What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381084?

The tribunal order states: Iad Siddawi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,093.67

How much money was awarded in case 5381084?

Cleaning: $54.45 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $615.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $407.89 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $215.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381084?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13170823-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381084?

The tribunal order states: Iad Siddawi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,093.67

How much money was awarded in case 5381084?

Cleaning: $54.45 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $615.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $407.89 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $215.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381084?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13170823-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 20, 62A Banks Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381084 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381084 — net $1,093.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$54.45	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$615.34	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$215.99	Rubbish removal
Carpet damage/removal	$407.89	Carpet damage/removal
Net award	$1,093.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,093.67

Iad Siddawi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,093.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $200.00 () to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

The claim for rent is dismissed.

The application by the landlord for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Gray attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for rent after the tenancy ended, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage, and payment of the bond.

Is additional rent payable?

The tenancy ended on 17 July 2025, but the tenant’s belongings were not removed until after the tenancy ended. The landlord therefore claims rent to 14 August 2025 (when the belongings were removed).

A tenant leaving belongings in the premises after the tenancy ends does not entitle a landlord to rent for the period the belongings remained there (sections 62 to 62 D of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) set out the landlord’s rights and responsibilities when the tenant does not remove all goods at the end of the tenancy).

The claim for additional rent is therefore dismissed.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The amounts ordered have been established.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpets at the premises?

The tenant removed the living room carpet and underlay and cut holes in the bedroom carpet during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

The cost to replace the carpets is $815.79. However, the carpets were approximately six years old and carpets are expected to last between 8 and 12 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed by 50% to account for betterment/depreciation.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlord applied for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The starting point when considering whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in the tenant’s favour is the principle of open justice. The usual situation in law is that judicial proceedings are open unless the circumstances are exceptional: Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd [2003] NZLR 220 at [20].

Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.

Ms Gray said that the landlord is seeking suppression as a matter of general policy to assist the tenant (possibly to safeguard their ability to find another tenancy). I fully accept that it is in the tenant’s interest that the decision is not published.

However, I must also consider public interest. I consider that there is public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. It is in my view in the public interest to be aware of the condition the premises were left in by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, and it is a particularly legitimate interest for future landlords.

Taking into consideration the parties’ interest and the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the parties’ interest considerations. I therefore decline the application for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381084 — net $1,093.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$54.45	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$615.34	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$215.99	Rubbish removal
Carpet damage/removal	$407.89	Carpet damage/removal
Net award	$1,093.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,093.67

Order

Iad Siddawi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,093.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $200.00 () to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

The claim for rent is dismissed.
The application by the landlord for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Gray attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent after the tenancy ended, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage, and payment of the bond.

Is additional rent payable?

The tenancy ended on 17 July 2025, but the tenant’s belongings were not removed until after the tenancy ended. The landlord therefore claims rent to 14 August 2025 (when the belongings were removed).
A tenant leaving belongings in the premises after the tenancy ends does not entitle a landlord to rent for the period the belongings remained there (sections 62 to 62 D of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) set out the landlord’s rights and responsibilities when the tenant does not remove all goods at the end of the tenancy).
The claim for additional rent is therefore dismissed.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The amounts ordered have been established.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpets at the premises?

The tenant removed the living room carpet and underlay and cut holes in the bedroom carpet during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The cost to replace the carpets is $815.79. However, the carpets were approximately six years old and carpets are expected to last between 8 and 12 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed by 50% to account for betterment/depreciation.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlord applied for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The starting point when considering whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in the tenant’s favour is the principle of open justice. The usual situation in law is that judicial proceedings are open unless the circumstances are exceptional: Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd [2003] NZLR 220 at [20].
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
Ms Gray said that the landlord is seeking suppression as a matter of general policy to assist the tenant (possibly to safeguard their ability to find another tenancy). I fully accept that it is in the tenant’s interest that the decision is not published.
However, I must also consider public interest. I consider that there is public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. It is in my view in the public interest to be aware of the condition the premises were left in by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, and it is a particularly legitimate interest for future landlords.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest and the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the parties’ interest considerations. I therefore decline the application for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381084 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 20, 62A Banks Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381084 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 20, 62A Banks Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is additional rent payable?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpets at the premises?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is additional rent payable?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpets at the premises?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions