Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5313982 — Cleanliness at 20 Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104
Decided 11 March 2026 · Published 11 March 2026 · Application 5313982
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
Order
- Mohammed Aiyaz Munaf and Ranjita Kumari must pay 2020 Property Management And Advisory Services Limited As Agent For Jattan Family Trust $575.88 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 3 March 2026. The hearing closed on 10 March 2026 after the parties were given an opportunity to file further evidence.
- The parties tended to dispute what was said by the other party and it has been necessary to review the documentation provided carefully to find corroborative evidence. It has not been possible for the Tribunal to reconcile all the conflicting information. Background
- The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 22 November 2021 to 22 November 2022 at a weekly rent of $700.00. A bond of $3,120.00 was paid and lodged at the Bond Centre.
- The tenants vacated on 31 August 2025. The tenants applied to the Tribunal on 27 May 2025 and the landlord filed an application on 26 September 2025. The bond of $3,120.00 has been refunded to the tenant. Tenants’ Application Unlawful Entry / Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
- The tenants said the landlord entered the property without giving notice on multiple occasions. Two incidents were identified, the first on 12 February 2025 when the owner attended at the premises to remove two large palm trees. The landlord said she messaged the tenant about the visit to cut down the palm trees, so that the tenant would remove his car. The owner said they started cutting the trees down at 8.30am and the work (including removal) was completed by 6pm.
- The second incident occurred on 27 June 2025, when a contractor attended to fix a damaged chimney. The tenant emailed the property manager on 23 June 2025, advising that rainwater was entering through the chimney. The landlord replied that a builder would attend the following day. The landlord’s contractor first attended on 24 June 2025 and had to return with a new part on 27 June 2025. In a text message on 27 June 2025, the landlord told the tenant she had not known the roofer was coming back then but noted that the tenant had given consent to outside maintenance.
- The landlord did not need to go near the house to cut down the palm trees, which were positioned right at the front boundary, perhaps 20 meters from the house. Nor was it necessary for the landlord to enter the house to fix the chimney. Even if the landlord or the builder did enter to check for leaks from the chimney, the matter was quite urgent given the tenant’s concerns. Alternatively, I find that 24 hours’ notice of necessary maintenance had been given. I find on the balance of probabilities that no unlawful entry, as defined in section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) has occurred.
- However, there was probably a breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord when the palm trees were removed, and therefore a breach of section 38 of the Act. The text message relied on by the landlord was sent on 21 April 2025, so it did not give notice of the work in February 2025. Further, the tree cutting was performed quite early in the morning and continued until the evening. The tenant, who was working a night shift at the time, said he was disturbed by the landlord knocking on the door to request that he move his car. I consider a modest award of compensation is appropriate. I award $150.00.
- The tenants claimed that one of the bedrooms had a mouldy ceiling. The owner said the close-up photographs (showing mould around a light fitting) were not of his house. The tenants provided a video recorded prior to moving out. The video did not show the allegedly mouldy ceiling. It is difficult to understand why there would be mould in one room and not any others, although this could possibly relate to the chimney, as the tenants claimed. On the limited evidence available, I am not satisfied that there was a long-standing issue with mould in the bedroom, or that this related to a maintenance issue which the landlord failed to address.
- In relation to the tenant’s healthy homes concerns more generally, I find it has not been established that the Healthy Homes Standards were breached. A Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 10 November 2020 found the premises to be compliant at that time. A Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 2 September 2025 also found no issues. Landlord’s Application Driveway
- The landlord claimed $5,157.00 for the cost of repairing the driveway. The landlord said the tenant parked his truck there, and that the cracking had occurred where the wheels were. The landlord provided photographs and screenshots from Google said to show the driveway in good condition prior to the tenancy. The tenant said he knew his truck was heavy. He did not park it on the driveway and had been warned not to. I have not seen a photograph which shows the truck parked on the driveway. There are several showing it parked on the road.
- It is possible that the cracking visible on the driveway was caused by shrinkage and the degradation of the concrete over time. The cracking is not obviously where the truck would have parked. In the absence of evidence that the tenant parked his truck on the driveway, I decline to award the cost of repair. Cleaning and Rubbish Removal
- The landlord claimed $600.00 for cleaning and $200.00 for the cost of running dehumidifiers after the tenants cleaned the carpet before moving out. The landlord said the carpet was left soaking wet. This was confirmed by a trades person who attended at the premises on 3 September 2025 to fix the shower and gave evidence at the hearing. A new tenant moved in on 6 September 2025. In an email to the owner on 18 September 2025, she stated that there was no hot water because the gas had been disconnected. The floor was: “...very wet, and I had to run a dehumidifier continuously for three days in order to dry the water out of the rug.”
- My understanding is that the tenants hired a professional carpet cleaner, as shown in their photographs. The tenants said they asked the contractor to return and dry the carpet. The landlord also said the carpet cleaner was asked to return and extract excess water. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the tenants were careless in the way they cleaned the carpet. Any carelessness was by the cleaner. I decline to award the cost of dehumidifiers.
- The landlord’s photographs show rubbish in the yard (including empty vape cartridges) a dirty shower tray, and the front door area, which the landlord said had not been cleaned. In an email dated 21 September 2025 the ingoing tenant stated that the oven was “extremely dirty with grease and fat inside”, and this is also recorded in the inspection record dated 1 September 2025.
- I find that the rubbish in the yard needed to be removed, and the shower and oven were not reasonably clean. The photographs and videos provided by the tenant, however, give the impression that the premises were left in a reasonable condition overall. I award $100.00 for tidying the yard and $200.00 for cleaning.
- The landlord said the tenant had dumped gravel in the yard without permission. The tenant said the owner asked them to bring the gravel onto the yard due to muddy ground. The tenant said the landlord did not ask them about it afterwards.
- There was no invoice for the cost of gravel removal ($977.50). The same company which was engaged to repair the driveway has apparently handwritten the cost of removal on the quotation. The landlord’s photographs do show gravel next to the driveway and in other areas. The owner denied giving consent for this to be brought onto the property.
- I doubt whether the owner would have agreed to the gravel being spread around as it appears to have been. The difficulty is that there is no adequate support for the high cost of removal. I award damages to reflect loss of amenity in the sum of $100.00. Power Point and Window Latches
- The landlord claimed that the tenant’s rice cooker damaged a power point. An electrician attended on about 27 April 2023 and recorded in the invoice: “Call out to check kitchen benchtop power point damaged. Damage due to impact. Check power point MCB tripping due to faulty rice cooker”.
- The tenants said they bought a brand-new rice cooker which “blew up”. It is not clear that the tenants misused the appliance. However, the electrician clearly thought there had been physical damage to the power point. There is a photograph of a cracked power point. I note that the electrician charged $140.88 for the replacement. I award this amount.
- The landlord said there were damaged latches in the lounge. The landlord has provided photographs showing missing latches on one window. A handyman was hired to repair and refit the stays and latches ($100.00). There is no invoice for this because the tradesman was paid in cash. The tenants denied causing this damage.
- I am unable to resolve the conflict in the evidence for the reasons already alluded to, namely the lack of corroborating evidence and the tendency of each party to deny what was said by the other party. I decline to award the cost of replacing the latches. Gas Disconnection
- The gas was disconnected, and the incoming tenant was charged for its reconnection, which the owner reimbursed ($185.00). The tenants said they connected the gas when they moved in and had to close their account at the end of the tenancy. The effect of this was to disconnect the supply.
- In my view, it ought to have been possible for the tenant to close their account with the gas supplier, without the supply itself being disconnected. A disconnection would more likely be caused by safety concerns or payment issues. The effect of the disconnection was that there was no hot water for the incoming tenant.
- While the owner would ordinarily be expected to pay for connection or disconnection, the tenants are liable for costs incurred during the tenancy that are attributable to their occupation and use of the premises (section 39 of the Act). The gas would probably not have been disconnected if the tenants had not requested this and therefore the connection charge relates to their occupation. I award the reconnection charge. Filing Fee and Suppression
- Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.
- The landlord requested suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful (section 95A). I decline suppression