Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5361913 — Rent arrears at 62 Aurora Terrace, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216
Published 6 March 2026 · Application 5361913
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Smoke alarms
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Hamilton
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,714.25
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,800.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,914.25
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 17 September 2025 | $3,600.00 | Rent arrears to 17 September 2025 | |
| Cleaning | $350.00 | Cleaning | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $322.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $350.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Clean swimming pool | $280.00 | Clean swimming pool | |
| Lock/key replacement | $245.00 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Replace smoke alarms and garage remote | $230.00 | Replace smoke alarms and garage remote | |
| Unblock waste disposal blockage | $109.25 | Unblock waste disposal blockage | |
| Repairs: bathroom tiles | $200.00 | Repairs: bathroom tiles | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,914.25 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,914.25 |
Claims and awards for application 5361913 — net $2,914.25 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 17 September 2025
- Amount
- $3,600.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 17 September 2025
Cleaning
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $322.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Clean swimming pool
- Amount
- $280.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Clean swimming pool
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $245.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms and garage remote
- Amount
- $230.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace smoke alarms and garage remote
Unblock waste disposal blockage
- Amount
- $109.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Unblock waste disposal blockage
Repairs: bathroom tiles
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: bathroom tiles
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,914.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,914.25
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Tomairangi Melbourne must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Pam Zhang $2,914.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (5528028-001) to Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Pam Zhang immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Ms Liang, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
- The tenancy commenced on 3 September 2021. The tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 17 September 2025. On 9 October 2025, the landlord filed a claim for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, cleaning the swimming pool, key replacement, replacing the garage remote, missing smoke alarms, a blocked waste disposal unit, and damage to bathroom tiles, walls, and doors.
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) Rent arrears
- The landlord has produced an up-to-date rent summary showing all of the rent payments received. I am satisfied that the tenant owes the rent arrears as claimed. I note that the last rent payment was received by the landlord on 6 August 2025.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- The landlord claims $350.00 for cleaning the property, $322.00 for carpet cleaning, $350.00 to remove rubbish, $280.00 to clean the swimming pool, $245.00 to re-key locks, and $230.00 to replace missing smoke alarms and the garage remote.
- The landlord has produced a pre-tenancy checklist and photographs of the property at the commencement and end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided invoices supporting the claims and included email correspondence with the tenant regarding these matters after the tenancy had ended. I have also heard from Ms Liang, who personally visited the property during and at the end of the tenancy. Law
- 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) of the Act.
- The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Analysis and decision
- The property was built in the 1970s and consists of four bedrooms, a kitchen, lounge / dining area, bathroom, ensuite bathroom, sunroom, laundry, and garage. Based on the photographs produced the property retains most of its original features. The main bathroom appears to have been renovated in the 2000s.
- The landlord stated that the tenant was permitted to have animals at the property, and, in return agreed to have the carpet professionally cleaned. The tenant had two dogs and two cats. A term of the agreement which imposes an obligation over and above that required by the Act, is, on its face void. However, Ms Liang stated that she attended the property and noted a strong animal odour from the carpet. The carpeted areas are the lounge / dining area, sunroom, four bedrooms, and part of the hallway. I accept the landlord’s evidence. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the carpet in a reasonable condition. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded.
- Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish. The photographs show rubbish left inside the house, in the garage, and outside, including a mattress, BBQ, and a trampoline. The amount claimed is reasonable and is awarded.
- The property has an in-ground swimming pool listed as a chattel. At the commencement of the tenancy the pool was clear although it had some leaf debris on the bottom. At the end of the tenancy, the pool was green with algae. Cleaning the pool was the tenant’s responsibility. I am satisfied that the pool was not returned in at least the same condition it was at the commencement. The amount claimed is reasonable and is awarded.
- At the commencement the tenant was provided with two keys to the front door, two to a sliding door, and a garage remote. At the end of the tenancy, only the one key for each door was returned, and no remote control. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return all keys and security devices. To properly secure the property for the next occupants, the landlord re keyed the locks and replaced the remote. The amount claimed is awarded.
- At the beginning of the tenancy, there were smoke alarms in the hallway, lounge, and one of the bedrooms, with the alarm in the hallway being the qualifying alarm for the purposes of the Smoke Alarm regulations. At the end of the tenancy, the alarms in the lounge and bedroom were missing. Smoke alarms are chattels, and a tenant must account for them at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to account for these chattels. The amount claimed is awarded. Damage
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the tiled floor in the main bathroom, the frame of the aluminium sliding door to the sunroom, and other areas of minor wall damage throughout the property. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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.
- The landlord has insurance with an excess of $750.00 per claim.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
- The landlord stated that during an inspection in 2023, the tenant had reported dropping something heavy on the bathroom tiles, resulting in four cracked tiles. The landlord did not repair the tiles, and a mat was placed over the area. At the end of the tenancy the landlord noted that two additional tiles nearby had cracked.
- Based on the photographs, I am satisfied that the tiles were damaged during the tenancy and that the initial damage reported in 2023 was likely the result of carelessness. A tenant must notify the landlord of any damage as soon as possible. Even if not responsible for the initial damage, a failure to report it may result in liability for consequential damage.
- I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the damage to the four tiles. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the two additional tiles, which were likely damaged as a consequence of the earlier cracking.
- The total amount claimed is $300.15, equating to $50.00 per tile. I award the landlord $200.00 for four tiles. Only the damaged tiles were replaced; there has been no betterment, and no further deductions are made. Other damage
- The pre tenancy photographs show minor damage to walls and doors throughout the property consistent with fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the additional damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
- In relation to the damage to the sliding door. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a small dent. However, there are no photographs showing the damaged area at the commencement of the tenancy. As noted, the property already showed signs of fair wear and tear at the commencement. I cannot rule out the possibility that this damage was present at the commencement of the tenancy. These claims for damage are dismissed. Costs
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
- Although the landlord has been substantially successful and is entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it, and no orders are made.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s30, s4, s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(3)
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 5361913?
The tribunal order states: Tomairangi Melbourne must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent
How much money was awarded in case 5361913?
Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tiles: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Waste Disposal Blockage: $109.25 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361913?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Smoke alarms.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361913?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.