What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361911?

The tribunal order states: Danica Falanitama to pay J & Jk Deol Properties Limited $360.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5361911?

Lawn Mowing: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361911?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12944230-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361911?

The tribunal order states: Danica Falanitama to pay J & Jk Deol Properties Limited $360.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5361911?

Lawn Mowing: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361911?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12944230-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Dissmeyer Drive, Clover Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361911 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361911 — net $360.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$50.00	14. By consent I order the tenant to pay $50 for removal of tyres and $50 for lawn mowing.
Lawn mowing	$50.00	14. By consent I order the tenant to pay $50 for removal of tyres and $50 for lawn mowing.
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn restoration	$60.00	29. By consent I order the tenant to pay $60 for the lawn restoration as a result of damage by the tenant’s dog.
Repairs: Wall repairs	$100.00	Repairs: Wall repairs
Rubbish removal - remove lawn clippings and rubbish	$100.00	Rubbish removal - remove lawn clippings and rubbish
Net award	$360.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$360.00

Order

Danica Falanitama to pay J & Jk Deol Properties Limited $360.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5056215-005) immediately apportioned as follows: J & Jk Deol Properties Limited: $360.00 Danica Falanitama: $2,040.00

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenancy commenced in December 2020 and ended in September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
There are two tenants named on the tenancy agreement, namely Danica Falanitatama and Thomas Tofilau. Ms Tofilau was not named in the application however, he has emailed the Tribunal to confirm he vacated in 2021 and has no interest in the bond. Relevant legal considerations
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 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 1 , 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.”

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 5
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect. Cleaning / rubbish removal / lawns:
By consent I order the tenant to pay $50 for removal of tyres and $50 for lawn mowing.
The disputed claims relate to general cleaning ($400 claimed) and removal of rubbish and lawn clippings (and some rubbish) next to the transformer ($150 claimed).
The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim for cleaning and oral evidence that the property required cleaning however he did not provide any photographs in support of the claim for the interior cleaning.
The tenant provided witness statements, oral evidence and a video recording of the date that she vacated the premises to show that she left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In the absence of any photographs corroborating the landlord’s oral evidence that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy I find the landlord has not proven the claim for general cleaning and it is dismissed. However, I also note that the tenant’s video recording shows that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, in any event. 2 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.
The tenant accepted placing some lawn clippings next to the transformer that sits outside the tenancy premises. However, the tenant says it had been approximately 12 months since she had placed lawn clippings next to the transformer and she says that other neighbouring tenants had also placed their lawn clippings next to the transformer.
I accept that other neighbours may have placed lawn clippings next to the transformer, however as the landlord has had to remove the lawn clippings I consider it reasonable that the tenant reimburse the landlord part of the amount claimed and it reasonable that the tenant contribute $100.00 towards the cost of removing the lawn clippings, particularly given the tenancy had been ongoing for approximately 4 years before the tenant says she stopped placing the lawn clippings next to the transformer.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 6 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 7
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 8
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). 9
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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11 6 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 7 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 8 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 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. 12
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. 13
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
By consent I order the tenant to pay $60 for the lawn restoration as a result of damage by the tenant’s dog. Wall damage
The landlord says three walls were damaged during the tenancy. He claims $300 in respect of three rooms with wall damage. Tv mounting damage:
The tenant accepted causing damage where her TV was mounted in the living room and acknowledged that $100 of this would reasonably reflect this damage. That damage is more that fair wear and tear. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice, oral evidence and photographs of the damage. Dark feature wall damage
Another area of damage is a dark feature wall in the living area which the landlord says had three plastered and unpainted spots which the landlord says was present at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed causing the damage, suggesting it was caused after she vacated. She provided a time- stamped video taken on the day she vacated the tenancy which shows the damage was not present. The landlord suggested the video recording was not taken on the day the tenant vacated. The tenant provided evidence to confirm 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. that the date stamp was accurate and the large wardrobe that I understand was in the first bedroom at the commencement of the tenancy was in the second bedroom in the video (where it had been moved to during the tenancy), indicating the video was more likely taken at the end of the tenancy. While I accept that the damage where the tv had been mounted is not visible in the video I accept that is likely because of the quality of the camera and the speed and distance by which the camera went passed the area where the tv was mounted.
The landlord did not provide date stamped photographs of the wall damage therefore I find that the landlord has not proven that this damage was caused during this tenancy. Main bedroom damage
The landlord claims that the main bedroom walls were damaged by way of a large poorly plastered area next to a light switch and a gouge and dent in the area where the tenant’s headboard was.
The tenant accepts that a small dent was caused by her headboard. In my view, on review on the nature and extent of the damage, the damage is fair wear and tear and this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided photographs of the wall and there is a gouge in the headboard wall, however the tenant says this was present at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide pre-tenancy photographs to show that the damage was not present at the commencement of the tenancy. It is for the landlord to prove the claim. I consider the landlord has not proven that the gouge to the headboard was caused during this tenancy and this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also says that the large area of wall damage next to the light switch was present at the commencement of the tenancy and was behind a large wardrobe which was moved by the tenant in approximately 2021 at which time the damage behind the wardrobe became visible. The landlord did not provide any pre-tenancy photographs or photographs from during the tenancy of this area in support of the claim. While the damage does appear to be more than fair wear and tear the landlord has not proven the damage was caused during the tenancy and this claim is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be distributed to the parties as set out in the order. Filing Fee
Both parties have been partly successful with their claims, however I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee to them both as they would effectively cancel each other out. Suppression
On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361911 — net $360.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$50.00	14. By consent I order the tenant to pay $50 for removal of tyres and $50 for lawn mowing.
Lawn mowing	$50.00	14. By consent I order the tenant to pay $50 for removal of tyres and $50 for lawn mowing.
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn restoration	$60.00	29. By consent I order the tenant to pay $60 for the lawn restoration as a result of damage by the tenant’s dog.
Repairs: Wall repairs	$100.00	Repairs: Wall repairs
Rubbish removal - remove lawn clippings and rubbish	$100.00	Rubbish removal - remove lawn clippings and rubbish
Net award	$360.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$360.00

Order

Danica Falanitama to pay J & Jk Deol Properties Limited $360.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5056215-005) immediately apportioned as follows: J & Jk Deol Properties Limited: $360.00 Danica Falanitama: $2,040.00

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenancy commenced in December 2020 and ended in September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
There are two tenants named on the tenancy agreement, namely Danica Falanitatama and Thomas Tofilau. Ms Tofilau was not named in the application however, he has emailed the Tribunal to confirm he vacated in 2021 and has no interest in the bond. Relevant legal considerations
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 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 1 , 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.”

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 5
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect. Cleaning / rubbish removal / lawns:
By consent I order the tenant to pay $50 for removal of tyres and $50 for lawn mowing.
The disputed claims relate to general cleaning ($400 claimed) and removal of rubbish and lawn clippings (and some rubbish) next to the transformer ($150 claimed).
The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim for cleaning and oral evidence that the property required cleaning however he did not provide any photographs in support of the claim for the interior cleaning.
The tenant provided witness statements, oral evidence and a video recording of the date that she vacated the premises to show that she left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In the absence of any photographs corroborating the landlord’s oral evidence that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy I find the landlord has not proven the claim for general cleaning and it is dismissed. However, I also note that the tenant’s video recording shows that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, in any event. 2 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.
The tenant accepted placing some lawn clippings next to the transformer that sits outside the tenancy premises. However, the tenant says it had been approximately 12 months since she had placed lawn clippings next to the transformer and she says that other neighbouring tenants had also placed their lawn clippings next to the transformer.
I accept that other neighbours may have placed lawn clippings next to the transformer, however as the landlord has had to remove the lawn clippings I consider it reasonable that the tenant reimburse the landlord part of the amount claimed and it reasonable that the tenant contribute $100.00 towards the cost of removing the lawn clippings, particularly given the tenancy had been ongoing for approximately 4 years before the tenant says she stopped placing the lawn clippings next to the transformer.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 6 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 7
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 8
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). 9
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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11 6 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 7 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 8 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 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. 12
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. 13
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
By consent I order the tenant to pay $60 for the lawn restoration as a result of damage by the tenant’s dog. Wall damage
The landlord says three walls were damaged during the tenancy. He claims $300 in respect of three rooms with wall damage. Tv mounting damage:
The tenant accepted causing damage where her TV was mounted in the living room and acknowledged that $100 of this would reasonably reflect this damage. That damage is more that fair wear and tear. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice, oral evidence and photographs of the damage. Dark feature wall damage
Another area of damage is a dark feature wall in the living area which the landlord says had three plastered and unpainted spots which the landlord says was present at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed causing the damage, suggesting it was caused after she vacated. She provided a time- stamped video taken on the day she vacated the tenancy which shows the damage was not present. The landlord suggested the video recording was not taken on the day the tenant vacated. The tenant provided evidence to confirm 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. that the date stamp was accurate and the large wardrobe that I understand was in the first bedroom at the commencement of the tenancy was in the second bedroom in the video (where it had been moved to during the tenancy), indicating the video was more likely taken at the end of the tenancy. While I accept that the damage where the tv had been mounted is not visible in the video I accept that is likely because of the quality of the camera and the speed and distance by which the camera went passed the area where the tv was mounted.
The landlord did not provide date stamped photographs of the wall damage therefore I find that the landlord has not proven that this damage was caused during this tenancy. Main bedroom damage
The landlord claims that the main bedroom walls were damaged by way of a large poorly plastered area next to a light switch and a gouge and dent in the area where the tenant’s headboard was.
The tenant accepts that a small dent was caused by her headboard. In my view, on review on the nature and extent of the damage, the damage is fair wear and tear and this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided photographs of the wall and there is a gouge in the headboard wall, however the tenant says this was present at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide pre-tenancy photographs to show that the damage was not present at the commencement of the tenancy. It is for the landlord to prove the claim. I consider the landlord has not proven that the gouge to the headboard was caused during this tenancy and this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also says that the large area of wall damage next to the light switch was present at the commencement of the tenancy and was behind a large wardrobe which was moved by the tenant in approximately 2021 at which time the damage behind the wardrobe became visible. The landlord did not provide any pre-tenancy photographs or photographs from during the tenancy of this area in support of the claim. While the damage does appear to be more than fair wear and tear the landlord has not proven the damage was caused during the tenancy and this claim is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be distributed to the parties as set out in the order. Filing Fee
Both parties have been partly successful with their claims, however I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee to them both as they would effectively cancel each other out. Suppression
On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361911 — Property damage at 29 Dissmeyer Drive, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361911 — Property damage at 29 Dissmeyer Drive, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions