What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267844 about?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Pukeroa and Hendrix Harris must pay Amtos Realty Services Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5267844?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $124.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,743.85 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267844?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12153229-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267844 about?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Pukeroa and Hendrix Harris must pay Amtos Realty Services Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5267844?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $124.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,743.85 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267844?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12153229-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Amethyst Place, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267844 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267844 — net $1,190.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,743.85	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet cleaning (50	$143.75	Carpet cleaning (50
Oven/stove cleaning	$30.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Cleaning (incl rubbish removal	$350.00	Cleaning (incl rubbish removal
Lawns	$92.00	Lawns
Lock repair/key replacement	$124.25	Lock repair/key replacement
Net award	$1,190.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,190.85

Order

Jessica Pukeroa and Hendrix Harris must pay Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Owner $1,190.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3426946-016 and BN- 00072218) to Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Owner immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered.

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, 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.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove/empty all rubbish.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not automatically required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord provided pre and post tenancy photos. These were supported by an invoice for the tasks performed. A review of the evidence showed some further cleaning was required, especially in the bathroom and on a number of walls, doors and windowsills that were dirty. I do not consider the invoice line charge of $230.00 for window cleaning was proven. The windowsills and framing that required cleaning are allowed for in the general cleaning sum awarded (below).
The claim for an oven clean of $172.50 is considered excessive when compared to the evidence. The evidence supports some cleaning of the oven drawer (basic wiping) and under the stovetop elements – an allowance of $30.00 for the minor cleaning of these areas is awarded.
The carpets were cleaned at a cost of $287.50. The landlord stated that in addition to the carpet photos, there was a smell, mainly in the lounge, suggestive of a dog having been present at some time during the tenancy. The comparison of the pre and post photos do not establish grounds for full compensation. Having considered the submissions and evidence I have apportioned 50% of the carpet cleaning cost for areas of tenant liability. This equates to $143.75.
General cleaning and some rubbish removal was required. This was mainly to do with the shower and toilet and bathroom ceiling. As noted above, a number of windowsills and framing required cleaning, as did walls and doors that were significantly marked or dirty. Having reviewed the tasks performed against the evidence I have determined the tenant should pay $350.00 towards the general cleaning cost. I consider there has been some cleaning above what is expected of a tenant at the end of the tenancy.
Lawns were mowed at a cost of $92.00. The tenant did maintain the lawns during the tenancy but inclement weather at the end of the tenancy prevented mowing at that time. The cost is awarded.
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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear.
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.
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. Back door lock
The back door lock was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant said she was unaware of the damage as she never locked the backdoor. A locksmith attended and repaired the lock at a cost of $124.25. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This cost is awarded in full. Window
The second repair costs claimed was a replacement window in the back door. It had an existing cat door installed in it, although no pets were permitted in this tenancy. At some stage a stress crack from one side of the cat door to the door frame appeared. It was not there at commencement. The landlord submitted it was caused by a dog in the premises without permission. There was limited evidence of this, the landlord pointing to damage to the lino near that door as evidence.
I do not consider the landlord has been able to establish it was more than fair wear. Installing a cat door in glass can weaken it. Cutting a hole in glass, even by a professional, introduces stress points that can make it more susceptible to cracking or shattering over time. Given that, and the fact the cat door predated the tenancy and the tenants had no beneficial use of the cat door during their tenancy, I must dismiss this claim. Electrical repairs
The landlord claimed $260.29 for an electrician invoice. The task appeared to be the replacement of five plugs. The photos with any plugs later replaced were reviewed. Those that showed any damage appeared to have moved across or down a slight length. The damage appears to be expected wear from normal use. No evidence of careless or intentional damage by the tenant was provided by the landlord and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Owner has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267844 — net $1,190.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,743.85	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet cleaning (50	$143.75	Carpet cleaning (50
Oven/stove cleaning	$30.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Cleaning (incl rubbish removal	$350.00	Cleaning (incl rubbish removal
Lawns	$92.00	Lawns
Lock repair/key replacement	$124.25	Lock repair/key replacement
Net award	$1,190.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,190.85

Order

Jessica Pukeroa and Hendrix Harris must pay Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Owner $1,190.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3426946-016 and BN- 00072218) to Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Owner immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered.

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, 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.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove/empty all rubbish.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not automatically required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord provided pre and post tenancy photos. These were supported by an invoice for the tasks performed. A review of the evidence showed some further cleaning was required, especially in the bathroom and on a number of walls, doors and windowsills that were dirty. I do not consider the invoice line charge of $230.00 for window cleaning was proven. The windowsills and framing that required cleaning are allowed for in the general cleaning sum awarded (below).
The claim for an oven clean of $172.50 is considered excessive when compared to the evidence. The evidence supports some cleaning of the oven drawer (basic wiping) and under the stovetop elements – an allowance of $30.00 for the minor cleaning of these areas is awarded.
The carpets were cleaned at a cost of $287.50. The landlord stated that in addition to the carpet photos, there was a smell, mainly in the lounge, suggestive of a dog having been present at some time during the tenancy. The comparison of the pre and post photos do not establish grounds for full compensation. Having considered the submissions and evidence I have apportioned 50% of the carpet cleaning cost for areas of tenant liability. This equates to $143.75.
General cleaning and some rubbish removal was required. This was mainly to do with the shower and toilet and bathroom ceiling. As noted above, a number of windowsills and framing required cleaning, as did walls and doors that were significantly marked or dirty. Having reviewed the tasks performed against the evidence I have determined the tenant should pay $350.00 towards the general cleaning cost. I consider there has been some cleaning above what is expected of a tenant at the end of the tenancy.
Lawns were mowed at a cost of $92.00. The tenant did maintain the lawns during the tenancy but inclement weather at the end of the tenancy prevented mowing at that time. The cost is awarded.
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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear.
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.
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. Back door lock
The back door lock was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant said she was unaware of the damage as she never locked the backdoor. A locksmith attended and repaired the lock at a cost of $124.25. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This cost is awarded in full. Window
The second repair costs claimed was a replacement window in the back door. It had an existing cat door installed in it, although no pets were permitted in this tenancy. At some stage a stress crack from one side of the cat door to the door frame appeared. It was not there at commencement. The landlord submitted it was caused by a dog in the premises without permission. There was limited evidence of this, the landlord pointing to damage to the lino near that door as evidence.
I do not consider the landlord has been able to establish it was more than fair wear. Installing a cat door in glass can weaken it. Cutting a hole in glass, even by a professional, introduces stress points that can make it more susceptible to cracking or shattering over time. Given that, and the fact the cat door predated the tenancy and the tenants had no beneficial use of the cat door during their tenancy, I must dismiss this claim. Electrical repairs
The landlord claimed $260.29 for an electrician invoice. The task appeared to be the replacement of five plugs. The photos with any plugs later replaced were reviewed. Those that showed any damage appeared to have moved across or down a slight length. The damage appears to be expected wear from normal use. No evidence of careless or intentional damage by the tenant was provided by the landlord and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Owner has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267844 — Rent arrears at 7 Amethyst Place, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267844 — Rent arrears at 7 Amethyst Place, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions