Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5438049 — Property damage at 48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023
Published 7 April 2026 · Application 5438049
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Smoke alarms
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
H Ben Fayed
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,603.68
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,603.68
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rubbish removal | $1,373.80 | Rubbish removal | |
| Cleaning | $676.67 | Cleaning | |
| Wall Damage Repair | $487.31 | Wall Damage Repair | |
| Smoke alarms | $50.00 | Smoke alarms | |
| Lock/key replacement | $215.90 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Toilet Lid | $50.00 | Toilet Lid | |
| Toilet Unblock | $200.00 | Toilet Unblock | |
| Door handle | $50.00 | Door handle | |
| Sliding Door Glass | $500.00 | Sliding Door Glass | |
| Net award | $3,603.68 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,603.68 |
Claims and awards for application 5438049 — net $3,603.68 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $1,373.80
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Cleaning
- Amount
- $676.67
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Wall Damage Repair
- Amount
- $487.31
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Wall Damage Repair
Smoke alarms
- Amount
- $50.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Smoke alarms
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $215.90
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Toilet Lid
- Amount
- $50.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Toilet Lid
Toilet Unblock
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Toilet Unblock
Door handle
- Amount
- $50.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Door handle
Sliding Door Glass
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Sliding Door Glass
Net award
Landlord $3,603.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,603.68
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Lily Liai, Michael Liai and Mihiata Rangi Mikaere must pay Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Neha Mittal $3,603.68 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend. Background
- The applicant states that a mediation occurred and an order was made for rent arrears, which the tenant did not comply with. The respondent subsequently vacated the property without notice. The applicant took possession on 7 September 2025. The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy due to end in February 2026.
- The applicant seeks compensation for costs arising from the vacation of the property, including damages, rubbish removal, and cleaning. Burden of Proof
- In the Tenancy Tribunal, the civil burden of proof applies. The applicant must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. This requires establishing that the claim for compensation is more likely than not to be true and is based on a breach of the law.
- All claims for compensation must also relate to expenses that were reasonably incurred.
- The applicant’s representative advised that they have no firsthand knowledge of the repairs, as these were undertaken directly by the owner. Their evidence is based on documentation provided by the owner. Rubbish Removal
- I am satisfied that the respondent breached their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
- The vacate inspection photos show a substantial amount of rubbish and abandoned furniture. The applicant seeks $3,434.50. The applicant’s representative stated that the owner reported that two people worked eight hours each and that five skip bins were required.
- However, aside from an invoice from Hammerod Painters, there is no evidence supporting the need for five skip bins. While the rubbish is extensive, the evidence does not support that level of cost. I am satisfied that the work could reasonably have been completed using two skip bins.
- Accordingly, I award two-fifths of the claim:
- $1,373.80 is awarded for rubbish removal. Cleaning
- The applicant has provided photographs showing that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as required under section 40(1)(e)(ii).
- I am satisfied that the respondent breached this obligation and that the claimed cost is reasonable.
- $676.67 is awarded for cleaning. Wall Damage (Patching)
- Photographs show two areas of wall damage consistent with impact damage. I am satisfied this damage was caused in breach of section 40(2)(a), which prohibits intentional or careless damage.
- The claimed cost is reasonable.
- $487.31 is awarded. Smoke Alarms
- The applicant seeks $155.54 for replacement of smoke alarms. I am satisfied that the smoke alarms were removed by the respondent.
- However, the invoiced costs appear excessive given the standard of the property and the nature of the work, which was undertaken by a handyman alongside other tasks. The evidence does not reliably establish the claimed amount.
- A nominal award is appropriate.
- $50.00 is awarded. Curtains
- The applicant seeks costs for replacement of curtains. The move-in inspection shows that no curtains were present in the laundry. For other areas, the vacate photos appear to show the curtains rolled up rather than missing.
- I am not satisfied that the curtains were removed. The claim is not proven on the balance of probabilities.
- This claim is dismissed. Lock Replacement
- The applicant states that the respondent vacated without notice and did not return any keys. Under section 40(1)(e)(iv), tenants must return all keys at the end of the tenancy.
- I am satisfied that this obligation was breached and that the cost is reasonable.
- $215.90 is awarded for lock replacement. Window Latch (Laundry)
- The move-in and move-out photographs appear identical and do not show any damage.
- I am not satisfied that damage occurred.
- This claim is dismissed. Toilet Lid
- The applicant seeks $164.85 for replacement of a toilet lid. The photos show the lid was removed.
- However, the claimed cost is excessive for a basic fixture and unsupported by adequate evidence. A nominal award is appropriate.
- $50.00 is awarded. Toilet Unblocking
- The applicant seeks $880.30 for unblocking a toilet. The photos confirm that the toilet was blocked.
- However, the cost is not adequately explained or supported. A nominal award is appropriate.
- $200.00 is awarded. Cabinet Door
- The applicant seeks $257.30 for supply and installation of a cabinet door. While photos show a door missing, the move-in condition is unclear.
- The claim is not proven on the balance of probabilities.
- This claim is dismissed. Aluminium Sliding Door (Rumpus Room)
- The applicant claims the aluminium sliding door was damaged. The door appears to be significantly aged (likely over 30 years old) and therefore fully depreciated.
- There is insufficient evidence as to the nature of the damage or why repair was not possible.
- This claim is therefore dismissed. Carpet (Sleepout)
- The applicant seeks $431.25 for carpet replacement. The carpet is clearly stained and damaged and I am satisfied that the respondent is liable.
- However, no evidence has been provided as to the age of the carpet. Based on IRD guidance, carpet has a useful lifespan of approximately 8 years, and this carpet was likely fully depreciated. There is also no explanation as to why cleaning was not attempted.
- This claim is therefore dismissed. Sliding Door Glass
- The applicant seeks $1,481.11 for repair of the sliding door window. I am satisfied the respondent caused the damage.
- However, the claimed cost is not adequately supported. A nominal award is appropriate.
- $500.00 is awarded. Lawn Mowing
- The applicant seeks $361.69 for lawn mowing. The lawns appear to be in a similar condition at the start and end of the tenancy.
- I am not satisfied that the respondent is liable.
- This claim is dismissed. Door Handle
- The applicant seeks $164.85 for supply and installation of a door handle. Photographs show the handle was missing, and I am satisfied the respondent is responsible.
- However, the claimed cost is not consistent with what a door handle of this quality would cost. A nominal award is appropriate.
- $50.00 is awarded. Filing fee and suppression:
- The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application and therefore the filing fee is not awarded and suppression is not granted.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s19, s23, s40(1), s40(2), s47
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
Property management
- BAATH RENTALS LIMITED as agent for Neha Mittal (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5438049?
The tribunal order states: Lily Liai, Michael Liai and Mihiata Rangi Mikaere must pay Baath Rentals Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5438049?
Cleaning: $676.67 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $487.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.90 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,373.80 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Glass: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Lid: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Unblock: $200.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438049?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438049?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401005-Tribunal_Order.pdf.