Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5341674 — Rent arrears at 119A Rosebank Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026
Decided 16 February 2026 · Published 16 February 2026 · Application 5341674
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Kee
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,370.20
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,600.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $770.20
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 29 August 2025 | $3,079.20 | Rent arrears to 29 August 2025 | |
| Water rates | $263.00 | Water rates | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $770.20 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $770.20 |
Claims and awards for application 5341674 — net $770.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 29 August 2025
- Amount
- $3,079.20
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 29 August 2025
Water rates
- Amount
- $263.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $770.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $770.20
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Kennedy Manuel must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited as agent for Kimberley Nguyen $770.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00080247) to Prestige Rental Management Limited as agent for Kimberley Nguyen immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 29 August 2025$3,079.20 Water rates$263.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,370.20 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$770.20
Reasons
- Will Liu attended the hearing for the landlord.
- The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 29 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates records which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy for rent and water are as set out in the table above.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
- The landlord’s photographs indicate the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- However, the landlord only provided a quote not an invoice. Mr Liu telephoned the landlord, but they could not confirm whether they had paid the contractor to clean the premises and remove the rubbish.
- I reserved my decision in case Mr Liu could provide evidence of the landlord’s loss. The hearing was conducted on 12 February 2026. It is now 16 February 2026, and the Tribunal has not received any further information from the landlord.
- This claim is not allowed due to inadequate proof that the landlord incurred any cost.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims for the cost of repairing damage to the walls and a blind.
- The landlord’s photographs show that during to the tenancy, several holes were caused by attaching a television set to the wall; also; one wall is covered in what appears to be pellets from an air gun or similar; and a window blind has been pulled away from the window frame (Mr Liu says that was probably due to the tenant’s large dog jumping up and pulling it down with its paws). 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii).
- 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. 2
- 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). 3 In this case, the landlord says they were not covered for tenant damage.
- 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). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
- 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. 6
- 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. 7
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage appears to be intentional and therefore the landlord would not have been able to claim under her insurance.
- Again, however. The landlord only provided a quote and could not confirm whether they had paid any body to carry out repairs.
- This claim is not allowed. Claims not allowed
- The monetary claims that I have not allowed are as follows: 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 4 RTA s 49B(3)(b) 5 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 6 RTA s 49B(1). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Cleaning$575.00 Carpet Cleaning$575.00 Wall damage repairs$920.00 Window and curtain repairs$345.00 Filing fee
- The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 8
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102(4), s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5341674?
The tribunal order states: Kennedy Manuel must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited as agent for
How much money was awarded in case 5341674?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,079.20 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $263.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341674?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341674?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13115503-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.