What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5092172?

The tribunal order states: Molieiupu Iaeli Eliu and Olaalofa Eliu must pay Rental Hq Limited $9,360.95

How much money was awarded in case 5092172?

Cleaning: $2,702.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4884923 D…: $5,827.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.00 awarded to landlord; Valuation Cost: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Blasting Door: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092172?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11635646-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5092172?

The tribunal order states: Molieiupu Iaeli Eliu and Olaalofa Eliu must pay Rental Hq Limited $9,360.95

How much money was awarded in case 5092172?

Cleaning: $2,702.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4884923 D…: $5,827.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.00 awarded to landlord; Valuation Cost: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Blasting Door: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092172?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11635646-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82 Keegan Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5092172 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5092172 — net $9,360.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4884923 dated 19/07/2024	$5,827.45	Previous order application 4884923 dated 19/07/2024
Cleaning	$2,702.50	Cleaning
Water blasting door	$30.00	Water blasting door
Lock/key replacement	$316.00	Lock/key replacement
Valuation cost	$200.00	Valuation cost
Eviction warrant filing fee	$258.00	Eviction warrant filing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,360.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,360.95

Order

Molieiupu Iaeli Eliu and Olaalofa Eliu must pay Rental Hq Limited $9,360.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenants did not join the remote hearing and were telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys. 1 Cleaning and rubbish removal
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises, for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove their rubbish (and goods of no value) and did not mow the lawns. The landlord claimed $2,702.50 for cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal and flea treatment. The tenant had a dog; therefore, I am satisfied that flea treatment was likely required. I make an order for the full amount claimed. The amount ordered is proved.
I dismiss the claim for additional cleaning $862.50 as there was no invoice or evidence provided in support of the claim. Water blasting
The tenant’s dog left the back door dirty from scratching it, it appears with dirty paws. The landlord claimed $100 of a water blasting invoice for $434.70. The water blasting invoice description stated it was for: House Wash & Gutter Clean Combo: House Wash - Includes soft wash application and soft pressure wash of exterior edges of Gutter, Downpipes, Eaves, Cladding, Window and Door Framework. Excludes Roof, Decks, Canopies, etc. Gutter Clean- Removing leaf matter, debris and silt from gutters and clearing any blockages from downpipes. NOTE: No gutter guard removals
This invoice therefore largely relates to the landlord’s responsibilities for exterior maintenance.I consider the tenant should compensate the landlord for part of the water blasting invoice. I make an order for $30 to compensate the landlord for the need to clean the door and the balance of the claim is dismissed. Lock/Key replacement - $316
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided in support of the claim.
The amount claimed of $316 lock replacement is ordered.
The amounts ordered above are proved with invoices, pre tenancy and post tenancy photographs which were provided by the landlord.

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. 2
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 3 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 6 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 7
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Wall damage
The landlord claimed $1600 of a $3335 invoice for painting of the interior ceilings, walls and kitchen cupboard doors. The landlord said the insurance excess is $1100. The landlord did not know the age of the paintwork. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(1) RTA. 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographs in support of the claim at the hearing. One of the photographs shows what appears to be painted wallpaper ripped down the wall. A door also had dog scratches on it on the outside.
However, on reviewing the photographs provided, the wall where the painted wallpaper was ripped appears to have mould underneath it and it is bubbling in other parts of the wall near it, indicating the paint was likely coming away from the wall in any event. The doorway where the dog appears to have been scratching also appears to be in an aged and worn condition at the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, there was an area on one of the kitchen cabinets where the paint had come away, however I consider this likely to have been the result of fair wear and tear. In addition, in other areas of the premises the walls appear to be in an aged condition. I therefore consider the wall damage is not beyond fair wear and tear.
For the reasons above the claim for wall painting is dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Hilltop Invoice

The landlord claimed $500 compensation for the “Hilltop Invoice” which was $659.31. The invoice description said it was for replacing curtains, weeding, replacing doorstops, replacing a toilet role holder, replacing the silicon on the kitchen bench, tightening hinges, light fittings and removing blinds. The tenancy ended on 19 July 2024 and the Hilltop invoice relates to largely general maintenance that was undertaken on 25 November 2025. There was insufficient evidence that the tenant should compensate the landlord for any part of the Hilltop invoice, and it is dismissed. Valuation cost - $200
On termination of the tenancy the tenant is required to remove all of their goods from the premises. 8 The tenant did not remove all their goods. The landlord was required to assess the market value of the goods to determine how they are to deal with them, having regards to the procedure that landlords are required to follow in respect of abandoned goods under the RTA. 9 The landlord claims the cost of the valuation and I make an order for the full amount claimed. Filing fee on warrant for eviction - $258
On termination of the tenancy the tenant is required to quit the premises. 10 The tenant did not quit the premises and had to be evicted. The landlord has claimed the MOJ eviction warrant application filing fee. I allow the landlord’s claim for the filing fee paid on the warrant for eviction. There is no other recovery mechanism for the landlord to claim this cost. Previous order - $5,827.45
On 19 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for termination, rent arrears to 19/7/2024, water rates and the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee - $27
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Bond
There was no application for the bond, it therefore remains held with the Bond Centre. 8 See section 40 (1)(e)(ii) 9 See section 62 – 62B of the RTA. 10 See section 40 (1)(e)(i) Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5092172 — net $9,360.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4884923 dated 19/07/2024	$5,827.45	Previous order application 4884923 dated 19/07/2024
Cleaning	$2,702.50	Cleaning
Water blasting door	$30.00	Water blasting door
Lock/key replacement	$316.00	Lock/key replacement
Valuation cost	$200.00	Valuation cost
Eviction warrant filing fee	$258.00	Eviction warrant filing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,360.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,360.95

Order

Molieiupu Iaeli Eliu and Olaalofa Eliu must pay Rental Hq Limited $9,360.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenants did not join the remote hearing and were telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys. 1 Cleaning and rubbish removal
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises, for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove their rubbish (and goods of no value) and did not mow the lawns. The landlord claimed $2,702.50 for cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal and flea treatment. The tenant had a dog; therefore, I am satisfied that flea treatment was likely required. I make an order for the full amount claimed. The amount ordered is proved.
I dismiss the claim for additional cleaning $862.50 as there was no invoice or evidence provided in support of the claim. Water blasting
The tenant’s dog left the back door dirty from scratching it, it appears with dirty paws. The landlord claimed $100 of a water blasting invoice for $434.70. The water blasting invoice description stated it was for: House Wash & Gutter Clean Combo: House Wash - Includes soft wash application and soft pressure wash of exterior edges of Gutter, Downpipes, Eaves, Cladding, Window and Door Framework. Excludes Roof, Decks, Canopies, etc. Gutter Clean- Removing leaf matter, debris and silt from gutters and clearing any blockages from downpipes. NOTE: No gutter guard removals
This invoice therefore largely relates to the landlord’s responsibilities for exterior maintenance.I consider the tenant should compensate the landlord for part of the water blasting invoice. I make an order for $30 to compensate the landlord for the need to clean the door and the balance of the claim is dismissed. Lock/Key replacement - $316
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided in support of the claim.
The amount claimed of $316 lock replacement is ordered.
The amounts ordered above are proved with invoices, pre tenancy and post tenancy photographs which were provided by the landlord.

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. 2
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 3 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 6 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 7
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Wall damage
The landlord claimed $1600 of a $3335 invoice for painting of the interior ceilings, walls and kitchen cupboard doors. The landlord said the insurance excess is $1100. The landlord did not know the age of the paintwork. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(1) RTA. 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographs in support of the claim at the hearing. One of the photographs shows what appears to be painted wallpaper ripped down the wall. A door also had dog scratches on it on the outside.
However, on reviewing the photographs provided, the wall where the painted wallpaper was ripped appears to have mould underneath it and it is bubbling in other parts of the wall near it, indicating the paint was likely coming away from the wall in any event. The doorway where the dog appears to have been scratching also appears to be in an aged and worn condition at the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, there was an area on one of the kitchen cabinets where the paint had come away, however I consider this likely to have been the result of fair wear and tear. In addition, in other areas of the premises the walls appear to be in an aged condition. I therefore consider the wall damage is not beyond fair wear and tear.
For the reasons above the claim for wall painting is dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Hilltop Invoice

The landlord claimed $500 compensation for the “Hilltop Invoice” which was $659.31. The invoice description said it was for replacing curtains, weeding, replacing doorstops, replacing a toilet role holder, replacing the silicon on the kitchen bench, tightening hinges, light fittings and removing blinds. The tenancy ended on 19 July 2024 and the Hilltop invoice relates to largely general maintenance that was undertaken on 25 November 2025. There was insufficient evidence that the tenant should compensate the landlord for any part of the Hilltop invoice, and it is dismissed. Valuation cost - $200
On termination of the tenancy the tenant is required to remove all of their goods from the premises. 8 The tenant did not remove all their goods. The landlord was required to assess the market value of the goods to determine how they are to deal with them, having regards to the procedure that landlords are required to follow in respect of abandoned goods under the RTA. 9 The landlord claims the cost of the valuation and I make an order for the full amount claimed. Filing fee on warrant for eviction - $258
On termination of the tenancy the tenant is required to quit the premises. 10 The tenant did not quit the premises and had to be evicted. The landlord has claimed the MOJ eviction warrant application filing fee. I allow the landlord’s claim for the filing fee paid on the warrant for eviction. There is no other recovery mechanism for the landlord to claim this cost. Previous order - $5,827.45
On 19 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for termination, rent arrears to 19/7/2024, water rates and the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee - $27
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Bond
There was no application for the bond, it therefore remains held with the Bond Centre. 8 See section 40 (1)(e)(ii) 9 See section 62 – 62B of the RTA. 10 See section 40 (1)(e)(i) Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092172 — Cleanliness at 82 Keegan Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092172 — Cleanliness at 82 Keegan Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions