What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245495 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,974.48 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5245495?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245495?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039544-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245495 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,974.48 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5245495?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245495?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039544-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

419A Sunset Road, Sunnybrook, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245495 — Cleanliness

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,974.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

I issued my decision determining the landlord’s claim on 24 October 2025. The landlord applied for a rehearing of the decision, which was granted in respect of rent arrears on 27 January 2026 1 .
As a result of the rehearing being granted for rent arrears this order sets out the correct determination of rent arrears. The remainder of the amounts ordered and the reasons for my order remain the same as set out in my order dated 24 October 2025, as set out below:
The landlord attended the hearing which was held by telephone. Mr Jeremy King, who managed the property on the landlord’s behalf also attended. The tenant was called twice at the start of the hearing on the number provided on the application however neither call was answered.
The landlord’s application was made more than 2 months after the tenancy ended. The tenant was served with the notice of hearing and the claim by using his email address, which is recorded in the tenancy agreement as an address for service. Therefore I am satisfied the tenant was served properly 2 and the hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The three bedroomed premises was renovated immediately before this tenancy commenced.

How much is owed for rent?

The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 23 June 2024 due to rent arrears. The Tribunal order terminating the tenancy awarded rent to 23 June 2024 and refund of the bond to the landlord in reduction of the rent arrears.
The tenant remained in the premises after the termination date. He was evicted by bailiff/s on 12 June 2024 as the result of a warrant to evict.
The landlord seeks rent from 24 June to 12 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

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

1 See the separate Tribunal order dated 27 January 2026 determining the outcome of the landlord’s rehearing application. 2 An application and notice of hearing can be served to an email address given by a tenant to a landlord as an address for service for up to 2 years after the termination of a tenancy. See s 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was significant rubbish and belongings left both inside and outside the premises, including food.
Cleaning: The landlord’s photographs establish that no attempt was made to clean the house. I find the amount claimed of $480.00 to clean the house is reasonable for the work required.
Carpet cleaning: the tenant had at least one cat at the premises and the carpet smelled of cat urine at the end of the tenancy. In addition the tenants smoked cigarettes in the house, which also added to the smell in the carpet. I find $295.00 is a reasonable cost to clean the carpet including chemicals required to deodorise.
Vinyl cleaning: The vinyl in the kitchen was stained at the end of the tenancy and required the surface to be stripped and polished. I find $280.00 is reasonable for the work required.
Disposal of Tyres: The landlord’s photograph proves that 14 tyres were left on the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tyres could not be disposed of at the refuse station and they had to be taken to Tauranga for disposal at a cost of $420.00.
The landlord did not provide any evidence, such as an invoice, to support the amount claimed. I am satisfied that tyres could not be disposed of at the refuse station and that in disposing of the tyres labour and transport costs would be incurred. I award $280.00 as being the reasonable cost to dispose of the tyres, on the basis of $20.00 a tyre in the absence of evidence supporting the cost claimed.
Rubbish removal: The amount of rubbish and belongings left at the property was significant. Mr King removed all the rubbish from the house and a contractor took the rubbish (1,350kgs) to the landfill. I find the cost claimed for the landfill charges ($358.47) is included in the contractor’s invoice of $797.00. I award $1,037.00 for Mr King’s labour ($240.00) and the contractor’s costs ($797.00). I find this is reasonable for the rubbish that needed to be removed at the end of the tenancy.
Heat lamps: New heat lamps were provided in the bathroom at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy one was missing and one was not working. I find the tenant is liable for the replacement of the heat lamps ($23.92).
Light bulbs: at the start of the tenancy all light bulbs were replaced. At the end of the tenancy I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that several bulbs were missing and others were not working but had not been replaced by the tenant. I find the tenant is liable for the cost claimed ($48.46).
Smoke Alarms: I find from the landlord’s evidence that 1 smoke alarm was missing and another smoke alarm was damaged at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed of $17.76 is awarded.
Rekeying the premises: The tenant breached his obligation to return the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had the premises rekeyed as a result at a cost of $352.00.
The landlord claims an additional $106.00 as some months after the tenant was evicted it was discovered that someone had broken into the premises and the landlord had the premises rekeyed for a second time. However the tenant is not liable for the second rekeying. It is not known who entered the premises after it was rekeyed. The tenant is only liable for obligations breached relating to the tenancy.
Remote for heat exchange system: The tenant failed to return the remote. The amount claimed for a replacement remote ($60.00) is awarded.
Mirror: A wall mirror was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has replaced the mirror with a $20.00 mirror.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A window pane was broken in the lounge: the window cost $236.48 to replace. b) Wardrobe doors were removed and needed to be refitted: The door hangers were removed and needed to be replaced. I am satisfied that the landlord’s evidence establishes that the amount claimed ($60.00 for labour and $54.64 for hangers) is reasonable to remedy the damage. c) Holes in doors and walls: Two holes were caused in doors and a number of dents/holes in walls. I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that the amount claimed ($17.22 for gib compound and $120.00 for labour) is reasonable for the work required. d) Stains were caused to the carpet. I am satisfied that a number of stains were caused to the carpet during the tenancy that were not able to be removed when the carpet was cleaned. The landlord claims $1,000.00 for the stains on the basis that the stains have depreciated the value of the carpet.
I am satisfied that the stains are permanent and have accelerated the need to replace the carpet. I am not satisfied from the evidence that there were stains in every carpeted room. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide any evidence regarding the cost of the carpet.
Based on the evidence provided I find it is reasonable to award $750.00 for the damage caused to the carpet. In making this award I have considered the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, the reasonable life span of the carpet (8-10 years) and 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. Other matters
Warrant to evict: The landlord seeks recovery of the $200 fee paid for a warrant to evict the tenants. This is a cost flowing from the tenant's breach of their obligation to quit the premises on termination so is recoverable (see section 40 (1)(e)(i) RTA).
Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the landlord has been successful in her claim I must award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245495 — Cleanliness at 419A Sunset Road, Sunnybrook, Rotorua 3015

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245495 — Cleanliness at 419A Sunset Road, Sunnybrook, Rotorua 3015

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?