What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231476 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Archie & Co Limited $7,748.16

How much money was awarded in case 5231476?

Property Damage: $844.20 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,420.96 awarded to landlord; Glass (X3: $720.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $536.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231476?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12621563-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231476 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Archie & Co Limited $7,748.16

How much money was awarded in case 5231476?

Property Damage: $844.20 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,420.96 awarded to landlord; Glass (X3: $720.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $536.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231476?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12621563-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Deborah Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231476 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

6 Deborah Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231476 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231476 — net $7,748.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 April 2025	$7,420.96	Rent arrears to 8 April 2025
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$536.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Repairs: Glass (x3	$720.00	Repairs: Glass (x3
By consent: Repairs to holes in walls	$844.20	By consent: Repairs to holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,748.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,748.16

Claims and awards for application 5231476 — net $7,748.16 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8 April 2025

Amount: $7,420.96
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8 April 2025

Cleaning and rubbish removal

Amount: $536.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal

Repairs: Glass (x3

Amount: $720.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Glass (x3

By consent: Repairs to holes in walls

Amount: $844.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: By consent: Repairs to holes in walls

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Archie & Co Limited $7,748.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3208316-011) to Archie & Co Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for compensation of $844.20 to repair holes in the walls. This claim is granted by consent. The rest of this decision discusses the remaining claims of the landlord’s, which are disputed. Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Analysis
The tenancy began on 12 August 2014 and ended on 15 April 2025. Throughout the tenancy, the tenant has been in and out of rent arrears.
The tenant was in a constant state of rent arrears from 18 July 2023 until the end of the tenancy on 15 April 2025. The arrears started at $265.00 on 18 July 2023 and increased to $11,131.43 by the end of the tenancy. The trend between 18 July 2023 and 15 April 2025 was a steady increase over time.
The landlord tried to manage the situation themselves by talking to the tenant over the phone and in person to try to organise a payment plan. The landlord also sent three 14-day notices on 19 December 2023, 16 April 2024 and 10 March 2025. No applications were made with the Tribunal for rent arrears or termination between 2023 - 2025. The landlord eventually sent the tenant a termination notice, and the tenant sent a counter-notice on 21 March 2025.
The tenancy was long (11 years) and the tenant had previously managed to get themselves out of rent arrears. For example, rent arrears were $9,851.52 on 12 January 2021 and were cleared by the tenant on 4 July 2022. Given this history, it was reasonable for the landlord to extend some leniency to the tenant and try to deal with the issue of rent arrears that accrued between 2023 – 2025 themselves, but only up to a certain point. By 15 October 2024, the tenant owed $6,404.00 in rent arrears. They had been in rent arrears for approximately 15 months and the overall trend was a steady increase over time. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this point that the tenant was not going to pay the arrears and an application for termination should have been filed with the Tribunal. Instead, the landlord persisted in allowing the tenant more time to pay. This resulted in a further increase of $4,727.43 to the arrears before the tenancy ended.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There must be a reduction to the rent arrears to reflect this. This case is similar to Huang v Ashcroft. Both involve long tenancies and a similar level of rent arrears. Therefore, I find it appropriate to adopt the same reduction of one third that was applied in Huang v Ashcroft.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $7,420.96.

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

The law

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. This includes the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption, which Watercare does. 1
In Woollams v Simpson 2 , the District Court held there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the landlord must provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals to enable payment to be made. Judge McElrea stated: [9] For any tenant to be supplies with a bill for three years’ water rates at the end of a tenancy is, in my view, unconscionable. ... [13] ...in my view, the implied term which I read into the act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case [as provided by section 85(2) Residential Teanncies Act 1986]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The premises have a check meter to determine water usage.
The landlord submitted one photograph of the check meter dated 27 June 2023. It shows the tenant’s water usage for the month and calculates the total cost of their water consumption as being $116.14. A copy of the original invoice from Watercare dated 28 June 2023 was submitted.
The landlord also submitted a photograph of the meter taken on 19 June 2024 and at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenant owes $2,320.59 in outstanding water rates invoices. The landlord submitted original copies of all Watercare invoices they claim are outstanding from 2023 – 2025.
The landlord claims they verbally notified the tenant each month about the tenant’s liability for water usage based on the monthly Watercare invoice.
The tenant claims no water invoices were ever sent to them or discussed with them verbally by the landlord. Analysis
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord regularly provided the tenant with an account for their water usage. The tenant denies this was the case and the landlord did not submit any supporting evidence. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3) & (4)(c). 2 Woollams v Simpson CIV 2005-004-1583 16/03/2006.
Only three photographs of the check meter were submitted for the tenancy that was 11 years long. If the landlord had regularly inspected the check meter and provided the tenant with an account for payment of their water usage, I find it more likely than not that more photographs of the check meter would have been submitted.
The landlord seeks to recover $2,320.59 in outstanding water rates invoices issued between 2023 – 2025. They have not proven on the balance of probabilities that they regularly checked the tenant’s water meter and provided an account to make payment during this time. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenancy must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and removal all of their goods and rubbish. 3
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 9 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish. The photographs show rubbish and miscellaneous household items were left inside and outside the premises. The premises do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. Some drawers have not been emptied and wiped clean. A piano was also left behind. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
The tenant moved into emergency accommodation at the end of the tenancy. This was only confirmed very close to the termination date, which is why the tenant left it until quite late to clean the premises and remove the rubbish. This is understandable and explains why the premises were left in the state they were, however, it does not absolve the tenant of their responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims it took 36.5 hours to clean the premises and remove the rubbish. They seek compensation of $978.20 and submitted an invoice for this amount.
The amount of time the landlord claims was spent cleaning and removing rubbish seems excessive in light of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, as shown in the photographs. I accept the premises were not left in a good condition and a lot of work was required, but 36.5 hours is extreme. Of the
5 hours, the landlord claims 16 hours was spent cleaning the kitchen, oven, hob and extractor fan. Whilst these areas were not left in a clean and tidy condition, I do not consider 16 hours to be reasonable. The landlord also claims
5 hours was spent cleaning rubbish from under the house however, no photographs of under the house were submitted.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal. Considering the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I consider it would have taken no longer than a maximum of 20 hours to remove the rubbish and bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $536.00. In calculating this figure, I have multiplied 20 hours by $26.80, which is the hourly rate of the contractor used by the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises 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. 10
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 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 11
The Tribunal has previously defined careless damage as that arising from conduct which falls below the standard of care required of a reasonable and prudent tenant. All the circumstances of the particular case must be considered. 12
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). 13
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). 14 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 15 Analysis
The tenant accepts that three glass panes broke during the tenancy in the following areas: a. The front door. b. The garage door. c. Window in the living room.
The tenant claims these doors and window were open and the wind blew them closed, causing the glass to break.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the damage to the glass panes in the front and garage doors to be careless. The tenant accepts they did not have a door stopper in front of the doors when they were open. It is reasonably foreseeable that entry doors may blow closed and cause damage if they are left open without a door stopper. A reasonable and prudent tenant would have ensured that door stoppers were in place to prevent the doors from slamming closed.
On the balance of probabilities, I also find the damage to the window in the living room to be careless. The windows do not have stays to hold them open. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that they may blow closed and cause 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 12 Winter v Nijman, TT 1181/99, 1 June 1999. 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). damage on a windy day. A reasonable and prudent tenant would close the windows on a windy day. By failing to do so, I find the tenant acted carelessly.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $720.00 to replace the glass in the front door, garage door and window. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount.
The landlord also claims three other windows in the premises were cracked during the tenancy. The tenant claims these cracks were pre-existing and the property management company hired by the landlord at the time documented this in the entry inspection report.
The landlord did not submit a copy of the entry inspection report. Only a handful of photographs were submitted from the beginning of the tenancy. The quality of the photographs is average. They are not dated, labelled and do not show all of the windows in the premises.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the state of the windows at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of a copy of the entry inspection report confirming there were no cracks in any of the windows at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this was the case.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $720.00 to replace three cracked windows is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Archie & Co Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231476 — net $7,748.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 April 2025	$7,420.96	Rent arrears to 8 April 2025
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$536.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Repairs: Glass (x3	$720.00	Repairs: Glass (x3
By consent: Repairs to holes in walls	$844.20	By consent: Repairs to holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,748.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,748.16

Claims and awards for application 5231476 — net $7,748.16 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8 April 2025

Amount: $7,420.96
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8 April 2025

Cleaning and rubbish removal

Amount: $536.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal

Repairs: Glass (x3

Amount: $720.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Glass (x3

By consent: Repairs to holes in walls

Amount: $844.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: By consent: Repairs to holes in walls

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Archie & Co Limited $7,748.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3208316-011) to Archie & Co Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for compensation of $844.20 to repair holes in the walls. This claim is granted by consent. The rest of this decision discusses the remaining claims of the landlord’s, which are disputed. Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Analysis
The tenancy began on 12 August 2014 and ended on 15 April 2025. Throughout the tenancy, the tenant has been in and out of rent arrears.
The tenant was in a constant state of rent arrears from 18 July 2023 until the end of the tenancy on 15 April 2025. The arrears started at $265.00 on 18 July 2023 and increased to $11,131.43 by the end of the tenancy. The trend between 18 July 2023 and 15 April 2025 was a steady increase over time.
The landlord tried to manage the situation themselves by talking to the tenant over the phone and in person to try to organise a payment plan. The landlord also sent three 14-day notices on 19 December 2023, 16 April 2024 and 10 March 2025. No applications were made with the Tribunal for rent arrears or termination between 2023 - 2025. The landlord eventually sent the tenant a termination notice, and the tenant sent a counter-notice on 21 March 2025.
The tenancy was long (11 years) and the tenant had previously managed to get themselves out of rent arrears. For example, rent arrears were $9,851.52 on 12 January 2021 and were cleared by the tenant on 4 July 2022. Given this history, it was reasonable for the landlord to extend some leniency to the tenant and try to deal with the issue of rent arrears that accrued between 2023 – 2025 themselves, but only up to a certain point. By 15 October 2024, the tenant owed $6,404.00 in rent arrears. They had been in rent arrears for approximately 15 months and the overall trend was a steady increase over time. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this point that the tenant was not going to pay the arrears and an application for termination should have been filed with the Tribunal. Instead, the landlord persisted in allowing the tenant more time to pay. This resulted in a further increase of $4,727.43 to the arrears before the tenancy ended.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There must be a reduction to the rent arrears to reflect this. This case is similar to Huang v Ashcroft. Both involve long tenancies and a similar level of rent arrears. Therefore, I find it appropriate to adopt the same reduction of one third that was applied in Huang v Ashcroft.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $7,420.96.

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

The law

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. This includes the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption, which Watercare does. 1
In Woollams v Simpson 2 , the District Court held there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the landlord must provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals to enable payment to be made. Judge McElrea stated: [9] For any tenant to be supplies with a bill for three years’ water rates at the end of a tenancy is, in my view, unconscionable. ... [13] ...in my view, the implied term which I read into the act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case [as provided by section 85(2) Residential Teanncies Act 1986]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The premises have a check meter to determine water usage.
The landlord submitted one photograph of the check meter dated 27 June 2023. It shows the tenant’s water usage for the month and calculates the total cost of their water consumption as being $116.14. A copy of the original invoice from Watercare dated 28 June 2023 was submitted.
The landlord also submitted a photograph of the meter taken on 19 June 2024 and at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenant owes $2,320.59 in outstanding water rates invoices. The landlord submitted original copies of all Watercare invoices they claim are outstanding from 2023 – 2025.
The landlord claims they verbally notified the tenant each month about the tenant’s liability for water usage based on the monthly Watercare invoice.
The tenant claims no water invoices were ever sent to them or discussed with them verbally by the landlord. Analysis
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord regularly provided the tenant with an account for their water usage. The tenant denies this was the case and the landlord did not submit any supporting evidence. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3) & (4)(c). 2 Woollams v Simpson CIV 2005-004-1583 16/03/2006.
Only three photographs of the check meter were submitted for the tenancy that was 11 years long. If the landlord had regularly inspected the check meter and provided the tenant with an account for payment of their water usage, I find it more likely than not that more photographs of the check meter would have been submitted.
The landlord seeks to recover $2,320.59 in outstanding water rates invoices issued between 2023 – 2025. They have not proven on the balance of probabilities that they regularly checked the tenant’s water meter and provided an account to make payment during this time. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenancy must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and removal all of their goods and rubbish. 3
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 9 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish. The photographs show rubbish and miscellaneous household items were left inside and outside the premises. The premises do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. Some drawers have not been emptied and wiped clean. A piano was also left behind. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
The tenant moved into emergency accommodation at the end of the tenancy. This was only confirmed very close to the termination date, which is why the tenant left it until quite late to clean the premises and remove the rubbish. This is understandable and explains why the premises were left in the state they were, however, it does not absolve the tenant of their responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims it took 36.5 hours to clean the premises and remove the rubbish. They seek compensation of $978.20 and submitted an invoice for this amount.
The amount of time the landlord claims was spent cleaning and removing rubbish seems excessive in light of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, as shown in the photographs. I accept the premises were not left in a good condition and a lot of work was required, but 36.5 hours is extreme. Of the
5 hours, the landlord claims 16 hours was spent cleaning the kitchen, oven, hob and extractor fan. Whilst these areas were not left in a clean and tidy condition, I do not consider 16 hours to be reasonable. The landlord also claims
5 hours was spent cleaning rubbish from under the house however, no photographs of under the house were submitted.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal. Considering the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I consider it would have taken no longer than a maximum of 20 hours to remove the rubbish and bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $536.00. In calculating this figure, I have multiplied 20 hours by $26.80, which is the hourly rate of the contractor used by the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises 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. 10
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 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 11
The Tribunal has previously defined careless damage as that arising from conduct which falls below the standard of care required of a reasonable and prudent tenant. All the circumstances of the particular case must be considered. 12
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). 13
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). 14 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 15 Analysis
The tenant accepts that three glass panes broke during the tenancy in the following areas: a. The front door. b. The garage door. c. Window in the living room.
The tenant claims these doors and window were open and the wind blew them closed, causing the glass to break.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the damage to the glass panes in the front and garage doors to be careless. The tenant accepts they did not have a door stopper in front of the doors when they were open. It is reasonably foreseeable that entry doors may blow closed and cause damage if they are left open without a door stopper. A reasonable and prudent tenant would have ensured that door stoppers were in place to prevent the doors from slamming closed.
On the balance of probabilities, I also find the damage to the window in the living room to be careless. The windows do not have stays to hold them open. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that they may blow closed and cause 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 12 Winter v Nijman, TT 1181/99, 1 June 1999. 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). damage on a windy day. A reasonable and prudent tenant would close the windows on a windy day. By failing to do so, I find the tenant acted carelessly.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $720.00 to replace the glass in the front door, garage door and window. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount.
The landlord also claims three other windows in the premises were cracked during the tenancy. The tenant claims these cracks were pre-existing and the property management company hired by the landlord at the time documented this in the entry inspection report.
The landlord did not submit a copy of the entry inspection report. Only a handful of photographs were submitted from the beginning of the tenancy. The quality of the photographs is average. They are not dated, labelled and do not show all of the windows in the premises.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the state of the windows at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of a copy of the entry inspection report confirming there were no cracks in any of the windows at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this was the case.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $720.00 to replace three cracked windows is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Archie & Co Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231476 — Rent arrears at 6 Deborah Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231476 — Rent arrears at 6 Deborah Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

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 damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

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 damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions