Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5424956 — Property damage at 26 Tokai Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602
Published 21 April 2026 · Application 5424956
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,456.12
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,456.12
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Break lease fee | $1,300.50 | Break lease fee | |
| Balance of rent a week 21 March - 12 July 2026 | $407.14 | Balance of rent a week 21 March - 12 July 2026 | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $320.85 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Repairs: to paint by consent | $399.63 | Repairs: to paint by consent | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,456.12 | ||
| Bond | $2,580.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,456.12 |
Claims and awards for application 5424956 — net $2,456.12 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Break lease fee
- Amount
- $1,300.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Break lease fee
Balance of rent a week 21 March - 12 July 2026
- Amount
- $407.14
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Balance of rent a week 21 March - 12 July 2026
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $320.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: to paint by consent
- Amount
- $399.63
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: to paint by consent
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,456.12
Bond
Landlord $2,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,456.12
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jessica Rose Talarico to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For S & T Stacey $2,456.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 (6541641-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For S & T Stacey: $2,456.12 Jessica Rose Talarico: $123.88
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Higgins.
- The parties agreed the fixed term tenancy due to end in July 2026 would end earlier. The tenant wants me to decide if the landlord delayed the process, and whether the break lease fee and the decision to reduce the rent are fair. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Both parties want the bond.
- At the hearing the tenant agreed she owed one week of rent and said she would pay it immediately. I have not made an order for rent and the landlord has 24 hours to let me know if the money was not paid. The tenant also agreed to pay for some minor repairs.
Was the break lease fee reasonable?
- The tenant was concerned that the landlord was too slow getting the property advertised and very surprised it took over four months to find replacement tenants. The parties provided me with good information about the end of the fixed term tenancy and I have read everything. I find there was no delay and the landlord acted reasonably to find replacement tenants. I also find that reducing the rent was a reasonable suggestion and the tenant should pay the $25 a week owed to the end of her fixed term.
- Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows landlords to recover the reasonable expenses incurred in respect to the early end of a fixed term tenancy. The landlord provided an itemised account to the tenant. I find the amounts claimed for advertising, the 11 viewings, the credit checks, and the tenant checks to be reasonable. The landlord has limited the amount claimed to $1300.50 and this claim is proved.
- I find the tenant does not have to pay the costs of preparing the new tenancy agreement, changing the bond information, and for the two inspections. The paperwork to end the tenancy and start a new one is usually paid for by the landlord. The RTA allows tenants to end fixed term tenancies so the associated costs here should also be paid by the landlord.
Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
- The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
- This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I find the carpets were not left in a reasonable condition because there was still dog hair in places. The amount claimed is reasonable.
- The claim for reconnecting the power is not allowed. The landlord said the tenant should have paid for a power connection at the tenancy premises until the end of the tenancy. However there is nothing in the RTA which requires tenants to keep the power connected during a tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- There is a claim for damage to a sliding door frame. 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- The tenant does not agree she damaged the aluminium frame. The landlord provided me with photos. The photos from the start of the tenancy are too far away for me to decide that the frame was undamaged. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s13, s24, s40(1), s40(2), s44A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5424956?
The tribunal order states: Jessica Rose Talarico to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5424956?
Balance Of Rent A Week 21 March - 12…: $407.14 awarded to landlord; Break Lease Fee: $1,300.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $320.85 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; To Paint By Consent: $399.63 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424956?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424956?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.