Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5319222 — Cleanliness at 26 Derwent Street, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400
Decided 23 February 2026 · Published 23 February 2026 · Application 5319222
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Oamaru
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Armstrong
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,980.71
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$1,800.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $180.71
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 1 May 2025 | $455.71 | Rent arrears to 1 May 2025 | |
| Oven/stove cleaning | $120.00 | Oven/stove cleaning | |
| Outside work | $200.00 | Outside work | |
| Clean interior walls | $600.00 | Clean interior walls | |
| Toilet roll holder | $15.00 | Toilet roll holder | |
| Broken window | $150.00 | Broken window | |
| Two replacement doors | $412.00 | Two replacement doors | |
| Filing fee | $28.00 | Filing fee | |
| Net award | $180.71 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $180.71 |
Claims and awards for application 5319222 — net $180.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
- Amount
- $455.71
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Oven/stove cleaning
- Amount
- $120.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Oven/stove cleaning
Outside work
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Outside work
Clean interior walls
- Amount
- $600.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Clean interior walls
Toilet roll holder
- Amount
- $15.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Toilet roll holder
Broken window
- Amount
- $150.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Broken window
Two replacement doors
- Amount
- $412.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Two replacement doors
Filing fee
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee
Net award
Landlord $180.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $180.71
Dismissed claims
- For Water Blasting The Paved Area — Tenants are not expected to water blast the premises unless they have actively done something that necessitates it such as spilling paint.
- Property Damage — because it was not supported by evidence that the tenants damaged it.
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Craig Peterson and Ngaire Mallon must pay Essential Realty Limited as Agent for Paul Strange and Monica Strange $180.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The landlords’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6439590-008) to Essential Realty Limited as Agent for Paul Strange and Monica Strange immediately.
Reasons
- Ms Palatchie and Ms Rudd from Essential Realty Limited (the agents) attended the hearing for the landlords. The tenants did not attend.
- The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- This tenancy began in February 2022 and ended in May 2025.
- In December 2025 the landlords sold the premises.
- Before selling the premises, the landlords painted them throughout, installed new carpet throughout and renovated the kitchen among some other improvements.
- In support of their claims, the landlords produced an invoice in the sum of $5,787.95 from Act 2 Limited to Base 10 Investments Limited.
- It appears that Base 10 Investments Limited is the landlords’ property investment vehicle. The landlords also own Act 2 Limited.
- One of the landlords carried out the work for which the claims are made with professional help as needed. Relevant Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- The Tribunal must consider betterment where appropriate. 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 assessing betterment, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- Applicants must also prove causation which means proving that the breach caused the claimed loss. The fundamental question is would the applicant have suffered the loss but for the breach? Claims Rent
- The landlords provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and I have awarded it in full. Compensation
- I will deal with each of the landlords’ claims in the order that they appear in their application.
- Because the landlords have effectively sent an invoice to themselves, I will ignore the invoice and assess the claims on the basis that the landlord is entitled to reasonable compensation for the time needed to carry out the work. Where it is likely that professional help was needed, I will assess the reasonable cost of that.
- The oven needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy, and I have awarded $120 as claimed.
- The claim for $800 for garden work was not well supported by the evidence. The ingoing photographs show a somewhat untidy outside area. Some of the work such as cutting back vegetation is beyond the tenants’ responsibility.
- The claim for $400 for water blasting the paved area is dismissed. Tenants are not expected to water blast the premises unless they have actively done something that necessitates it such as spilling paint.
- I accept that some tidying of the outside areas was needed and is the tenants’ responsibility and I have assessed compensation at $200.
- I accept the agents’ evidence that the tenants smoked inside the premises and caused walls to be stained and malodourous. The walls in two bedrooms and the living/dining area were affected.
- I accept that they needed washing down before they could be painted, and I assessed compensation for that at $600.
- I dismiss the claim for carpet replacement. Carpet in two bedrooms was stained during the tenancy and I would have awarded compensation for that based on either the cleaning cost or possibly the replacement cost adjusted for betterment. But carpet in the premises was mismatched and it is likely that the landlords would have replaced the carpet throughout in any case. Therefore, the breach has not caused the loss.
- The toilet roll holder was pulled from the wall and I have awarded the claim in full.
- The claim for replacing the “door handle and repair” is dismissed because it was not supported by evidence that the tenants damaged it.
- The same applies to the claim for broken lights. The lights were original and there was difficulty finding the bulbs for them. They have been replaced by modern lights and it is likely that they would have ben replaced in any case.
- I would have accepted the claim for cleaning the smoke affected curtains, but the sale photographs show that the premises were sold without curtains. It is likely that the original curtains would not have been left in the premises in any case. There was no evidence that the curtains were cleaned for use elsewhere. I therefore dismiss this claim.
- I have awarded the claim for the window that was broken during the tenancy. The tenants were not present to disprove liability.
- Two doors were damaged during the tenancy. The claim is for three doors, but one door was already damaged at the start of the tenancy. I have therefore awarded 2/3 of the claimed cost of replacing the doors.
- The landlords have had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee.
- The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenants must pay the remaining liability.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5319222?
The tribunal order states: Craig Peterson and Ngaire Mallon must pay Essential Realty Limited as Agent
How much money was awarded in case 5319222?
Broken Window: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $412.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $455.71 awarded to landlord; Toilet Roll Holder: $15.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319222?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319222?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13168805-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.