What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5280577?

The tribunal order states: Mahina Cram and Helena Oscroft to pay Anna-Maria Stylainou and Damon

How much money was awarded in case 5280577?

Lightbulbs: $123.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $269.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280577?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970622-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5280577?

The tribunal order states: Mahina Cram and Helena Oscroft to pay Anna-Maria Stylainou and Damon

How much money was awarded in case 5280577?

Lightbulbs: $123.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $269.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280577?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970622-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

163 Scenic Drive, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280577 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280577 — net $438.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$269.89	Water rates
Light bulbs/batteries: reduced	$123.32	Light bulbs/batteries: reduced
Rubbish removal	$45.00	The claim for rubbish removal is proven. Light bulbs:
Net award	$438.21
Bond	$3,540.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$438.21

Order

Mahina Cram and Helena Oscroft to pay Anna-Maria Stylainou and Damon John Lee $438.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,540.00 (3727152-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Anna-Maria Stylainou and Damon John Lee: $438.21 Mahina Cram and Helena Oscroft: $3,101.79

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The tenants filed an application on 27 February 2025 seeking return of their bond money. The tenants also refer to a safety issue with the fireplace which was picked up during a service.
The tenants confirmed during the hearing that they only raised this for future reference for the landlord but do not wish to pursue the fireplace matter further.
The landlord filed a cross application on 6 June 2025 claiming compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 14 January 2025.
The landlord says that the amount claimed for outstanding water charges is the difference between the estimated amounts taken during the tenancy and what would have been the amounts charged had the meter been read during the tenancy. The tenants were confused by the invoice which says that the meter was read on 17 February 2025.
The landlord provided a water rates invoice for $269.89 which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I have also sighted an email from Watercare confirming that no meter readings were undertaken during the tenancy.
I am therefore satisfied that the amount claimed reflects the difference between the estimated and actual usage for the duration of the tenancy.

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. Cleaning:
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claims a cleaning fee of $350.00. The landlord says that the premises were not left clean. They say there was rubbish left in the pantry.
The tenants state they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They say they also arranged for professional carpet cleaning. They stated that the items left behind were there at the start of the tenancy and that they felt it was not for them to remove these items.
The landlord has not provided photographic evidence in support of a claim for cleaning other than three photographs showing some items left in a pantry and kitchen plates left on the sink. At the very least I would have expected detailed entry inspection photographic evidence taken at the start of the tenancy on 10 February 2024 and similar photographic evidence of the exit inspection taken shortly after the tenants had vacated.
In the absence of this evidence I am not able to assess the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The claim for cleaning must therefore be dismissed. Rubbish removal:
The landlord claims that the tenants left two recycling bins full of rubbish which had to be removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had to pay a ‘dump fee’ to remove the contents.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. The landlord also provided a receipt from Auckland Council dated 21 January 2025 for $45.00. The claim is reasonable. Having sighted the evidence filed in support I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the amount claimed.
The claim for rubbish removal is proven. Light bulbs:
The landlord claims that they had to replace over 30 light bulbs at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants say that approximately 20 lights were not working within the first couple of months of the tenancy.
The tenants say that they notified the landlord and was told that they would need to pay for these. The tenants felt that they should not have to pay given that some of these were not working at the start of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is $246.64. The landlord described them as recess screw in bulbs. The landlord provided payment receipts for the light bulbs from Mitre 10.
During the hearing the tenants accepted a degree of responsibility for some of the light bulbs. Although the evidence provided by the landlord is support of this claim is scant, I find that a fair approach is to allow the claim but reduce the amount claimed by half given that the tenants accept partial responsible for some of the light bulbs.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for light bulbs and reduce the amount awarded to $123.32.

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 landlord claims that the following items were damaged and had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy: Bathroom tap:
The landlord says that the bathroom tap had to be replaced.
The tenants say the tap started dripping during the week they were moving out. They notified the landlord by email on 13 January 2025.
The landlord claims $294.65 for a replacement tap. Other than an invoice from Urban Edge dated 29 January 2025 there is no other evidence filed in support of this claim. There is also no evidence confirming the age of the tap. Bedroom carpet replacement:
The landlord claims for carpet replacement in the bedroom. The landlord has provided two quotes for this replacement.
The tenants responded by stating that there was a small stain but do not agree with replacing the whole carpet which they say is overkill.
The landlord says that they were not able to replace a small patch which meant the whole carpet had to be replaced. The landlord says that the carpet was new and was installed days before the tenants moved in. The amount claimed is $850.00. Analysis:
The landlord’s claim for bathroom tap and carpet replacement is simply not supported with any evidence.
As recorded above, at the very least I would have expected detailed entry inspection photographic evidence taken at the start of the tenancy on 10 February 2024 and similar photographic evidence of the exit inspection taken shortly after the tenants had vacated. The landlord has not filed any evidence of the tap. There is not even a photograph. There are also no photographs of the carpet whatsoever.
In the absence of this evidence I am not able to assess the state of the carpet and the bathroom tap at the start and end of the tenancy. There is no entry inspection report provided with the landlord’s application confirming the condition of these items at the start of the tenancy. Even if I am wrong in respect of the tap I would nevertheless hold the view that a dripping tap is a maintenance issue more often than not resulting from fair, wear and tear.
Accordingly, the claims for carpet and bathroom tap replacement are dismissed.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the claim relating to ceiling damage caused by a pole is withdrawn.
The parties seek reimbursement of their respective application filing fees. Both parties have had a degree of success with their applications and therefore these costs should lie where they fall. I make no order for reimbursement of the application filing fees.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their proceedings and therefore I do not make an order in respect of name suppression for the landlord.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280577 — net $438.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$269.89	Water rates
Light bulbs/batteries: reduced	$123.32	Light bulbs/batteries: reduced
Rubbish removal	$45.00	The claim for rubbish removal is proven. Light bulbs:
Net award	$438.21
Bond	$3,540.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$438.21

Order

Mahina Cram and Helena Oscroft to pay Anna-Maria Stylainou and Damon John Lee $438.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,540.00 (3727152-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Anna-Maria Stylainou and Damon John Lee: $438.21 Mahina Cram and Helena Oscroft: $3,101.79

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The tenants filed an application on 27 February 2025 seeking return of their bond money. The tenants also refer to a safety issue with the fireplace which was picked up during a service.
The tenants confirmed during the hearing that they only raised this for future reference for the landlord but do not wish to pursue the fireplace matter further.
The landlord filed a cross application on 6 June 2025 claiming compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 14 January 2025.
The landlord says that the amount claimed for outstanding water charges is the difference between the estimated amounts taken during the tenancy and what would have been the amounts charged had the meter been read during the tenancy. The tenants were confused by the invoice which says that the meter was read on 17 February 2025.
The landlord provided a water rates invoice for $269.89 which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I have also sighted an email from Watercare confirming that no meter readings were undertaken during the tenancy.
I am therefore satisfied that the amount claimed reflects the difference between the estimated and actual usage for the duration of the tenancy.

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. Cleaning:
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claims a cleaning fee of $350.00. The landlord says that the premises were not left clean. They say there was rubbish left in the pantry.
The tenants state they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They say they also arranged for professional carpet cleaning. They stated that the items left behind were there at the start of the tenancy and that they felt it was not for them to remove these items.
The landlord has not provided photographic evidence in support of a claim for cleaning other than three photographs showing some items left in a pantry and kitchen plates left on the sink. At the very least I would have expected detailed entry inspection photographic evidence taken at the start of the tenancy on 10 February 2024 and similar photographic evidence of the exit inspection taken shortly after the tenants had vacated.
In the absence of this evidence I am not able to assess the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The claim for cleaning must therefore be dismissed. Rubbish removal:
The landlord claims that the tenants left two recycling bins full of rubbish which had to be removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had to pay a ‘dump fee’ to remove the contents.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. The landlord also provided a receipt from Auckland Council dated 21 January 2025 for $45.00. The claim is reasonable. Having sighted the evidence filed in support I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the amount claimed.
The claim for rubbish removal is proven. Light bulbs:
The landlord claims that they had to replace over 30 light bulbs at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants say that approximately 20 lights were not working within the first couple of months of the tenancy.
The tenants say that they notified the landlord and was told that they would need to pay for these. The tenants felt that they should not have to pay given that some of these were not working at the start of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is $246.64. The landlord described them as recess screw in bulbs. The landlord provided payment receipts for the light bulbs from Mitre 10.
During the hearing the tenants accepted a degree of responsibility for some of the light bulbs. Although the evidence provided by the landlord is support of this claim is scant, I find that a fair approach is to allow the claim but reduce the amount claimed by half given that the tenants accept partial responsible for some of the light bulbs.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for light bulbs and reduce the amount awarded to $123.32.

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 landlord claims that the following items were damaged and had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy: Bathroom tap:
The landlord says that the bathroom tap had to be replaced.
The tenants say the tap started dripping during the week they were moving out. They notified the landlord by email on 13 January 2025.
The landlord claims $294.65 for a replacement tap. Other than an invoice from Urban Edge dated 29 January 2025 there is no other evidence filed in support of this claim. There is also no evidence confirming the age of the tap. Bedroom carpet replacement:
The landlord claims for carpet replacement in the bedroom. The landlord has provided two quotes for this replacement.
The tenants responded by stating that there was a small stain but do not agree with replacing the whole carpet which they say is overkill.
The landlord says that they were not able to replace a small patch which meant the whole carpet had to be replaced. The landlord says that the carpet was new and was installed days before the tenants moved in. The amount claimed is $850.00. Analysis:
The landlord’s claim for bathroom tap and carpet replacement is simply not supported with any evidence.
As recorded above, at the very least I would have expected detailed entry inspection photographic evidence taken at the start of the tenancy on 10 February 2024 and similar photographic evidence of the exit inspection taken shortly after the tenants had vacated. The landlord has not filed any evidence of the tap. There is not even a photograph. There are also no photographs of the carpet whatsoever.
In the absence of this evidence I am not able to assess the state of the carpet and the bathroom tap at the start and end of the tenancy. There is no entry inspection report provided with the landlord’s application confirming the condition of these items at the start of the tenancy. Even if I am wrong in respect of the tap I would nevertheless hold the view that a dripping tap is a maintenance issue more often than not resulting from fair, wear and tear.
Accordingly, the claims for carpet and bathroom tap replacement are dismissed.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the claim relating to ceiling damage caused by a pole is withdrawn.
The parties seek reimbursement of their respective application filing fees. Both parties have had a degree of success with their applications and therefore these costs should lie where they fall. I make no order for reimbursement of the application filing fees.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their proceedings and therefore I do not make an order in respect of name suppression for the landlord.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280577 — Property damage at 163 Scenic Drive, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280577 — Property damage at 163 Scenic Drive, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

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

Frequently asked questions