How much money was awarded in case 5360966?

Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $463.51 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,340.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $435.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $182.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360966?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360966?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13129414-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5360966?

Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $463.51 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,340.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $435.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $182.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360966?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360966?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13129414-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43A Savoy Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360966 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5360966?

The tribunal order states: Lidija Cowan must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360966 — net $2,281.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/07/2025	$3,340.00		Rent arrears to 22/07/2025
Water rates arrears to 22/07/2025	$182.37		Water rates arrears to 22/07/2025
Cleaning	$862.50		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$95.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$50.00		Repairs
Rubbish removal: Skip	$435.00		Rubbish removal: Skip
Rubbish removal: Labour	$300.00		Rubbish removal: Labour
Compensation for Healthy Homes Breach		$463.51	Compensation for Healthy Homes Breach
Total award	$5,264.87	$463.51
Net award	$2,281.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,281.36

Lidija Cowan must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Toni Mcdell $2,281.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The bond centre is to refund the bond of $2520.00 (BN-00037338) to Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Toni Mcdell immediately.

The previous order on this same application number dated 03/11/2025 is superseded by this order and is not enforceable.

The bond was not credited as part of the award on that order also.

This order corrects those two matters. Attendance:

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:

The tenancy at the premises was terminated on 22 July 2025 by order of the Tenancy Tribunal.

The landlord claims the following sums owing by the tenant: a) Rent arrears to 22 July 2025 : $3,340.00 b) Water rate arrears to 22 July 2025 :$182.37 c) Cleaning costs : $862.50 d) Lawn mowing costs : $95.00 e) Compensation for repair costs : $873.16 f) Rubbish removal : $435.00 for skip hire and $300.00 for labour

The total amount sought is $6,085.03.

The tenant alleges that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards, asserting that the premises failed to comply with the draught stopping standard. The tenant claims compensation of $463.51 in respect of this alleged non- compliance. The Burden of Proof:

In assessing the claims of both parties, I must apply the civil burden of proof. In all proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal, the usual civil law standards and expectations apply. This means that it is for the party bringing the claim to establish their case on the balance of probabilities, that is, to show that what they assert is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, and photographic evidence are important tools in discharging this burden.

As observed by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “...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 am not required to be completely certain in reaching my decision; rather, I must be more certain than uncertain. In determining each claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented, including any oral testimony given at the hearing, and weigh that evidence to decide what is more likely to have occurred.

Is the tenant liable for the rent and water arrears?

The applicant has provided rent and water account records evidencing the amounts owing. I am satisfied that these records accurately reflect the arrears. Furthermore, the tenant has acknowledged that these figures are correct. Accordingly, rent arrears and water arrears are awarded as claimed.

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal invoices?

Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and to remove all rubbish. I have reviewed the documentary and photographic evidence provided by the landlord and am satisfied that the tenant breached these obligations. Accordingly, the costs claimed by the landlord are justified. The amounts of $862.50 for cleaning, $95.00 for lawn and garden work, $435.00 for the hire of the skip bin, and $300.00 for labour to load the skip bin are therefore awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the repair invoice?

The applicant has sought an award of $873.16 for various repairs undertaken at the property. The invoice provides some indication of the nature of the work carried out; however, it is not fully itemised in a way that allows me to determine exactly how much of the total relates to each item of work.

The evidence shows that one of the works completed was the replacement of the back door with a new solid door. The damage to the original door involved a cracked glass pane. The landlord decided to replace the entire door, asserting that it was more efficient to do so. In assessing this claim, I am required to consider the principles of betterment and depreciation. As I cannot ascertain how much of the total invoice relates specifically to the door, I must make an estimate. It is my view that accounting for betterment and depreciation the cost of the door replacement would at most be neutral and no cost is therefore awarded.

The invoice also states that a panel was installed over a broken window in the garage. The applicant does not know how the alleged damage occurred, and the respondent was likewise unable to provide any information regarding the cause. The photographs show that the garage is aged, and on the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied of what the damage was or how it occurred and can therefore make no award.

The invoice further advised that the locks on the garage door were replaced. However, no information was provided about the nature or circumstances of the damage. Given the age of the garage and the lock, and the limited clarity of the photographic evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant.

The applicant also undertook reinstatement of a hallway door handle. The tenant accepts that this was removed but say it was loose and not their fault. They say that they informed the landlord of this damage during an inspection and that the missing handle had been kept in the refrigerator. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant was carelessly or intentionally responsible for this damage as it is consistent with the care with which they treated the property as evidenced in the photos.

The invoice also referred to a replacement tap in the laundry. The photograph provided shows that the laundry taps are extremely aged, likely more than three decades old. The applicant was unable to provide any context as to how this damage occurred. I am not satisfied that the tenant caused any damage to the taps.

Based on the evidence and the total cost of the repair invoice, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the hallway door handle and the cracked glass in the back door. However, after accounting for depreciation and betterment in relation to the replacement of the door, no award can be made for that item. Accordingly, I award the sum of $50.00 towards the cost of replacing the door handle. Was the landlord compliant with the healthy homes standards and if not is compensation appropriate?

The tenant, in support of their allegation of a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards, has provided a photograph of a door showing a gap exceeding 3mm, which is inconsistent with the draught stopping requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards.

Furthermore, The applicant has produced a Healthy Homes Report which was commissioned at the conclusion of this tenancy in defence of this claim. However, the report itself confirms in multiple areas that there were breaches of the draught stopping standards requiring rectification. The applicant advised that no prior Healthy Homes assessment had been undertaken and that the only record available was a landlord checklist, which was not provided.

On the balance of probabilities, I accept the tenant’s position and am satisfied that the landlord was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards during the tenancy. The tenant has sought compensation of $463.51, being the amount of one electricity bill they provided. While I am not satisfied that the entire electricity cost is directly attributable to the landlord’s non-compliance, I accept that the landlord was in breach of the standard for the duration of the tenancy, and that the amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly, compensation of $463.51 is awarded. Filing fee and Suppression:

Both parties have made applications to the Tenancy Tribunal. I do not consider the outcome of this hearing to be wholly or substantially successful for either party. As such, each party is to bear their own filing fee. No suppression orders are granted. H Ben Fayed 16 February 2026

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360966 — net $2,281.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/07/2025	$3,340.00		Rent arrears to 22/07/2025
Water rates arrears to 22/07/2025	$182.37		Water rates arrears to 22/07/2025
Cleaning	$862.50		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$95.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$50.00		Repairs
Rubbish removal: Skip	$435.00		Rubbish removal: Skip
Rubbish removal: Labour	$300.00		Rubbish removal: Labour
Compensation for Healthy Homes Breach		$463.51	Compensation for Healthy Homes Breach
Total award	$5,264.87	$463.51
Net award	$2,281.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,281.36

Lidija Cowan must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Toni Mcdell $2,281.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The bond centre is to refund the bond of $2520.00 (BN-00037338) to Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Toni Mcdell immediately.

The previous order on this same application number dated 03/11/2025 is superseded by this order and is not enforceable.

The bond was not credited as part of the award on that order also.

This order corrects those two matters. Attendance:

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:

The tenancy at the premises was terminated on 22 July 2025 by order of the Tenancy Tribunal.

The total amount sought is $6,085.03.

Is the tenant liable for the rent and water arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal invoices?

Is the tenant liable for the repair invoice?

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360966 — Rent arrears at 43A Savoy Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360966 — Rent arrears at 43A Savoy Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the rent and water arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal invoices?

Is the tenant liable for the repair invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the rent and water arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal invoices?

Is the tenant liable for the repair invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions