Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5420756 — Property damage at 183 Whitney Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600
Published 19 May 2026 · Application 5420756
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $9.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $9.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $9.00 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Net award | $9.00 | ||
| Bond | $1,323.64 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $9.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5420756 — net $9.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $9.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Net award
Landlord $9.00
Bond
Landlord $1,323.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $9.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Keyur Ashokbhai Sandhu, Hemangee Sadhu, Divyesh Vishnuprasad Sadhu and Heenaben Sadhu to pay Virendra Shah As Trustee For Shah Family Trust $9.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,323.64 (5331992-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Virendra Shah As Trustee For Shah Family Trust: $9.00 Keyur Ashokbhai Sandhu, Hemangee Sadhu, Divyesh Vishnuprasad Sadhu and Heenaben Sadhu: $1,314.64
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Shah represented the landlord and Mr Divyesh Sandhu represented the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof:
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. This means 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 the is burden. The information of the respondent is weighed against the information brought by the applicant.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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.
- If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- The tenancy began on 17 April 2024 and ended on 6 October 2024.
- 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return one of the keys.
- The landlord is claiming the following: a. Cleaning (including the carpet); $300.00, b. Replacement key; $139.00, c. Rubbish removal; $100.00.
- The landlord said the tenant did not properly clean the shower. A photograph showing the shower cubicle at the end of the tenancy shows black marks in the corners. The landlord also pointed to dust marks on the ceiling around the HRV vents, photographs of the curtains which he said were mouldy, photographs of the bench-seat squab covers which he said were dirty, pictures of the carpet which he said had sticky patches on it and kitchen tiles which he said showed mould in the grout.
- The landlord’s photographs of the curtains and squab covers did not show the mould or dirt that the landlord described. Nor were there like-for-like photographs from the start of the tenancy which contrasted with the photographs from the end of the tenancy.
- As well as the lack of meaningful photographs from the end of the tenancy, the landlord’s case for many of his claims was hampered by the absence of any photographs from the start of the tenancy. Instead the landlord provided a video taken at the start of the tenancy, which shows only fleeting views of the areas in question.
- The darkened patches in the corner of the shower appear to be present at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said the dark patches were mould that was part of the silicon sealer.
- In all cases the tenant disputed the landlord’s claims. The tenant said that at the end of the tenancy they cleaned the premises in front of the landlord and to a high standard.
- Photographs which show only dirt, by definition show an isolated area that is not reasonably clean and tidy. It is always likely that after a tenant has vacated a property there will be some areas that are not perfectly clean. This is not required of an exiting tenant. What is required is that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy. On their own, very localised photographs do not provide enough information for the Tribunal to make a determination of the premises as a whole.
- The landlord has not persuaded me on the balance of probabilities that this property was not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
- This claim is not proved.
- The landlord said that two rugs were provided at the start of the tenancy that were so dirty at the end of the tenancy they needed to be disposed of. The landlord is claiming $115.00 to replace the rugs and $100.00 to dispose of them.
- The landlord provided photographs of the two rugs, but the photographs do not show the rugs to be particularly soiled.
- The tenant said that they never used the rugs and instead left them in the conservatory.
- The landlord’s information does not persuade me on the balance of probabilities that the rugs needed to be disposed of and replaced.
- This claim is not proved.
- The landlord said the tenant lost a key to the glass door. The landlord is claiming $139.00 for replacing the key, being $130.00 for a callout fee for a locksmith and $9.00 to replace the key. The landlord said they do not have a spare key for the door.
- The tenant accepted they may have lost the key.
- Being a landlord is a commercial undertaking and a standard of reasonable competence can be expected. In my view, this includes retaining a copy of all keys for a rental property. If a landlord fails to do this, I do not consider it reasonable to expect a tenant to pay for a lock to be re-barrelled. In the circumstances I consider it unreasonable to charge a tenant $130.00 callout fee in order to replace a $9.00 key, and I decline to order this.
- The claim for the replacement key is proved.
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 RTA.
- The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the bathroom flooring, insurance excess; $550.00, b. Crack on window; $258.64, c. Damage to conservatory tiles.
- The landlord is claiming $550.00 as compensation for an insurance excess paid to have flooring repaired in the bathroom.
- The bathroom area consisted of a room with a toilet, a vanity, a shower, a washing machine, and then a second room inside this bathroom which had a second toilet.
- The landlord said that he noticed the vinyl was becoming uneven during an inspection on 25 July 2024. This was three months after the tenancy began.
- The landlord said the damage was caused by water on the floor that was put there, or caused to be put there by the tenant. The landlord offered three explanations. The first explanation was that the tenant’s washing machine leaked onto the floor. The second explanation was that the tenant spilled water on the floor, and the third explanation was that the tenant’s children caused the water to be there.
- The landlord produced a photograph of water around the base of the toilet.
- The tenant denied causing the damage to the flooring.
- The tenant pointed out that the toilet with the water around it, was the toilet in the smaller room, but the uneven vinyl was in the larger room. The tenant said the water around the toilet had come in through the open window above the toilet. The tenant also said that the washing machine had only leaked “a drop” and the landlord had been present when the tenant replaced the hose.
- I was not provided information about the damage to the flooring other than a description of the vinyl becoming lumpy. The landlord mentioned that the repairs cost several thousand dollars. Evidently the damage was significant in scale and seriousness. This indicates the damage goes beyond fair wear and tear.
- However, I am far from persuaded that any substantial damage to the floor was caused by this tenant in the first three months of their tenancy. I consider the timeframe of three months to be too short to cause this damage unless the tenant was engaging in some highly unusual or extreme use of the area. There is no information at all to suggest this was happening.
- This claim is not proved.
- The landlord said the tenant caused a crack in a window and is claiming $258.64 to have the glass replaced.
- The tenant said the window was in a room that they did not usually use. The tenant said he had no knowledge of the crack.
- The crack is a small crack across a corner of the top corner of the glass. The window is an old wooden window. The crack is one that would be very unlikely to be noticed by any but the most assiduous ingoing tenant. It is difficult to see the crack in the outgoing inspection photograph. The landlord did not provide a photograph of the window from the start of the tenancy.
- I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the crack in this window was caused during this tenancy. This claim is not proved.
- The landlord said the tenant damaged floor tiles in the conservatory by cracking them.
- The photographs from the end of the tenancy do not clearly show the tiles to be cracked. No photographs from the start of the tenancy showing the condition of the tiles were produced by the landlord.
- The tenant said he wasn’t aware the tiles were cracked at the end of the tenancy and he hadn’t noticed their condition at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant said that in the last two weeks the landlord began renovating the premises and several tradespeople used the conservatory area to place tools and to place a heavy kitchen benchtop.
- The tenant said the tradespeople tried to install the benchtop, but then took it back to the conservatory and modified it there.
- The landlord denied this happened. The landlord disputed altogether that the tradespeople used the conservatory area, but he also said that he was never on site during the renovation.
- The tenant said the landlord visited the premise 3 or 4 times a day during the renovation.
- The information provided by the parties on this claim is inconsistent and I consider one of the parties must be incorrect. On this point I prefer the tenant’s information. The tenant was present whilst the tradespeople were working, and the information they provided to the Tribunal was direct and assured. By contrast the landlord appeared to be giving information to the Tribunal of events that he said he had not been present to witness.
- I am not persuaded the conservatory tiles were damaged during the tenancy. Alternatively if the tiles were damaged during the tenancy, I am not persuaded they were damaged by the tenant.
- This claim is not proved.
- The landlord has been substantially unsuccessful in his claims. In the circumstances I decline to order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- Virendra Shah as trustee for Shah Family Trust (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420756?
The tribunal order states: Keyur Ashokbhai Sandhu, Hemangee Sadhu, Divyesh Vishnuprasad Sadhu
How much money was awarded in case 5420756?
Property Damage: $9.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420756?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420756?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13616300-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.