Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5367601 — Rent arrears at 186 Ohaupo Road, Glenview, Hamilton 3206
Decided 3 February 2026 · Published 3 February 2026 · Application 5367601
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Hamilton
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
D Watson
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,705.27
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,800.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,905.27
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 30 October 2025 | $3,500.00 | Rent arrears to 30 October 2025 | |
| Cleaning | $800.00 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $937.27 | Rubbish removal | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| a typographical error in the calcaultion _______________________________________________________________________________ | $440.00 | a typographical error in the calcaultion _______________________________________________________________________________ | |
| Net award | $2,905.27 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,905.27 |
Claims and awards for application 5367601 — net $2,905.27 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 30 October 2025
- Amount
- $3,500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 30 October 2025
Cleaning
- Amount
- $800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $937.27
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
a typographical error in the calcaultion _______________________________________________________________________________
- Amount
- $440.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- a typographical error in the calcaultion _______________________________________________________________________________
Net award
Landlord $2,905.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,905.27
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
1
- Keri Juanita Raiha Waikato Creed and Teokotairemel Kata must pay Ktw Limited T/A Propertyscouts Hamilton $2,905.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00149654) to Ktw Limited T/A Propertyscouts Hamilton immediately.
Reasons
- Only the landlord 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. Burden of proof
- I begin by noting that the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations as to the burden of proof. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
- Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal and to make submissions accordingly.
- As noted in Kaipo v Clarke, in practical terms this means that: 2 ...[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.
- It is therefore not for the Tribunal to work out the applicant’s case and go looking for the relevant evidence amongst the material filed by the applicant; it is for the applicant to present their case and advance any relevant submissions.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as ordered above. 2 Kaipo v Clarke DC Waitakere TT 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7].
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.
- “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3
- The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord.
- The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
- In Ace Property Management v Owens 4 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
- The landlord is claiming $1100 for cleaning. I am satisfied that some cleaning was required to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition but not to that extent. I find that the tenants should pay $800 as a contribution to the cleaning of the premises.
- The landlord claimed $960.25 for the cost of rubbish removal. The relevant invoice for rubbish removal was only for $937.25. I therefore only allow the amount claimed on the invoice. I am satisfied the tenant left behind various unwanted belongings and rubbish. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 4 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008
- The landlord is claiming $200 for what it says is a broken Led light. The landlord referred to a photo of an LED light where the protector seems to have been removed.
- I am not satisfied that this was other than wear and tear and I do not allow it.
- The tenant did not return the keys. I have ordered above that the landlord be reimbursed for their replacement cost.
- Because Ktw Limited T/A Propertyscouts Hamilton has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s4, s40(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
- KTW LIMITED T/A Propertyscouts Hamilton (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5367601?
The tribunal order states: Keri Juanita Raiha Waikato Creed and Teokotairemel Kata must pay Ktw Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5367601?
A Typographical Error In The Calcaul…: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $937.27 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367601?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367601?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13064105-Tribunal_Order.pdf.