What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5412520?

The tribunal order states: Te waka Wilson must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5412520?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $297.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,243.57 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $195.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412520?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13384368-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5412520?

The tribunal order states: Te waka Wilson must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5412520?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $297.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,243.57 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $195.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412520?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13384368-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 228 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412520 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412520 — net $741.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 4 December 2025	$2,243.57	Rent arrears (to 4 December 2025
Water rates	$195.53	Water rates
Cleaning	$414.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$199.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$297.28	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Wall remediation	$172.00	Repairs: Wall remediation
Net award	$741.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$741.38

Order

Te waka Wilson must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent For I M Bhatti Business Trust $741.38 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (BN-00130526) to Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent For I M Bhatti Business Trust immediately.

Reasons

On 12 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by video conference. Mr Rishabh Gandhi, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 15 August 2025 and was periodic.
The tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenant vacated the property, and the landlord completed the exit inspection on 4 December 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 November 2025. The landlord seeks rent arrears to Wednesday 10 December 2025 and provided rent records which prove the amount owed.
The Tribunal was told that at the end of the tenancy the tenant: a. Failed to return all keys and security devices and on that basis could still access the property; and b. Failed to remove a bed, blanket, fridge, and muffler from the property. c. The landlord was unable to secure the property by having the locks changed until the date the new tenants moved in, which was 10 November 2025. The landlord’s position is that while the tenant still had belongings inside the property and keys to facilitate access, they remained in possession of the premises and were liable to pay rent. Analysis and decision
In order to determine the quantum of rent arrears the Tribunal needs to determine when the tenancy ended. The landlord’s position is the tenant remained in possession of the property until 10 November 2025.
Section 60 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) states that where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated, all of their rights and obligations continue as if the tenancy were still on going.
The landlord needs to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenants remained in possession of the property after 4 November 2025 until the locks were changed on 10 November 2025. The landlord relies on the fact that the tenant failed to return the key and security devices and failed to remove all of their property from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant remained in possession of the property after 4 November 2025 because: a. When the landlord completed the exit inspection on 4 December 2025, the tenant was not found to be living in the property. b. All of the tenants possessions including food and personal care items, with the exception of four items that were later dumped by the landlord, had been removed; and c. There was no evidence provided showing the tenant’s continued to live at or access the property between 4 November and 10 November 2025 such as electronic swipe card access records.
The landlord told the Tribunal that they were unable to arrange for the locks to be change at the property until 6 days after the tenancy ended. The Tribunal does not accept this. Accordingly the Tribunal finds the tenancy ended on 4 November 2025.
The Tribunal orders rent arrears totalling $2,243.57 to 4 November 2025. How much is owed for water rates:
The landlord seeks water rates totalling $195.53 for the following periods: a. 21 August – 19 September 2025 - $86.90 b. 19 September – 21 October 2025 - $59.77 c. 21 October – 20 November 2025 - $48.86 A tenant invoice and corresponding water bills were provided to prove the amount claimed.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenant was properly invoiced for the amounts claimed and when the bills remained unpaid issued a 14-day breach notice which was not remedied. The Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the 14-day breach notice(s).
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the water rates remain outstanding at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks cleaning costs totalling $414.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the property was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish.
The landlord provided and exit inspection report with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. In particular the Tribunal notes: a. The toilet was soiled and marked. b. The bathroom floor was marked and required mopping. c. The shower screen was marked with soap scum and the shower tray was dirty. d. Cobwebs and areas of dust on the windowsills and skirting board needed to be removed. e. Some of the walls needed wiping down to remove marks. f. There was additional carpet staining in two of the bedrooms which required spot treatment. The landlord told the Tribunal that the carpet needed to be shampooed and deodorised to treat pet odour after the tenants had kept a dog at the property in breach of their tenancy agreement.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed is reasonable and that is what is ordered. Did the tenant remove all rubbish
The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $199.00 after paying a contractor to remove and dump a double/queen sized mattress, blanket, fridge, and a muffler (that was later taken from the front of the property by a member of the public). An invoice for the amount claimed was provided. The Tribunal was told the amount claimed reflects the contractors minimum fee for rubbish removal and dumping of waste up to 1 cubic meter.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports and photographs. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant failed to remove the mattress, blanket, and small bar fridge from the property. The Tribunal was not satisfied the tenant failed to remove the muffler from the property. That is because the muffler was discovered hidden behind the water tanks in the courtyard. There was no evidence provided showing this area at the commencement of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant is responsible for the muffler being at the property.
The Tribunal is satisfied the amount claimed is reasonable and that it what is ordered.

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $297.28 after paying a contractor to change the lock, and they provided two replacement electronic swipe cards and one electronic key fob, after the tenant failed to return the key and security devices at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the lock change was provided.
The landlord said the tenant failed to respond to multiple text messages asking for the key and security devices to be returned.
The amount claimed is proved and that is what is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 of the Act.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $172.00 after paying a contractor to patch and paint one small hole in the wall above the wardrobe doors in bedroom one and one large drill hole in the lounge wall following the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the condition of these two areas at the beginning and end of the tenancy using the provided reports and photographs. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the wall damage was caused during the tenancy and that damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. No adjustments for betterment and depreciation are made and the amount claimed is order. Other matters
Because Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent For I M Bhatti Business Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412520 — net $741.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 4 December 2025	$2,243.57	Rent arrears (to 4 December 2025
Water rates	$195.53	Water rates
Cleaning	$414.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$199.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$297.28	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Wall remediation	$172.00	Repairs: Wall remediation
Net award	$741.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$741.38

Order

Te waka Wilson must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent For I M Bhatti Business Trust $741.38 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (BN-00130526) to Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent For I M Bhatti Business Trust immediately.

Reasons

On 12 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by video conference. Mr Rishabh Gandhi, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 15 August 2025 and was periodic.
The tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenant vacated the property, and the landlord completed the exit inspection on 4 December 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 November 2025. The landlord seeks rent arrears to Wednesday 10 December 2025 and provided rent records which prove the amount owed.
The Tribunal was told that at the end of the tenancy the tenant: a. Failed to return all keys and security devices and on that basis could still access the property; and b. Failed to remove a bed, blanket, fridge, and muffler from the property. c. The landlord was unable to secure the property by having the locks changed until the date the new tenants moved in, which was 10 November 2025. The landlord’s position is that while the tenant still had belongings inside the property and keys to facilitate access, they remained in possession of the premises and were liable to pay rent. Analysis and decision
In order to determine the quantum of rent arrears the Tribunal needs to determine when the tenancy ended. The landlord’s position is the tenant remained in possession of the property until 10 November 2025.
Section 60 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) states that where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated, all of their rights and obligations continue as if the tenancy were still on going.
The landlord needs to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenants remained in possession of the property after 4 November 2025 until the locks were changed on 10 November 2025. The landlord relies on the fact that the tenant failed to return the key and security devices and failed to remove all of their property from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant remained in possession of the property after 4 November 2025 because: a. When the landlord completed the exit inspection on 4 December 2025, the tenant was not found to be living in the property. b. All of the tenants possessions including food and personal care items, with the exception of four items that were later dumped by the landlord, had been removed; and c. There was no evidence provided showing the tenant’s continued to live at or access the property between 4 November and 10 November 2025 such as electronic swipe card access records.
The landlord told the Tribunal that they were unable to arrange for the locks to be change at the property until 6 days after the tenancy ended. The Tribunal does not accept this. Accordingly the Tribunal finds the tenancy ended on 4 November 2025.
The Tribunal orders rent arrears totalling $2,243.57 to 4 November 2025. How much is owed for water rates:
The landlord seeks water rates totalling $195.53 for the following periods: a. 21 August – 19 September 2025 - $86.90 b. 19 September – 21 October 2025 - $59.77 c. 21 October – 20 November 2025 - $48.86 A tenant invoice and corresponding water bills were provided to prove the amount claimed.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenant was properly invoiced for the amounts claimed and when the bills remained unpaid issued a 14-day breach notice which was not remedied. The Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the 14-day breach notice(s).
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the water rates remain outstanding at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks cleaning costs totalling $414.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the property was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish.
The landlord provided and exit inspection report with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. In particular the Tribunal notes: a. The toilet was soiled and marked. b. The bathroom floor was marked and required mopping. c. The shower screen was marked with soap scum and the shower tray was dirty. d. Cobwebs and areas of dust on the windowsills and skirting board needed to be removed. e. Some of the walls needed wiping down to remove marks. f. There was additional carpet staining in two of the bedrooms which required spot treatment. The landlord told the Tribunal that the carpet needed to be shampooed and deodorised to treat pet odour after the tenants had kept a dog at the property in breach of their tenancy agreement.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed is reasonable and that is what is ordered. Did the tenant remove all rubbish
The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $199.00 after paying a contractor to remove and dump a double/queen sized mattress, blanket, fridge, and a muffler (that was later taken from the front of the property by a member of the public). An invoice for the amount claimed was provided. The Tribunal was told the amount claimed reflects the contractors minimum fee for rubbish removal and dumping of waste up to 1 cubic meter.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports and photographs. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant failed to remove the mattress, blanket, and small bar fridge from the property. The Tribunal was not satisfied the tenant failed to remove the muffler from the property. That is because the muffler was discovered hidden behind the water tanks in the courtyard. There was no evidence provided showing this area at the commencement of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant is responsible for the muffler being at the property.
The Tribunal is satisfied the amount claimed is reasonable and that it what is ordered.

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $297.28 after paying a contractor to change the lock, and they provided two replacement electronic swipe cards and one electronic key fob, after the tenant failed to return the key and security devices at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the lock change was provided.
The landlord said the tenant failed to respond to multiple text messages asking for the key and security devices to be returned.
The amount claimed is proved and that is what is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 of the Act.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $172.00 after paying a contractor to patch and paint one small hole in the wall above the wardrobe doors in bedroom one and one large drill hole in the lounge wall following the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the condition of these two areas at the beginning and end of the tenancy using the provided reports and photographs. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the wall damage was caused during the tenancy and that damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. No adjustments for betterment and depreciation are made and the amount claimed is order. Other matters
Because Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers As Agent For I M Bhatti Business Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412520 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 228 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412520 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 228 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices 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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices 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