What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406449?

The tribunal order states: Aalok Aswani must pay Desley Ann Rosevear $116.50 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5406449?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $74.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $314.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13504195-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406449?

The tribunal order states: Aalok Aswani must pay Desley Ann Rosevear $116.50 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5406449?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $74.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $314.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13504195-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 5 Brighton Road, Waihi Beach, Western Bay of Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406449 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406449 — net $116.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 September 2025	$314.25	Rent arrears to 08 September 2025
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Compensation for missing chattels	$74.25	Compensation for missing chattels
Nominal damages for damage to lino	$100.00	Nominal damages for damage to lino
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$116.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$116.50

Order

Aalok Aswani must pay Desley Ann Rosevear $116.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (BN-00116571) to Desley Ann Rosevear immediately.
The landlord’s application for power charges is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference on 08 April 2026. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Two attempts were made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided but they were unsuccessful. Has the tenant been served Notice of the Hearing in accordance with the

Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

The landlord’s application was filed on 04 December 2025. The landlord says the tenancy ended on 08 September 2025. As the application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual service rules do not apply.
In circumstances such as this where the application is filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy but within two years of the end of the tenancy, Section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that any notice and other documents shall be served on the tenant: (a) personally; or (b) by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (c) by delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or (d) by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf; or (e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; ... [emphasis added].
Section 13AB(1) of the RTA provides that for the purposes of the RTA: ... an address for service means an address given by the landlord or tenant under this Act as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the landlord or tenant, as the case may be.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties provides an address for service for the tenant (the “First Email Address”).
This application was not served on the First Email Address. The landlord has provided an email from the tenant of 19 August 2025 asking her to send emails to a different email address (the “Second Email Address”). The Second Email Address was recorded in the landlord’s application and notice of these proceedings have been sent to the Second Email Address.
The tenant did not specifically state in the email of 19 August 2025 that the Second Email Address was an email for service. However, the tenant provided the Second Email Address in writing and, given that he had provided an email address as an address for service in the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the Second Email Address was the new email address for service.
I am satisfied that the tenancy has been served notice of these proceedings in accordance with the RTA. The landlord’s claims:
The landlord’s application states that she is claiming $298.80 for power charges, $250.00 for cleaning costs, $100.00 for missing linin, $250 for a burn on the lino flooring in the kitchen and for the bond to go towards any sums ordered. While the application does not specifically claim rent arrears, reference is made to rent arrears owing. Following the hearing, the landlord confirmed that she did wish to claim rent arrears.
During the hearing the landlord said that she just wanted the bond paid to her. The Tribunal cannot just return the bond. It must assess each claim and then if sums are awarded for those claims, order that the bond (or part of it) be paid towards those claims. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 08 September 2025. The landlord has provided a rent summary in the form of a rent ledger showing the rent arrears.
This claim is proved.

Does the tenant owe the landlord for power charges?

Clause 6 of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant is to “[p]ay all electricity, gas, telephone, and metered water charges”.
This is consistent with section 39(3) of the RTA which provides that: [t]he tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The landlord said that despite the wording in the tenancy agreement that the tenant would be responsible for power charges, she had told that tenant hat his weekly rent would include power. However, the landlord received power charges which were significant and, following conversations with the tenant, established that this was because the tenant was leaving a panel heater on all day and night with the windows open.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of $298.80 for the charges which she says are excessive.
As set out above, the RTA specifically provides that the tenant is responsible for outgoings. Section 11(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord cannot enforce any provision in the tenancy agreement which is inconsistent with the RTA unless approved by the Tribunal. Section (11)(3) of the RTA provides that a tenant cannot by law waive any rights they have available under the RTA, meaning a clause in a tenancy agreement which limits a right, cannot be waived by the tenant.
However, the same rule does not apply to landlords. Section 11(2) of the RTA confirms that section 11(1) of the RTA does: ... not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act.
It was open to the landlord to agree to with the tenant that rent included power charges. If there were any restrictions on this requirement, they should have been made clear to the tenant and set out in writing.
As the landlord had told the tenant that power would be included in the rent, it is not open to the landlord to rely on clause 6 of the tenancy agreement and demand payment for charges she considers to be excessive.
The claim for power charges is dismissed.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord has provided photographs that show the kitchen, particularly the microwave, and the toilet were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $250 including GST for cleaning. The invoice states that the charge was 5 hours work at $50 per hour. The work was described as “End of Tenancy deep clean”.
Several decisions of this Tribunal have found that “reasonable clean and tidy” does not mean perfectly clean or tidy or clean to a “motel standard”. Based on the photographs provided, I am not satisfied that 5 hours cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I award $150 (including GST) for 3 hours cleaning.
The landlord is also claiming for missing chattels. Specifically, a missing set of sheets, some towels and a blanket. The landlord said that the sheets were purchased new at the start of the year for $79.00. The landlord did not know the age of the missing towels or blankets.
When awarding compensation for damage, 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.
Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024 1 provides that linen for residential rental properties has a useful lifespan of 3 years. The sheets were approximately 9 months’ old. I award $74.25 being $59.25 for the linen with a deduction to reflect depreciation and a nominal award of $15 for the missing towels and blanket. 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz › ir265-august-2024 PDF, retrieved on 27 April 2026.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the lino?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord claims that during the tenancy the tenant caused damage to the lino in the kitchen. The landlord has provided a photograph showing what appears to be a burn on the lino floor. The landlord has not provided photographs from the start of the tenancy. However, she did refer me to photographs on Airbnb which she says, and I accept, represent the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Based on these photographs and the landlord’s oral evidence, I am satisfied that the damage to the lino was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not attended the hearing. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the damage was not intentional or careless.
However, that is not the end of the matter. As set out at paragraph 32 above, when awarding compensation for damage, 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.
The landlord has not had the lino replaced. Therefore, there is no information regarding the repair or replacement cost of the lino. I do not consider it is open to me to award compensation. Instead, I award $100.00 in nominal damages. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406449 — net $116.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 September 2025	$314.25	Rent arrears to 08 September 2025
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Compensation for missing chattels	$74.25	Compensation for missing chattels
Nominal damages for damage to lino	$100.00	Nominal damages for damage to lino
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$116.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$116.50

Order

Aalok Aswani must pay Desley Ann Rosevear $116.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (BN-00116571) to Desley Ann Rosevear immediately.
The landlord’s application for power charges is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference on 08 April 2026. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Two attempts were made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided but they were unsuccessful. Has the tenant been served Notice of the Hearing in accordance with the

Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

The landlord’s application was filed on 04 December 2025. The landlord says the tenancy ended on 08 September 2025. As the application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual service rules do not apply.
In circumstances such as this where the application is filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy but within two years of the end of the tenancy, Section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that any notice and other documents shall be served on the tenant: (a) personally; or (b) by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (c) by delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or (d) by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf; or (e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; ... [emphasis added].
Section 13AB(1) of the RTA provides that for the purposes of the RTA: ... an address for service means an address given by the landlord or tenant under this Act as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the landlord or tenant, as the case may be.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties provides an address for service for the tenant (the “First Email Address”).
This application was not served on the First Email Address. The landlord has provided an email from the tenant of 19 August 2025 asking her to send emails to a different email address (the “Second Email Address”). The Second Email Address was recorded in the landlord’s application and notice of these proceedings have been sent to the Second Email Address.
The tenant did not specifically state in the email of 19 August 2025 that the Second Email Address was an email for service. However, the tenant provided the Second Email Address in writing and, given that he had provided an email address as an address for service in the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the Second Email Address was the new email address for service.
I am satisfied that the tenancy has been served notice of these proceedings in accordance with the RTA. The landlord’s claims:
The landlord’s application states that she is claiming $298.80 for power charges, $250.00 for cleaning costs, $100.00 for missing linin, $250 for a burn on the lino flooring in the kitchen and for the bond to go towards any sums ordered. While the application does not specifically claim rent arrears, reference is made to rent arrears owing. Following the hearing, the landlord confirmed that she did wish to claim rent arrears.
During the hearing the landlord said that she just wanted the bond paid to her. The Tribunal cannot just return the bond. It must assess each claim and then if sums are awarded for those claims, order that the bond (or part of it) be paid towards those claims. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 08 September 2025. The landlord has provided a rent summary in the form of a rent ledger showing the rent arrears.
This claim is proved.

Does the tenant owe the landlord for power charges?

Clause 6 of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant is to “[p]ay all electricity, gas, telephone, and metered water charges”.
This is consistent with section 39(3) of the RTA which provides that: [t]he tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The landlord said that despite the wording in the tenancy agreement that the tenant would be responsible for power charges, she had told that tenant hat his weekly rent would include power. However, the landlord received power charges which were significant and, following conversations with the tenant, established that this was because the tenant was leaving a panel heater on all day and night with the windows open.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of $298.80 for the charges which she says are excessive.
As set out above, the RTA specifically provides that the tenant is responsible for outgoings. Section 11(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord cannot enforce any provision in the tenancy agreement which is inconsistent with the RTA unless approved by the Tribunal. Section (11)(3) of the RTA provides that a tenant cannot by law waive any rights they have available under the RTA, meaning a clause in a tenancy agreement which limits a right, cannot be waived by the tenant.
However, the same rule does not apply to landlords. Section 11(2) of the RTA confirms that section 11(1) of the RTA does: ... not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act.
It was open to the landlord to agree to with the tenant that rent included power charges. If there were any restrictions on this requirement, they should have been made clear to the tenant and set out in writing.
As the landlord had told the tenant that power would be included in the rent, it is not open to the landlord to rely on clause 6 of the tenancy agreement and demand payment for charges she considers to be excessive.
The claim for power charges is dismissed.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord has provided photographs that show the kitchen, particularly the microwave, and the toilet were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $250 including GST for cleaning. The invoice states that the charge was 5 hours work at $50 per hour. The work was described as “End of Tenancy deep clean”.
Several decisions of this Tribunal have found that “reasonable clean and tidy” does not mean perfectly clean or tidy or clean to a “motel standard”. Based on the photographs provided, I am not satisfied that 5 hours cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I award $150 (including GST) for 3 hours cleaning.
The landlord is also claiming for missing chattels. Specifically, a missing set of sheets, some towels and a blanket. The landlord said that the sheets were purchased new at the start of the year for $79.00. The landlord did not know the age of the missing towels or blankets.
When awarding compensation for damage, 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.
Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024 1 provides that linen for residential rental properties has a useful lifespan of 3 years. The sheets were approximately 9 months’ old. I award $74.25 being $59.25 for the linen with a deduction to reflect depreciation and a nominal award of $15 for the missing towels and blanket. 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz › ir265-august-2024 PDF, retrieved on 27 April 2026.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the lino?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord claims that during the tenancy the tenant caused damage to the lino in the kitchen. The landlord has provided a photograph showing what appears to be a burn on the lino floor. The landlord has not provided photographs from the start of the tenancy. However, she did refer me to photographs on Airbnb which she says, and I accept, represent the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Based on these photographs and the landlord’s oral evidence, I am satisfied that the damage to the lino was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not attended the hearing. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the damage was not intentional or careless.
However, that is not the end of the matter. As set out at paragraph 32 above, when awarding compensation for damage, 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.
The landlord has not had the lino replaced. Therefore, there is no information regarding the repair or replacement cost of the lino. I do not consider it is open to me to award compensation. Instead, I award $100.00 in nominal damages. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406449 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 5 Brighton Road, Waihi Beach, Western Bay of

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406449 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 5 Brighton Road, Waihi Beach, Western Bay of

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Does the tenant owe the landlord for power charges?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the lino?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Does the tenant owe the landlord for power charges?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the lino?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions