What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5367423?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Millar must pay Port Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5367423?

Rent Arrears: $2,855.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $259.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367423?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367423?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12987036-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5367423?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Millar must pay Port Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5367423?

Rent Arrears: $2,855.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $259.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367423?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367423?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12987036-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Tasman Street, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367423 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367423 — net $635.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,855.71	Rent arrears
Water rates	$259.61	Water rates
Net award	$635.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$635.32

Order

Natasha Millar must pay Port Property Management Limited As Agent For Baldev And Sukhjit Singh Karde & Kaur $635.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5842203-006) to Port Property Management Limited As Agent For Baldev And Sukhjit Singh Karde & Kaur immediately.
The landlord’s claims for methamphetamine decontamination costs and damage to the carpet are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended todays in person hearing.
The tenant lived in the property from 8 July 2023 until the 22 September 2025. The tenancy ended after the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day termination notice.
The claim was filed on the 15 October 2025 by the property management firm. The property manager who managed the property during the tenancy has now left the employment of the property management firm. Mr Crisp and Ms Seymour attended today on behalf of the property management firm and Ms Kaur one of the owners also attended. The claims
The landlord confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that they were seeking: • Rent arrears of $2855.72 • Water rates of $259.61 • Cost of repairing damaged carpet in bedroom $617.55 • Costs of decontamination from methamphetamine contamination. Methamphetamine.
The landlord accepted that it had not incurred any costs for methamphetamine decontamination. I have therefore dismissed the landlord’s claims for methamphetamine decontamination because the landlord has not suffered any loss. I also record: a. That the methamphetamine tests are composite testing and only give theoretical maximums, they do not show specific or individual levels of contamination, therefore the Tribunal cannot assess if the methamphetamine levels reach the threshold that would require decontamination for individual areas. b. I was not provided with any ingoing methamphetamine tests, which I could compare results with. c. The levels detected on the 6 October were well below the level of contamination that the Tribunal considers requires remediation and composite one was below the New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5ug per 100 cm. Rent and Water rates.
The tenant accepted that she owed rent arrears and water rates. She says that she has a counterclaim- that the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory because it was motivated by the tenant asking for maintenance to be done. The tenant says that she thought that her claims would be determined today as part of this hearing of the landlord’s claims.
The Tribunal must have a claim filed by a party in order to determine the claim. The other party has to be made aware what the applicant is claiming before the hearing so that they can prepare their defence to the claims.
If the tenant has a claim that she wants heard by the Tribunal then she should file a claim in the Tribunal. I accept that the tenant genuinely thought that her claims could be dealt with as part and parcel with the landlord’s claims and that she did not need to file any further documentation, therefore I consider that the tenant should be allowed to file her claims, and that the Tribunal can hear those separately.
I do not consider it fair to further delay determinations of the landlord’s claims because the tenancy ended 4 months ago, and the landlord filed their claims within a month of the tenancy ending. The landlord is entitled to an expeditious resolution of their claims, and I consider that the fairest way forward is to determine the landlord’s claims, but to allow the tenant to file her own claim which can be determined at a later date.
I therefore award the landlord the rent and water owed by the tenant. The landlord provided ledgers for the rent and the water which prove the amounts owing. Carpet
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the carpet in bedroom 2 by ‘burning’ it. The landlord provided photographs taken by the agent at the outgoing inspection on the 30 October 2025, approximately 5 weeks after the tenancy ended. The photographs show a mark on the carpet of bedroom 2. The accompanying description by the agent reads: Carpet is rotting in some areas and very worn stains and marks. Brown loop pile carpet throughout with several noticeable stains and heavy wear, particularly next to the door. Area of pile damage next to the skirting board.
The tenant says that she never burned the carpet, and the pile damage looks to be in the shape of a pot plant that she had in the area. She said that during the tenancy she noticed that water had leaked from the pot plant, but when she noticed she immediately moved the plant. She says that she did not damage the carpet, and even if the damage was from the plant that the carpet was very old and worn and was at the end of its life.
The landlord says that it has replaced the carpet by patching it in December 2025 for a cost of $617.55, and that it has lodged an insurance claim.
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.
Having considered all the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for the carpet damage for the following reasons: a. There were no comparable photographs provided from the ingoing inspection. The ingoing inspection reports notes that the carpet in Bedroom 3 (as that bedroom is described in the report) has one stain- but does not give the location of the stain. I am not satisfied that the stain referred to in the ingoing tenancy report is not the same as the mark that the landlord seeks compensation for here. b. The carpet throughout the house appears old and beyond its lifespan. The landlord estimated that the carpet is 6-7 years old and says it was in very good condition when the landlord purchased the property in 2022. I have no photographs that show me the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. c. The property was inspected regularly throughout the tenancy and the issue of the staining/ damage was never raised with the tenant. d. The description of the carpet as rotting and heavily worn in the outgoing inspection report, describe a carpet that is older and at the end of its life. I consider that this carpet is due for replacement due to its age and worn condition not due to anything that the tenant has done. e. The problem with the carpet were not raised with the tenant until mid- October almost a month after the tenancy ended. This was despite the landlord raising other issues with the tenant about damage at the property, which the tenant disputed. The filing fee.
As the landlord has only proven two out of four of its claims, I do not award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367423 — net $635.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,855.71	Rent arrears
Water rates	$259.61	Water rates
Net award	$635.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$635.32

Order

Natasha Millar must pay Port Property Management Limited As Agent For Baldev And Sukhjit Singh Karde & Kaur $635.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5842203-006) to Port Property Management Limited As Agent For Baldev And Sukhjit Singh Karde & Kaur immediately.
The landlord’s claims for methamphetamine decontamination costs and damage to the carpet are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended todays in person hearing.
The tenant lived in the property from 8 July 2023 until the 22 September 2025. The tenancy ended after the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day termination notice.
The claim was filed on the 15 October 2025 by the property management firm. The property manager who managed the property during the tenancy has now left the employment of the property management firm. Mr Crisp and Ms Seymour attended today on behalf of the property management firm and Ms Kaur one of the owners also attended. The claims
The landlord confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that they were seeking: • Rent arrears of $2855.72 • Water rates of $259.61 • Cost of repairing damaged carpet in bedroom $617.55 • Costs of decontamination from methamphetamine contamination. Methamphetamine.
The landlord accepted that it had not incurred any costs for methamphetamine decontamination. I have therefore dismissed the landlord’s claims for methamphetamine decontamination because the landlord has not suffered any loss. I also record: a. That the methamphetamine tests are composite testing and only give theoretical maximums, they do not show specific or individual levels of contamination, therefore the Tribunal cannot assess if the methamphetamine levels reach the threshold that would require decontamination for individual areas. b. I was not provided with any ingoing methamphetamine tests, which I could compare results with. c. The levels detected on the 6 October were well below the level of contamination that the Tribunal considers requires remediation and composite one was below the New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5ug per 100 cm. Rent and Water rates.
The tenant accepted that she owed rent arrears and water rates. She says that she has a counterclaim- that the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory because it was motivated by the tenant asking for maintenance to be done. The tenant says that she thought that her claims would be determined today as part of this hearing of the landlord’s claims.
The Tribunal must have a claim filed by a party in order to determine the claim. The other party has to be made aware what the applicant is claiming before the hearing so that they can prepare their defence to the claims.
If the tenant has a claim that she wants heard by the Tribunal then she should file a claim in the Tribunal. I accept that the tenant genuinely thought that her claims could be dealt with as part and parcel with the landlord’s claims and that she did not need to file any further documentation, therefore I consider that the tenant should be allowed to file her claims, and that the Tribunal can hear those separately.
I do not consider it fair to further delay determinations of the landlord’s claims because the tenancy ended 4 months ago, and the landlord filed their claims within a month of the tenancy ending. The landlord is entitled to an expeditious resolution of their claims, and I consider that the fairest way forward is to determine the landlord’s claims, but to allow the tenant to file her own claim which can be determined at a later date.
I therefore award the landlord the rent and water owed by the tenant. The landlord provided ledgers for the rent and the water which prove the amounts owing. Carpet
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the carpet in bedroom 2 by ‘burning’ it. The landlord provided photographs taken by the agent at the outgoing inspection on the 30 October 2025, approximately 5 weeks after the tenancy ended. The photographs show a mark on the carpet of bedroom 2. The accompanying description by the agent reads: Carpet is rotting in some areas and very worn stains and marks. Brown loop pile carpet throughout with several noticeable stains and heavy wear, particularly next to the door. Area of pile damage next to the skirting board.
The tenant says that she never burned the carpet, and the pile damage looks to be in the shape of a pot plant that she had in the area. She said that during the tenancy she noticed that water had leaked from the pot plant, but when she noticed she immediately moved the plant. She says that she did not damage the carpet, and even if the damage was from the plant that the carpet was very old and worn and was at the end of its life.
The landlord says that it has replaced the carpet by patching it in December 2025 for a cost of $617.55, and that it has lodged an insurance claim.
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.
Having considered all the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for the carpet damage for the following reasons: a. There were no comparable photographs provided from the ingoing inspection. The ingoing inspection reports notes that the carpet in Bedroom 3 (as that bedroom is described in the report) has one stain- but does not give the location of the stain. I am not satisfied that the stain referred to in the ingoing tenancy report is not the same as the mark that the landlord seeks compensation for here. b. The carpet throughout the house appears old and beyond its lifespan. The landlord estimated that the carpet is 6-7 years old and says it was in very good condition when the landlord purchased the property in 2022. I have no photographs that show me the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. c. The property was inspected regularly throughout the tenancy and the issue of the staining/ damage was never raised with the tenant. d. The description of the carpet as rotting and heavily worn in the outgoing inspection report, describe a carpet that is older and at the end of its life. I consider that this carpet is due for replacement due to its age and worn condition not due to anything that the tenant has done. e. The problem with the carpet were not raised with the tenant until mid- October almost a month after the tenancy ended. This was despite the landlord raising other issues with the tenant about damage at the property, which the tenant disputed. The filing fee.
As the landlord has only proven two out of four of its claims, I do not award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367423 — Rent arrears at 3 Tasman Street, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367423 — Rent arrears at 3 Tasman Street, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions