What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5264361?

The tribunal order states: Jocelyn Ross must pay Joseph Stewart France $684.28 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5264361?

Cleaning: $340.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity (Feb, March, April, May…: $440.81 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.99 awarded to landlord; Plumber Invoice: $168.48 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; WIFI Charges (April, May 2025: $108.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264361?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12297733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5264361?

The tribunal order states: Jocelyn Ross must pay Joseph Stewart France $684.28 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5264361?

Cleaning: $340.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity (Feb, March, April, May…: $440.81 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.99 awarded to landlord; Plumber Invoice: $168.48 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; WIFI Charges (April, May 2025: $108.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264361?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12297733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Berridge Avenue, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5264361 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5264361 — net $684.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity (Feb, March, April, May 2025	$440.81	Electricity (Feb, March, April, May 2025
WIFI charges (April, May 2025	$108.00	WIFI charges (April, May 2025
Repairs: Plumber invoice	$168.48	Repairs: Plumber invoice
Bench top oven replacement	$299.99	Bench top oven replacement
Cleaning	$340.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Compensation - loss of rent 1 week	$400.00	Compensation - loss of rent 1 week
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$684.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$684.28

Order

Jocelyn Ross must pay Joseph Stewart France $684.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5182190-014) to Joseph Stewart France immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. The hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for outstanding utility charges, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for electricity and WIFI charges?

The tenancy ended on 27 May 2025. The landlord provided utility records from Spark and The Powershop which prove the electricity and WIFI charges outstanding at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amounts claimed.
The claim for outstanding electricity and WIFI charges is proven.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs in support of their claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. The photographs confirm that the tenant left the premises in a disgraceful state, resulting in the need for removal of all rubbish and extensive cleaning.
The amounts claims are reasonable. Plumber invoice
The landlord claims that the tenant blocked the shower which caused the shower to flood, impacting the bathroom.
The landlord provided an invoice from Marshall Plumbers dated 15 May 2025 for the amount of $168.48, along with photographic evidence of the shower drain blockage. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amount claimed.
The amounts ordered for cleaning, rubbish removal and plumbing are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to bench top oven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant used the bench top oven for heavy duty cooking which caused serious damage to the appliance. After the tenant vacated the premises the landlord tested the oven to see if it worked and it caught fire. The bench top oven was approximately 4 years old.
The landlord claims the cost of a replacement bench top oven. A receipt from Briscoes dated 28 June 2025 for $299.99 was provided in support of this claim.
The claim for bench top oven replacement has been established.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the claim for front door damage is withdrawn. Loss of rent
The landlord seeks one week’s lost rent calculated at the current rate charged (after the tenancy ended) of $400.00, as compensation for the time that the premises could be rented while the repairs, cleaning and rubbish removal were carried out.
The landlord claims that they lost at least 3 weeks rent following the end of the tenancy.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage required significant work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.
After considering all the circumstances and the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that compensation of one weeks’ rent is justified.
Therefore, I award $400.00.
Because Joseph Stewart France has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5264361 — net $684.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity (Feb, March, April, May 2025	$440.81	Electricity (Feb, March, April, May 2025
WIFI charges (April, May 2025	$108.00	WIFI charges (April, May 2025
Repairs: Plumber invoice	$168.48	Repairs: Plumber invoice
Bench top oven replacement	$299.99	Bench top oven replacement
Cleaning	$340.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Compensation - loss of rent 1 week	$400.00	Compensation - loss of rent 1 week
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$684.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$684.28

Order

Jocelyn Ross must pay Joseph Stewart France $684.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5182190-014) to Joseph Stewart France immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. The hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for outstanding utility charges, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for electricity and WIFI charges?

The tenancy ended on 27 May 2025. The landlord provided utility records from Spark and The Powershop which prove the electricity and WIFI charges outstanding at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amounts claimed.
The claim for outstanding electricity and WIFI charges is proven.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs in support of their claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. The photographs confirm that the tenant left the premises in a disgraceful state, resulting in the need for removal of all rubbish and extensive cleaning.
The amounts claims are reasonable. Plumber invoice
The landlord claims that the tenant blocked the shower which caused the shower to flood, impacting the bathroom.
The landlord provided an invoice from Marshall Plumbers dated 15 May 2025 for the amount of $168.48, along with photographic evidence of the shower drain blockage. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amount claimed.
The amounts ordered for cleaning, rubbish removal and plumbing are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to bench top oven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant used the bench top oven for heavy duty cooking which caused serious damage to the appliance. After the tenant vacated the premises the landlord tested the oven to see if it worked and it caught fire. The bench top oven was approximately 4 years old.
The landlord claims the cost of a replacement bench top oven. A receipt from Briscoes dated 28 June 2025 for $299.99 was provided in support of this claim.
The claim for bench top oven replacement has been established.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the claim for front door damage is withdrawn. Loss of rent
The landlord seeks one week’s lost rent calculated at the current rate charged (after the tenancy ended) of $400.00, as compensation for the time that the premises could be rented while the repairs, cleaning and rubbish removal were carried out.
The landlord claims that they lost at least 3 weeks rent following the end of the tenancy.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage required significant work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.
After considering all the circumstances and the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that compensation of one weeks’ rent is justified.
Therefore, I award $400.00.
Because Joseph Stewart France has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264361 — Property damage at 7 Berridge Avenue, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264361 — Property damage at 7 Berridge Avenue, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for electricity and WIFI charges?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for electricity and WIFI charges?

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

Frequently asked questions