Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5421210 — Property damage at 23 Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102
Published 4 June 2026 · Application 5421210
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Edison
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,212.50
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,512.50
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $350.00 | Cleaning | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $345.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Window repairs | $287.50 | Window repairs | |
| Repairs to walls | $1,380.00 | Repairs to walls | |
| Exemplary damages for rental bidding | $850.00 | Exemplary damages for rental bidding | |
| Total award | $2,362.50 | $850.00 | |
| Net award | $1,512.50 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,512.50 |
Claims and awards for application 5421210 — net $1,512.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work
- Amount
- $345.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs
- Amount
- $287.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Window repairs
Repairs to walls
- Amount
- $1,380.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to walls
Exemplary damages for rental bidding
- Amount
- $850.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages for rental bidding
Total award
Landlord $2,362.50 · Tenant $850.00
Net award
Landlord $1,512.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,512.50
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (BN-17417971) immediately apportioned as follows: Miru Properties Limited: $1,512.50 Maryoyle Tuerin Marsters: $2,087.50
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearings on 13 and 26 May 2026.
- On 2 January 2026 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears, outgoings, and compensation.
- On 29 March 2026 the tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages for rental bidding. Background
- The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 12 February 2024 to 11 February 2026. The weekly rent was $900.00 with a bond of $3,600.00.
- The tenant had difficulties paying the rent and applied to the Tribunal on 19 June 2025. Subsequently the parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy, and the application was withdrawn.
- On 4 July 2025 the landlord gave effect to the agreement by serving a 90-day termination notice, which both parties signed, expiring on 5 October 2025. The tenant subsequently gave 21 days’ notice, and the tenancy ended on 26 August 2025. Landlord’s Application Rent and Water
- The landlord claimed rent arrears of $2,301.44 to the end of the tenancy on 26 August 2025. Prior to the second hearing, the landlord updated the rent summary, showing arrears of $194.30 to 24 August 2025. I address the claim for rent arrears further below, in the context of the tenant’s application.
- The landlord also claimed loss of rent (at $900.00 per week) in the sum of $8,233,34 for two months on the basis that the condition of the premises prevented re-letting until 28 February 2026.
- The invoice for locks, window repairs, wall repairs and cleaning is dated 14 December 2025. The invoice for flooring repairs is dated 10 January 2026. Therefore, the premises were presumably ready to be tenanted in early January 2026. In any event, no evidence was provided to show that the landlord had found a new tenant who could not move in because of repairs. It is not established that the landlord would have been able to rent the premises any earlier.
- The landlord claimed water charges of $1,062.52 in the application form. Prior to the second hearing the landlord provided an updated claim for $1,914.89. The tenant calculated her liability for water at $933.61.
- The landlord’s calculation set out in the Statement of Claim dated 22 May 2026 was based on total water bills during the tenancy of $3,348.20. It is unclear how this number has been derived, as not all the invoices were provided. The sum includes fixed charges of $332.00 on the 16 July 2025 invoice. These fixed charges are not recoverable because the tenant is only liable for water use.
- The landlord recognised four payments by the tenant totalling $1,433.31. This appears to overlook a payment of $106.38 on 29 April 2025. The tenant said there was also a payment of $225.23 but I cannot find support for this. A payment of $420.00 appears to have been made directly to the water supplier rather than to the landlord.
- The water invoices provided total only $981.45. It follows that the tenant has paid more towards the water charges than is supported by the invoices. The landlord also referred to a transaction list of water payments, but this does not tally with the figures provided in the Statement of Claim. Cleaning and Gardens
- The oven and stove needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I award $350.00 for cleaning, a small adjustment to the claimed amount ($402.50).
- The garden was overgrown and needed tidying ($345.00). Tenant Damage
- The landlord claimed $5,980.00 for locks, window repairs, wall repairs and cleaning.
- The landlord’s exit inspection photographs show disassembled door handles, a missing door lock, damage to vinyl flooring, and damage to the door jambs and walls. The ingoing inspection report dated 23 February 2024 refers to some minor marks to the walls in the lounge, scuffs to the kitchen walls, a crack in the paintwork in the bathroom, and many scuffs and marks to the laundry walls. There were marks and scuffs to the bedroom walls.
- I award the amount claimed for window latches ($287.50). The painting cost ($2,400.00 plus GST) is difficult because there was clearly some pre-existing damage to the house, which was built in the early 1960’s. The tenant should not have to pay for the house to be fully repainted. The tenant accepted responsibility for some of the pin holes in the walls and patches in her email of 2 December 2025. Adopting a summary approach, I award $1,200.00 plus GST for painting (50%).
- The landlord also claimed for damage to the pergola roof ($350.00 plus GST) and replacement curtains ($650.00 plus GST).
- The ingoing photographs do not show the pergola in good condition. The ingoing inspection report notes: “Shade structure beside house, broken trellis”. There are also rips to the lining of some of the curtains. The ingoing inspection report records a curtain in the lounge with a small tear, the curtains in bedroom 1 were badly faded and torn, and the curtains in bedroom 2 may also have been in poor condition. While the photographs do show ripped curtains, I am not satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
- I decline to award the amount claimed for cleaning the bathroom ceiling ($150.00 plus GST). The ceiling does not look very mouldy in the landlord’s photograph, and in an email dated 2 December 2025, the tenant said she left the bathroom ceiling clean.
- The landlord claimed $2,530.00 for replacement vinyl flooring in the hallway and two bedrooms. There were three photographs provided by the landlord which show damage to the vinyl floor. Two of them show the same piece of flooring next to a boarded-up fireplace. The third shows a small crack on a floorboard. The flooring next to the fireplace has been added over the top of something and seems to have been an attempt to cover up the hearth.
- I am not satisfied that this was tenant damage and decline to award the cost of repairing the vinyl flooring. Tenant’s Application Rental Bidding
- The 3-bedroom premises were advertised on Trade Me on 10 October 2025 at $700.00 per week. This appears to be the listing following the end of the tenancy. I understood that the premises were advertised at the same rent prior to the tenancy.
- The tenant said she attended a viewing on 11 February 2024. There was another prospective tenant there. On her way out of the home, the landlord told her that the other person was offering $800.00 per week but if the tenant would agree to $900.00 per week, the property was hers. The tenant was told she could move in the next day and accepted because she was desperate for housing.
- Subsequently the tenant got into difficulties with the rent. In a letter dated 5 February 2025 the tenant referred to an imminent rent increase of $100.00 and suggested an increase of $20.00 instead or an early termination of the tenancy.
- On 27 February 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating that she had been deemed medically unfit to work. MSD were helping with payments starting on 4 March 2025. MSD would consider paying the arrears. The tenant requested a rent reduction.
- On 7 April 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating that she could not sustain the rent, and this was “...quite overwhelmingly stressful for me at this time.”
- There is some uncertainty about how the rent increase after the first year came about. The landlord’s rent summary shows the rent going up from $900.00 to $950.00 from 3 February 2025. The tenant’s evidence suggested that the rent was to be increased to $1,000.00 on the first anniversary of the tenancy. The rent summary does not show that $1,000.00 was ever due or paid for weekly rent.
- In an undated message, the tenant disputed agreeing to any rent increases and said she was unable to afford the rent. On 16 June 2025, MSD declined to assist on the basis that the tenancy was not sustainable.
- On 19 June 2025 the tenant applied to the Tribunal to be released from the fixed term (application 5288680). The application was withdrawn when the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early. At both hearings the landlord submitted that this precluded any further application by the tenant, but the issues now at play were not raised or determined in the earlier application. The 90-day notice signed by the parties provided for the tenancy to end on 5 October 2025, for two viewings each week, and withdrawal of the Tribunal application.
- Section 22F of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a landlord must not advertise or offer a residential tenancy unless the rent is stated in the advertisement or offer. The landlord complied with this requirement, however, section 22G(1) provides: A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises in accordance with section 22F(1).
- Section 22G(2) further provides: Subsection (1) does not prohibit a prospective tenant or other person from offering to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.
- Contravention of Section 22G(1) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be payable. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is just to do so pursuant to section 109 of the Act.
- Based on guidance available on the Tenancy Services website, “rental bidding” occurs when a landlord offers to give the rental to a tenant if they agree to pay more for it.
- In my view, that is exactly what happened here. The landlord denied rental bidding but did not seek to put forward a different version of the facts. He explained that the tenant agreed to pay rent of $900.00 per week, and he was helping someone who would otherwise be homeless.
- The tenant sought a refund of the excess rent paid, which she calculated as $16,150.00. Sections 22F and 22G do not provide a specific remedy for breach or state that the tenancy agreement is invalid or unenforceable in respect of the rent. However, to allow a landlord to charge rent in breach of these provisions would enable them to profit from their own wrong. It would also in my view be an impermissible attempt to contract out of the Act (see section 11).
- Over the course of the tenancy (80 weeks and 2 days) the tenant would have paid $56,200.00 at a weekly rent of $700.00. According to the latest rent summary, she has paid $73,255.70. The difficulty is that MSD may have been funding the rent. At the second hearing, I was told that the tenant was paying the rent herself until early March 2025. I requested documentation to corroborate this, but nothing has been provided.
- It is not clear if the tenant paid the rent from her own funds, is liable to repay any part of the rent funded by MSD, or if the rent was redirected from benefits. As things stand, I consider that the tenant has not proved that she suffered a loss. However, equally, the landlord is not legally entitled to rent arrears because, at the advertised weekly rent of $700.00, there are no arrears.
- The landlord deliberately talked up the rent at the viewing. The tenant may have been willing to accept the offer, but she was desperate for housing. The tenant said she had no understanding of rental bidding or that it was unlawful. The Tribunal was told that the stress of being in rent arrears significantly affected the tenant’s health. The landlord’s belief that he was helping someone in urgent need is a mitigating factor. I find that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $850.00
- I am not persuaded that the landlord was entitled to increase the rent to $950.00, notwithstanding clause 48 of the tenancy agreement, which provides: “The landlord reserves the right to review the rent annually during the tenancy”.
- Section 24(1)(g) of the Act provides that a landlord under a fixed term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the terms of the tenancy to so. However, it goes on to specify that the landlord must comply with section 24, which requires notice in writing of the increase. No such notices have been provided. It follows, in my view, that the landlord unlawfully increased the rent.
- The landlord said that the rent increases were agreed, so no notices needed to be given. The evidence does not compel me to the conclusion that the tenant freely consented to any increases in the rent. It was already at a high level, probably above the market rent, and the tenant tended to acquiesce to the landlord. I find that it would be harsh or unconscionable pursuant to section 78(1)(f) of the Act to give effect to any agreement there may have been to increase the rent above $900.00. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
- The parties have had some success in their respective applications. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
- Both parties requested name suppression but neither has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding as required by section 95A of the Act.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s11, s14, s22F, s22F(1), s22G(1), s22G(2), s24, s24(1), s78(1), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- MIRU PROPERTIES LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421210?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (BN-17417971) immediately
How much money was awarded in case 5421210?
Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421210?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421210?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13693856-Tribunal_Order.pdf.