What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339009 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Utrust Property

How much money was awarded in case 5339009?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,380.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339009?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12882548-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339009 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Utrust Property

How much money was awarded in case 5339009?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,380.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339009?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12882548-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339009 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

11A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339009 — 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 5339009 — net $2,585.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025	$3,380.00	Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$180.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$437.83	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,585.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,585.83

Claims and awards for application 5339009 — net $2,585.83 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025

Amount: $3,380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs

Amount: $437.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Guanglin Tao $2,585.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (3378000-017) to Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Guanglin Tao immediately.

Reasons

On 1 September 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 31 October 2025, the Tribunal amended the landlord’s claim to include the following: a. Rent arrears b. Compensation for cleaning. c. Compensation for rubbish removal. d. Compensation for lock changes. e. Compensation for patch and ceiling painting. f. Refund of the bond. g. Reimbursement of the filing fee. h. The landlord withdrew their application for termination
The hearing proceeded today by telephone conference. Mr Stephen Wang, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenants did not appear. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo 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 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2022.
On 16 February 2023 Mr Polkinghorne was added as a tenant to the tenancy agreement.
On 29 August 2025, the tenants gave 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 25 September 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $3,380.00. The amount claimed is 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.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $250.00 cleaning costs after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show: a. There were grime marks on the walls and doors. b. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped. c. The kitchen had not been cleaned, including the cupboards, bench tops and oven. d. The bathroom toilet and shower had not been cleaned, were soiled, and stained. e. There was evidence of dust, cobwebs, and marks around the windowsills.
The tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $350.00 rubbish removal costs after paying a contractor to clear and dump rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the property was provided free from rubbish.
The end of tenancy photographs shows the tenants left behind the following items at the end of the tenancy: a. Old furniture including an armchair and three-seater couch, an L shaped couch, beds and mattresses, chests of draws, and a side table. b. Cutlery, crockery, and cookware. c. Bike helmets and a stationary bike. d. Old tyres and building materials. e. Other household rubbish.
The Tribunal is able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $180.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states the tenants failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy and for security reasons the decision was made to change the locks.
Having heard from the landlord the Tribunal was satisfied the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the property was provided free from damage at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which show the following damage at the end of the tenancy: a. Large blue and white spray-painted graffiti on the concrete block wall in the garage. b. Purple graffiti on an exterior painted concrete block wall. c. Roughly plastered hole on an internal sliding door. d. Plastered hole in the toilet door. e. Five plastered holes in the wall in bedroom three. f. Paint removed from the ceiling in bedroom two (following the removal of LED strip lighting). g. Damage of the gib board in bedroom two caused by the removal of LED strip lighting. h. Six plastered holes in bedroom two. i. Three plastered holes in the doors in bedroom two. j. A plaster hole behind a door, a scrap mark and damage to the paint on the wall and damage to the top of the wardrobe door in bedroom one. k. Paint damage and three large plaster patch to the walls in the lounge
The Tribunal is able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.
I 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Costs
Because Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Guanglin Tao 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 5339009 — net $2,585.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025	$3,380.00	Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$180.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$437.83	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,585.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,585.83

Claims and awards for application 5339009 — net $2,585.83 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025

Amount: $3,380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 25 September 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs

Amount: $437.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Guanglin Tao $2,585.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (3378000-017) to Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Guanglin Tao immediately.

Reasons

On 1 September 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 31 October 2025, the Tribunal amended the landlord’s claim to include the following: a. Rent arrears b. Compensation for cleaning. c. Compensation for rubbish removal. d. Compensation for lock changes. e. Compensation for patch and ceiling painting. f. Refund of the bond. g. Reimbursement of the filing fee. h. The landlord withdrew their application for termination
The hearing proceeded today by telephone conference. Mr Stephen Wang, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenants did not appear. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo 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 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2022.
On 16 February 2023 Mr Polkinghorne was added as a tenant to the tenancy agreement.
On 29 August 2025, the tenants gave 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 25 September 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $3,380.00. The amount claimed is 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.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $250.00 cleaning costs after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show: a. There were grime marks on the walls and doors. b. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped. c. The kitchen had not been cleaned, including the cupboards, bench tops and oven. d. The bathroom toilet and shower had not been cleaned, were soiled, and stained. e. There was evidence of dust, cobwebs, and marks around the windowsills.
The tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $350.00 rubbish removal costs after paying a contractor to clear and dump rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the property was provided free from rubbish.
The end of tenancy photographs shows the tenants left behind the following items at the end of the tenancy: a. Old furniture including an armchair and three-seater couch, an L shaped couch, beds and mattresses, chests of draws, and a side table. b. Cutlery, crockery, and cookware. c. Bike helmets and a stationary bike. d. Old tyres and building materials. e. Other household rubbish.
The Tribunal is able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $180.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states the tenants failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy and for security reasons the decision was made to change the locks.
Having heard from the landlord the Tribunal was satisfied the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the property was provided free from damage at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which show the following damage at the end of the tenancy: a. Large blue and white spray-painted graffiti on the concrete block wall in the garage. b. Purple graffiti on an exterior painted concrete block wall. c. Roughly plastered hole on an internal sliding door. d. Plastered hole in the toilet door. e. Five plastered holes in the wall in bedroom three. f. Paint removed from the ceiling in bedroom two (following the removal of LED strip lighting). g. Damage of the gib board in bedroom two caused by the removal of LED strip lighting. h. Six plastered holes in bedroom two. i. Three plastered holes in the doors in bedroom two. j. A plaster hole behind a door, a scrap mark and damage to the paint on the wall and damage to the top of the wardrobe door in bedroom one. k. Paint damage and three large plaster patch to the walls in the lounge
The Tribunal is able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.
I 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Costs
Because Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Guanglin Tao has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339009 — Rent arrears at 11A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339009 — Rent arrears at 11A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

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?

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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?

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.