What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5370523?

The tribunal order states: Zivana Ngametua Zamar Edgecombe Tweeddale to pay Keren Michelle Naidoo

How much money was awarded in case 5370523?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: further two weeks' ren…: $1,150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Washing Machine Flood: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Pest Control: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit Given By Landlord: $575.00 awarded to tenant; The Loss Of Amenities Suffered By Th…: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370523?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13619143-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5370523?

The tribunal order states: Zivana Ngametua Zamar Edgecombe Tweeddale to pay Keren Michelle Naidoo

How much money was awarded in case 5370523?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: further two weeks' ren…: $1,150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Washing Machine Flood: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Pest Control: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit Given By Landlord: $575.00 awarded to tenant; The Loss Of Amenities Suffered By Th…: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370523?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13619143-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

493B Pinnacle Hill Road, Bombay, RD 1, Bombay 2675 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370523 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

493B Pinnacle Hill Road, Bombay, RD 1, Bombay 2675 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370523 — 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 5370523 — net $3,321.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 August 2025	$2,700.00		Rent arrears to 27 August 2025
Lock/key replacement	$207.00		Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$414.00		Cleaning
Rent credit given by landlord		$575.00	Rent credit given by landlord
Compensation: further two weeks' rent rebate for		$1,150.00	further two weeks' rent rebate for
the loss of amenities suffered by the tenants due to		$200.00	the loss of amenities suffered by the tenants due to
rats infestation and pest control period		$750.00	rats infestation and pest control period
Compensation: washing machine flood		$200.00	washing machine flood
Total award	$3,321.00	$2,875.00
Net award	$3,321.00
Bond	$575.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,321.00

Claims and awards for application 5370523 — net $3,321.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 27 August 2025

Amount: $2,700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 27 August 2025

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $414.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rent credit given by landlord

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent credit given by landlord

Compensation: further two weeks' rent rebate for

Amount: $1,150.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: further two weeks' rent rebate for

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Pest Control Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Zivana Ngametua Zamar Edgecombe Tweeddale to pay Keren Michelle Naidoo and Sherwin Naidoo $446.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $575.00 (BN-00086925) immediately apportioned as follows: Keren Michelle Naidoo and Sherwin Naidoo: $446.00 Zivana Ngametua Zamar Edgecombe Tweeddale: $129.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for failure to maintain and loss of amenities suffered throughout the tenancy.
I firstly address the landlord’s claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 19 April 2025 and ended on 27 August 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has also provided a week’s rent credit for some inconvenience suffered by the tenant during the tenancy. I will address this in greater detail below when discussing about the tenant’s claim.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not return all the keys.
The rodent repeller worth $116.52 was accidentally removed by the tenant. The tenant is prepared to return the item to the landlord within 7 days. Leave is given to the landlord to seek this costs if the item is not returned after 7 days.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.
The landlord’s claim for veterinary costs for injured pigs (bitten by the tenant’s dog) is considered under the same principle of “property damage”.
The tenant has disproved liability for the injury to the landlord’s pigs. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had locked up her dog but it escaped from the house and unfortunately bit the landlord’s pigs. The injury to the pigs were unintentionally caused by the tenant. The tenant has also proved in balance that she had not been careless in containing her dog.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of veterinary costs is hereby dismissed.
I now address the tenant’s claims for compensation against the landlord due to various items in the premises being unrepaired or unattended to without a reasonable timeframe after being notified to the landlord. The tenant contends that the premises is not in tenantable condition and the landlord has not properly attended to repairs in a timely manner.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations during the tenancy?

I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s general obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV- 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Here the tenant has notified the landlord on various issues with the property.
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.
Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
That said, the landlord has received rent from the tenant and is expected to provide accommodation which is suitable to be enjoyed by the tenant in consideration of payment of rent.
On the issue of rat infestation, I find that the landlord should have readied the premises at the commencement of the tenancy rather than await later notification from the tenant that rats were becoming a major issue. The landlord was aware that this is a rural property in which rats will be attracted to the premises due to warmth and natural occurrence.
Pest control efforts by the landlord were successful (after the tenant notified the landlord) but the tenant has suffered loss of amenities from the dead rats and living in fear and trepidation from noise and unsightly conditions.
I have taken into account the one week’s rent rebate provided by the landlord on the issue of rats. I award a further two weeks' rent rebate for the loss of amenities suffered by the tenants due to rat infestation and pest control period with dead rats appearing all over the place.
There were other complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention. I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the tenant as set out in the above table.
I award the tenant compensation for inconvenience and loss of amenity from the washing machine flood, The award is modest in light of the landlord’s quick response to rectify the problem, but an award is nevertheless appropriate because the tenant should expect a working chattel.
I also award the tenant compensation for her having to endure floods from lack of drainage, window defects which let water in, on 3 occasions. The amounts awarded are directed towards the tenant’s loss of amenity as a result.
Finally, I also award the tenant compensation for lack of hot water for 4 days due to the faulty hot water cylinder.
Only the amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved.
The bond is disbursed to the parties as apportioned above.

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 5370523 — net $3,321.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 August 2025	$2,700.00		Rent arrears to 27 August 2025
Lock/key replacement	$207.00		Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$414.00		Cleaning
Rent credit given by landlord		$575.00	Rent credit given by landlord
Compensation: further two weeks' rent rebate for		$1,150.00	further two weeks' rent rebate for
the loss of amenities suffered by the tenants due to		$200.00	the loss of amenities suffered by the tenants due to
rats infestation and pest control period		$750.00	rats infestation and pest control period
Compensation: washing machine flood		$200.00	washing machine flood
Total award	$3,321.00	$2,875.00
Net award	$3,321.00
Bond	$575.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,321.00

Claims and awards for application 5370523 — net $3,321.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 27 August 2025

Amount: $2,700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 27 August 2025

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $414.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rent credit given by landlord

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent credit given by landlord

Compensation: further two weeks' rent rebate for

Amount: $1,150.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: further two weeks' rent rebate for

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Pest Control Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Zivana Ngametua Zamar Edgecombe Tweeddale to pay Keren Michelle Naidoo and Sherwin Naidoo $446.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $575.00 (BN-00086925) immediately apportioned as follows: Keren Michelle Naidoo and Sherwin Naidoo: $446.00 Zivana Ngametua Zamar Edgecombe Tweeddale: $129.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for failure to maintain and loss of amenities suffered throughout the tenancy.
I firstly address the landlord’s claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 19 April 2025 and ended on 27 August 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has also provided a week’s rent credit for some inconvenience suffered by the tenant during the tenancy. I will address this in greater detail below when discussing about the tenant’s claim.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not return all the keys.
The rodent repeller worth $116.52 was accidentally removed by the tenant. The tenant is prepared to return the item to the landlord within 7 days. Leave is given to the landlord to seek this costs if the item is not returned after 7 days.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.
The landlord’s claim for veterinary costs for injured pigs (bitten by the tenant’s dog) is considered under the same principle of “property damage”.
The tenant has disproved liability for the injury to the landlord’s pigs. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had locked up her dog but it escaped from the house and unfortunately bit the landlord’s pigs. The injury to the pigs were unintentionally caused by the tenant. The tenant has also proved in balance that she had not been careless in containing her dog.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of veterinary costs is hereby dismissed.
I now address the tenant’s claims for compensation against the landlord due to various items in the premises being unrepaired or unattended to without a reasonable timeframe after being notified to the landlord. The tenant contends that the premises is not in tenantable condition and the landlord has not properly attended to repairs in a timely manner.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations during the tenancy?

I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s general obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV- 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Here the tenant has notified the landlord on various issues with the property.
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.
Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
That said, the landlord has received rent from the tenant and is expected to provide accommodation which is suitable to be enjoyed by the tenant in consideration of payment of rent.
On the issue of rat infestation, I find that the landlord should have readied the premises at the commencement of the tenancy rather than await later notification from the tenant that rats were becoming a major issue. The landlord was aware that this is a rural property in which rats will be attracted to the premises due to warmth and natural occurrence.
Pest control efforts by the landlord were successful (after the tenant notified the landlord) but the tenant has suffered loss of amenities from the dead rats and living in fear and trepidation from noise and unsightly conditions.
I have taken into account the one week’s rent rebate provided by the landlord on the issue of rats. I award a further two weeks' rent rebate for the loss of amenities suffered by the tenants due to rat infestation and pest control period with dead rats appearing all over the place.
There were other complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention. I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the tenant as set out in the above table.
I award the tenant compensation for inconvenience and loss of amenity from the washing machine flood, The award is modest in light of the landlord’s quick response to rectify the problem, but an award is nevertheless appropriate because the tenant should expect a working chattel.
I also award the tenant compensation for her having to endure floods from lack of drainage, window defects which let water in, on 3 occasions. The amounts awarded are directed towards the tenant’s loss of amenity as a result.
Finally, I also award the tenant compensation for lack of hot water for 4 days due to the faulty hot water cylinder.
Only the amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved.
The bond is disbursed to the parties as apportioned above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370523 — Rent arrears at 493B Pinnacle Hill Road, Bombay, RD 1, Bombay 2675

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370523 — Rent arrears at 493B Pinnacle Hill Road, Bombay, RD 1, Bombay 2675

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions