What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423868?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 11 May 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to the

How much money was awarded in case 5423868?

Cleaning: $1,357.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garden/Patio: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $366.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,017.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,002.73 awarded to landlord; Roller Blinds: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $376.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $434.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13648674-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423868?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 11 May 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to the

How much money was awarded in case 5423868?

Cleaning: $1,357.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garden/Patio: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $366.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,017.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,002.73 awarded to landlord; Roller Blinds: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $376.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $434.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13648674-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 327 Glengarry Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423868 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423868 — net $6,177.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: October 2025 – January 2026	$434.50	Water rates: October 2025 – January 2026
Lock/key replacement	$366.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,357.00	e size of the premises and state they were in at the end of the tenancy, I find $1,357.00 to be reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$376.00	Rubbish removal
Garden/patio	$280.00	Garden/patio
Window repairs	$2,017.81	Window repairs
Repair and painting walls & doors	$1,002.73	Repair and painting walls & doors
Repairs: Roller blinds	$315.00	Repairs: Roller blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,177.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,177.54

Order

The order dated 11 May 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to the terms of this order. The order dated 11 May 2026 is not enforceable.
Tess Maria Hemara and Chene'e Te Raita McCoy - Smeets must pay Simon James Eggers and Erika Ramirez Tunjo $6,177.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 11 May 2026. The tenant did not.
On 11 May 2026, I issued an order requiring the tenant to pay the landlord $6,135.54. I incorrectly calculated the total owed by the tenant for rubbish removal as being $334.00, when in fact it was $376.00. The purpose of this order is to recall, amend and reissue the order dated 11 May 2026 to fix this mistake. In all other respects, the order dated 11 May 2026 remains the same.
The landlord requested that the order dated 11 May 2026 also be amended to include further claims contained in written documents filed by the landlord, but not advanced at the hearing. I declined this request, because the landlord did not advance these claims at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord provided copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $434.50 in outstanding water rates invoices from October 2025 – January 2026.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Locks/keys
The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $366.50 to change the locks. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. No attempt to clean the premises has been made. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. No surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen and bathroom have not been cleaned. The oven and shower are dirty. There is rubbish and belongings inside the premises.
I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,357.00 to clean the premises. The premises are a large townhouse consisting of four bedrooms. Considering the size of the premises and state they were in at the end of the tenancy, I find $1,357.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,357.00. Garden/patio
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the small garden/patio area is overgrown with weeds and covered in what appears to be paint. I find the tenant did not leave this area of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $280.00 to tidy up the garden and waterblast the paint off the concrete. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Rubbish removal
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show rubbish and large items of furniture have been left behind. These include mattresses, bed bases and a couch. The landlord also gave evidence that perishable food items were left in the fridge.
I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $376.00 for rubbish removal. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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. 7
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Glass pane in sliding door
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a large, glass pane in the sliding door is completely shattered. The landlord did not submit photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy but gave evidence that the glass pane was in good condition. The landlord claims the premises are only two years old. The photographs of the inside of the premises show they are quite modern, which is consistent with the landlord’s claims that they have only recently been built. For these reasons, I accept the landlord’s evidence about the state of the glass pane in the sliding door at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the glass pane in the sliding door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $2,017.81 to replace the glass pane. The landlord has insurance, but their excess is $5,000.00, which exceeds the replacement cost. Therefore, the landlord did not make an insurance claim.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the glass pane is granted for $2,017.81. Painting
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show multiple doors and walls in poor condition. There are holes, dents, deep scratches and gauges throughout the premises.
The landlord did not submit any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy, but gave evidence that the walls were in good condition. The nature of the 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. damage is quite bad. I consider it unlikely that the landlord would have rented the premises with doors and walls with holes, dents and deep scratches in them. For these reasons, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence about the state of the walls and doors at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the doors and walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $1,002.73 to repair and paint the doors and walls. The landlord gave evidence that the painter was able to obtain a colour match and therefore, only patch repairs were completed. For this reason, I do not make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,002.73. Blinds and curtains
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the curtains and blinds in poor condition. The blinds are split and the curtains have partly come off the rails. The landlord gave evidence that the blinds and curtains were in a good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
I find the blinds and curtains were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $315.00 to repair the blinds and curtains. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful with their application, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423868 — net $6,177.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: October 2025 – January 2026	$434.50	Water rates: October 2025 – January 2026
Lock/key replacement	$366.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,357.00	e size of the premises and state they were in at the end of the tenancy, I find $1,357.00 to be reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$376.00	Rubbish removal
Garden/patio	$280.00	Garden/patio
Window repairs	$2,017.81	Window repairs
Repair and painting walls & doors	$1,002.73	Repair and painting walls & doors
Repairs: Roller blinds	$315.00	Repairs: Roller blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,177.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,177.54

Order

The order dated 11 May 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to the terms of this order. The order dated 11 May 2026 is not enforceable.
Tess Maria Hemara and Chene'e Te Raita McCoy - Smeets must pay Simon James Eggers and Erika Ramirez Tunjo $6,177.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 11 May 2026. The tenant did not.
On 11 May 2026, I issued an order requiring the tenant to pay the landlord $6,135.54. I incorrectly calculated the total owed by the tenant for rubbish removal as being $334.00, when in fact it was $376.00. The purpose of this order is to recall, amend and reissue the order dated 11 May 2026 to fix this mistake. In all other respects, the order dated 11 May 2026 remains the same.
The landlord requested that the order dated 11 May 2026 also be amended to include further claims contained in written documents filed by the landlord, but not advanced at the hearing. I declined this request, because the landlord did not advance these claims at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord provided copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $434.50 in outstanding water rates invoices from October 2025 – January 2026.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Locks/keys
The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $366.50 to change the locks. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. No attempt to clean the premises has been made. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. No surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen and bathroom have not been cleaned. The oven and shower are dirty. There is rubbish and belongings inside the premises.
I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,357.00 to clean the premises. The premises are a large townhouse consisting of four bedrooms. Considering the size of the premises and state they were in at the end of the tenancy, I find $1,357.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,357.00. Garden/patio
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the small garden/patio area is overgrown with weeds and covered in what appears to be paint. I find the tenant did not leave this area of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $280.00 to tidy up the garden and waterblast the paint off the concrete. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Rubbish removal
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show rubbish and large items of furniture have been left behind. These include mattresses, bed bases and a couch. The landlord also gave evidence that perishable food items were left in the fridge.
I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $376.00 for rubbish removal. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

The law

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. 7
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Glass pane in sliding door
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a large, glass pane in the sliding door is completely shattered. The landlord did not submit photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy but gave evidence that the glass pane was in good condition. The landlord claims the premises are only two years old. The photographs of the inside of the premises show they are quite modern, which is consistent with the landlord’s claims that they have only recently been built. For these reasons, I accept the landlord’s evidence about the state of the glass pane in the sliding door at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the glass pane in the sliding door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $2,017.81 to replace the glass pane. The landlord has insurance, but their excess is $5,000.00, which exceeds the replacement cost. Therefore, the landlord did not make an insurance claim.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the glass pane is granted for $2,017.81. Painting
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show multiple doors and walls in poor condition. There are holes, dents, deep scratches and gauges throughout the premises.
The landlord did not submit any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy, but gave evidence that the walls were in good condition. The nature of the 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. damage is quite bad. I consider it unlikely that the landlord would have rented the premises with doors and walls with holes, dents and deep scratches in them. For these reasons, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence about the state of the walls and doors at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the doors and walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $1,002.73 to repair and paint the doors and walls. The landlord gave evidence that the painter was able to obtain a colour match and therefore, only patch repairs were completed. For this reason, I do not make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,002.73. Blinds and curtains
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the curtains and blinds in poor condition. The blinds are split and the curtains have partly come off the rails. The landlord gave evidence that the blinds and curtains were in a good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
I find the blinds and curtains were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $315.00 to repair the blinds and curtains. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful with their application, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423868 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 327 Glengarry Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423868 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 327 Glengarry Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions