What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5358602?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5960605-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5358602?

Lawns & Garden: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $1,049.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358602?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Pest Control, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358602?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13292350-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5358602?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5960605-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5358602?

Lawns & Garden: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $1,049.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358602?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Pest Control, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358602?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13292350-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10A Dreadon Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358602 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358602. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Pest control	$1,049.57		Pest control
Lawns & Garden	$172.50		Lawns & Garden

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5960605-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Bhavika Mistry and Harshal Parbhu: $1,222.07 Losaline Tui and Sioeli Tui: $1,977.93

The remaining claims are dismissed. Attendance:

The applicant attended the hearing by video link. The respondent did not attend or answer the phone. Background:

The tenancy commenced on 14 February 2024 and concluded on 21 August 2025. The tenancy was managed by a property manager.

The applicant tells me that they and the property manager are currently involved in a separate dispute before the Disputes Tribunal relating to matters connected with this tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal has not been provided with details of that dispute.

After the tenancy ended, the applicant was dissatisfied with the condition of the property and made an insurance claim. That claim was largely accepted.

The applicant now seeks compensation totalling $9,426.68, comprising: a) $7,600.00 for insurance excesses arising from the claim b) $345.00for lawn mowing and garden maintenance c) $432.11 for water charges d) $1,049.57 for pest control. Civil Burden of Proof

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. This means that the party bringing the application must establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the applicant must show that what they assert is more likely than not to have occurred. This is commonly referred to as the burden of proof.

Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, and photographs are often important in discharging that burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy: “...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.”

I do not need to be completely certain in order to make findings of fact. However, I must be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented, including oral evidence given during the hearing, and weigh that evidence to determine what is most likely. Relevant Legal Considerations

In the context of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, damage to a rental property generally falls into three categories: a) intentional damage b) careless damage c) fair wear and tear

Where a tenant may be held liable for an insurance excess, that excess must be specified in the tenancy agreement. In this case, no such excess is recorded in the agreement. The Landlords evidence:

The Tenancy Tribunal makes its own independent assessment of the claims before it, applying the civil burden of proof in relation to alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

While an insurance claim and the assessment of a loss adjuster may provide supporting evidence, they are not determinative of liability in the Tribunal. The Tribunal must assess the evidence independently and determine whether the applicant has established liability on the balance of probabilities.

During the hearing I noted that many of the claims advanced by the applicant were not supported by the photographic evidence provided. Reliability of the Insurance Assessment

The insurance adjuster’s report largely repeated the claims made by the applicant. The report records that certain conclusions were based on information supplied by the insured and were not independently verified. The report includes the wording: “According to insured, unable to check during our assessment.”

During the hearing the applicant stated that the information relied upon by the assessor had been provided by the property manager not by themselves. This was contradicted by the insurance assessor who gave evidence. They confirmed their reference to the insured was the applicant.

The assessor explained that their report was prepared as a “desktop assessment”, meaning that it was based solely on documentation provided by the claimant. The assessor did not independently inspect the property and had no independent verification of the alleged damage.

In effect, the assessment reflects an evaluation of the claim based on the insured’s description of the damage rather than an independent inspection. Inconsistency with the Inspection Reports

The applicant stated that a number of the repair decisions, including the replacement of the carpets and the garage door motor, were based on the property manager’s assessment.

However, the property managers reports contradict this.

The pre-tenancy inspection report records that the carpets were already worn at the commencement of the tenancy. The exit inspection report records some staining but does not record damage requiring replacement.

The photographs provided indicate that the carpets were largely in a similar condition to that recorded at the commencement of the tenancy, aside from requiring cleaning.

The applicant also stated that the carpets were approximately ten years old. Inland Revenue depreciation guidance indicates an expected useful life of approximately eight years for residential carpet. Accordingly, even if replacement had been required, the carpets were likely fully depreciated.

Similarly, there is no reference in the inspection reports to any failure of the garage door motor requiring replacement. Photographic Evidence

The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show that the property was left unclean and poorly maintained.

However, the photographs do not demonstrate the extent of damage alleged by the applicant or the level of deterioration required to justify many of the claimed repairs which gave rise to the insurance excess. Assessment of the Applicant’s Evidence

The applicants claim are not supported by the property managers exit report and they tell me they never visited the property themselves because they are overseas. It is unclear on what basis they have reached the conclusions that they have or the basis the insurance claim has been granted.

When these issues were put to the applicant during the hearing, the applicant stated that the photographs were not representative of the true condition of the property and suggested that the issues arose from problems with the property management company or other external factors.

However, the Tribunal must determine the case based on the evidence that has been presented. Assessment of the Claims

I accept that the tenants were in breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.

The evidence clearly indicates that the tenants fell well short of this obligation, and the property was left in a very unclean state.

However, the applicant has not sought compensation for cleaning. Instead, the claims advanced relate to damage and repairs, including substantial insurance excesses.

The Tribunal must therefore determine whether the applicant has established that the tenants caused damage beyond fair wear and tear. Bathroom

The applicant claims $1,500 for bathroom repairs.

While the photographs show the bathroom was left very dirty and in poor condition, they do not reflect intentional or careless damage. The condition appears to relate primarily to cleanliness rather than damage requiring repair or replacement.

Accordingly, this claim has not been established on the balance of probabilities. Carpets, Bedrooms, appliance and Rewiring Claims

The applicant seeks recovery of insurance excesses relating to the replacement of carpets in multiple bedrooms, a complete house repaint as well as claims relating to rewiring, appliance replacement and other repairs.

The tenants state that the property contained extensive fleas and soiling.

The photographic evidence establishes that the property was dirty and poorly maintained at the end of the tenancy. However, the photographs do not demonstrate deterioration to the walls or carpets or appliances beyond what would reasonably be expected from ordinary use during a tenancy of this duration except that they were left dirty and in need of extensive cleaning but there is no claim in relation to this.

Importantly: The pre-tenancy inspection report records that the paintwork and carpet were already worn at the commencement of the tenancy.

The report also records that the blinds were broken, which is confirmed by the commencement photographs.

One of the insurance claims relates to blinds and a detached kitchen cupboard door, both of which appear to have been pre-existing issues.

The alleged holes in the walls and significant carpet damage described by the applicant are not visible in the photographs provided. The applicant told me that although it was not clear a discolouration on photograph 372 of the post inspection report was indicative of patchwork done at the end of the tenancy. The same discolouration is apparent in the corresponding photo 142 of the pre inspection report.

The exit inspection report, which is the only contemporaneous inspection evidence provided, confirms that the property was left very unclean, but it does not record the damage now alleged by the applicant.

Given the absence of clear photographic or documentary evidence demonstrating damage beyond fair wear and tear, these claims have not been proven on the balance of probabilities.

They are therefore dismissed. Pest Control

The applicant provided an email thread from Jae Services Limited indicating that specialist carpet treatment and flea treatment were required.

I accept that this treatment was necessary and that the cost was properly incurred.

The claim for $1,049.57 is granted. Lawns and Garden Maintenance

The applicant seeks $345.00 for lawn mowing and garden maintenance.

I accept that the garden was overgrown at the end of the tenancy. However: a) The work was carried out in December, approximately four months after the tenancy ended, and b) The pre-tenancy photographs show that the lawns were already unkempt and the shrubs overgrown at the commencement of the tenancy, not to the extent that it was at the end of the tenancy but nevertheless I must give it some consideration.

In those circumstances, it is appropriate to award half the amount sought.

Accordingly, $172.50 is awarded. Water Charges

The applicant seeks $432.11 for water charges.

The tenants provided an invoice from Watercare dated December which records charges up to the end of November. The tenancy ended on 21 August 2025.

I asked the applicant to explain why water charges had been claimed beyond the end of the tenancy. The applicant was given an opportunity to provide additional invoices after the hearing.

No further invoices or explanation were provided. Filing fee and suppression

I do not consider the applicant to have been wholly or substantially successful in their application and therefore have not awarded the filing fee or granted suppression. H Ben Fayed 16 March 2026

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358602. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Pest control	$1,049.57		Pest control
Lawns & Garden	$172.50		Lawns & Garden