the house for a few hours on 13 January 2025. She says when she returned, she immediately took action to mop up the water and immediately notified the property manager. The tenant says the particle board under the carpet was particularly susceptible to damage as it was old and already sagging in places.
The tenant says the leak was accidental, and the floor already old and sagging, therefore she submits she is not liable to reimburse the landlord for the cost of remedying the damage (or the insurance excess).
In Guo v Korck, 2 the High Court referred to accidental damage and carelessness and said, “Accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence”. 3 In doing so, Justice Walker linked accidental damage and carelessness. 2 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 3 Ibid., at [38].
In Tekoa Trust v Stewart, 4 Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether a tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
In this case, the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness or negligence in relation to the maintenance or operation of the washing machine. I therefore find the damage caused by the washing machine flooding was damage that was caused by a careless act or omission of the tenant pursuant to s49B(2) of the RTA, and the tenant is liable to pay the insurance excess (being less than 4 week’s rent).
The tenant is ordered to pay the insurance excess of $650 for damage caused by the overflowing washing machine. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
As the tenant left the hearing room, she handed up written submissions which included a request for suppression her name. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claim(s), so is not automatically entitled to suppression.
I have considered whether I should grant name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests. 4 Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5260546 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 48 McLeod Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5260546 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 48 McLeod Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

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