Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5379110 — Rent arrears at 118A Consols Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610
Published 28 April 2026 · Application 5379110
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
Waihi
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
W Lang
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,090.31
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,420.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $670.31
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 26 September 2025 | $777.86 | Rent arrears to 26 September 2025 | |
| Cleaning | $500.00 | Cleaning | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $60.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Rubbish removal | $1,121.25 | Rubbish removal | |
| Repairs: Heat pump | $350.00 | Repairs: Heat pump | |
| Repairs: towel rail | $20.20 | Repairs: towel rail | |
| Repairs: flood light | $30.00 | Repairs: flood light | |
| Repairs: Cat Door | $57.50 | Repairs: Cat Door | |
| Smoke Alarms | $80.50 | Smoke Alarms | |
| replace sheer curtain | $65.00 | replace sheer curtain | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $670.31 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $670.31 |
Claims and awards for application 5379110 — net $670.31 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 26 September 2025
- Amount
- $777.86
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 26 September 2025
Cleaning
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work
- Amount
- $60.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $1,121.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Repairs: Heat pump
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Heat pump
Repairs: towel rail
- Amount
- $20.20
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: towel rail
Repairs: flood light
- Amount
- $30.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: flood light
Repairs: Cat Door
- Amount
- $57.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Cat Door
Smoke Alarms
- Amount
- $80.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Smoke Alarms
replace sheer curtain
- Amount
- $65.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- replace sheer curtain
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $670.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $670.31
Dismissed claims
- Pest Control
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Shakelia Phyllis Gates must pay Jennifer Hong Zhang $670.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,420.00 (BN-00149035) to Jennifer Hong Zhang immediately.
- The claim for pest control and loss of rent is dismissed.
- Jennifer Hong Zhang’s application for suppression is declined.
Reasons
- The hearing was held over two sessions. The landlord attended the first hearing, which as an in-person held at Thames Court, and the second hearing, which was held remotely by video. The tenant did not attend either hearing.
- I am satisfied that the tenant was sent notices of hearing and all information about the landlord’s claim via her email address which the tenancy agreement records as being an address for service. Accordingly the hearings went ahead in the absence of the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy commenced on 21 August 2025. Rent was $605 a week. The property is a 2 bedroom standalone house on a section of around 500m ².
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenant did not give the landlord any notice that she was vacating the tenancy. On 26 September 2025 the landlord received a call from the neighbour who told her the tenant had left and was not coming back, and that the tenant had given her the key to the property. The landlord collected the key from the neighbour and rang the tenant who confirmed what the neighbour had told her.
- The landlord seeks rent to 26 September 2025 when she took possession of the property. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
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 (RTA).
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord claims $977.50 for cleaning, $1,121.25 for rubbish removal and $74.75 for lawn mowing.
- Cleaning and Pest Control: The photographs presented support that cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy. However I find the photographs support that no more 6 - 7 hours work was required to achieve the standard required by the RTA at the end of the tenancy, as well as a carpet clean. On that basis I find that $500.00 is reasonable based on the evidence presented.
- In making this finding, I have considered the invoiced costs charged, however the landlord confirmed that she was the director/owner of the company (Wonderland Group Ltd) and that her husband had carried out all work invoiced. The invoice does not set out the hours claimed for each area of work charged or the hourly rate claimed.
- The landlord said cockroaches and mice were present at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The photographs do not support that pest control was required at the end of the tenancy in that there are no photographs showing the presence of cockroaches or mice. The invoice contains no details of what pest control was undertaken or the amount of labour charged. I find the claim for pest control has not been proven and is dismissed.
- Rubbish removal: I find the costs claimed for rubbish removal are reasonable given the rubbish left at the premises, particularly given the building items that required removing including 2 large sofas and a bed. The claim is supported by the landlord’s photographs.
- Lawns: The photographs prove the lawns needed a mow at the end of the tenancy. However the area involved is not large. I find $60.00 is reasonable for the work required.
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy:
- Net curtains: A set of net curtains were missing from the living room and another net curtain stained. The landlord claims $85.00+gst ($97.75) for replacement curtains.
- To avoid betterment in favour of the landlord in ordering compensation I have taken into account the probable remaining life of the carpet. The curtains were 1 year old before the tenancy started. Net curtains have a short economic life in tenancy premises of around 3 years. Therefore I find the curtains were one-third of the way through their life span. I find the tenant is to pay $65.00, being 2/3rds of the amount claimed.
- Smoke Alarms: The landlord replaced the smoke alarms at the end of the tenancy as they had been removed.
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.
- 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) RTA.
- 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) RTA. 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) RTA.
- 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) RTA.
- 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Outdoor heat pump unit:
- The landlord’s photographs show that the outdoor heat pump unit was damaged during the tenancy, in that the fan and cabinet on the exterior of the unit was broken. The landlord claims $2,989.00, as charged on Wonderland’s invoice, for the installation of both a new outdoor heat pump unit and an indoor unit.
- The landlord maintains that both the indoor and the outdoor units required replacing as then she would then have new warranties and guarantees for both units.
- In support of the Wonderland invoice the landlord provided an invoice for the purchase of 2 heat pumps (both including indoor and outdoor units) of the same brand (Midea) as the existing heat pump at a cost of $999.00 each.
- The landlord’s view is that the discount she received because she bought 2 sets of units at the same time should not be passed onto the tenant. The landlord said that each set of indoor/outdoor units has a usual value of around $1,400.00 to $1,500.00 each. That means the labour charged, based on the amount invoiced, is $1,489.00 to $1,589.00 to remove the existing indoor/outdoor units and install the new units.
- The landlord provided the invoice for the existing heat pump, which shows it was purchased in February 2022 for $1,544.00. The landlord says it was not installed for around 6 months to 1 year after purchase, and that the previous tenant did not use the heat pump very much. She maintains it was in “brand new” condition when it was replaced.
- From the landlord’s evidence I am satisfied that the outdoor heat pump was damaged during the tenancy. I do not find the damage has been proven to be intentional. I find more likely than not it was carelessly caused.
- However I am concerned that the landlord’s husband removed and replaced the heat pump and that an electrician has not certified any of the electrical work in removing and installing the units.
- I raised this concern at the first hearing. In response the landlord said she had Wonderland do the work as it was a “heat pump specialist”. Later in the hearing and after she said she was the director/shareholder of Wonderland and that her husband had done the work, she stated that her husband was licenced to install heat pumps and held the relevant qualifications.
- The landlord has not provided evidence to support her assertion that Wonderland is a company specialising in installing heat pumps, or any evidence that her husband is qualified to install heat pumps. The landlord has provided a certificate that confirms her husband is certified as an approved filler for liquified gases. The landlord’s view is that there is no issue with her husband removing and installing the heat pump as she says it is “a plug in plug out job” and that an electrician was not needed.
- I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven: a.that the inside unit needed to be replaced because the outdoor unit was damaged, or b.that the work to replace the heat pumps has been done to a safe standard.
- In making this finding I only have the landlord’s personal view that both units needed to be replaced and that an electrician was not required to do or certify any of the work. That is, no evidence has been presented from a qualified professional, whether that be a heat pump installation specialist and/or an electrician, as to what work was required or what units needed to be replaced, or that this work could be done by a non-qualified person. The landlord had adequate opportunity to provide such evidence.
- Landlords must comply with all building, health, and safety legislative requirements (see s45(1)(c) RTA). Under the Electricity Act 1992 landlords are prohibited from personally doing any fixed wiring work in their tenancy premises. A registered electrical worker must carry out this type of work on residential premises 1 . 1 Under s 74 of the Electricity Act only registered electricians with a current practising licence, or those with a provisional license or an employer license can carry out prescribed electrical work, unless they fall within one of the exemptions. One of the exemptions set out in s 79 enables the owner of a residential
- Here the landlord’s company has carried out the work with her unqualified husband doing all the work.
- As a result I am not persuaded that the inside unit needed to be replaced and I cannot be satisfied that the work has been done to the safely to the standards required or that the landlord has met her obligations under s 45(1)(c).
- In considering all of the above I find it appropriate to award compensation based on the cost of the outside unit only after considering betterment and depreciation. Trade Depot’s invoice does not break down the cost for each of the inside and outside units. I find it reasonable to consider each unit is worth 50% of the total cost paid (50% of $999.00 = $499.50). I have not allowed any labour as I am not convinced by the evidence that the heat pumps have been safely or professionally installed.
- In terms of betterment, I find heat pumps have around a 10 year life span in tenancy premises. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the unit was installed at least 6 months after purchase and consider on that basis that it was 30% of the way through its life span. Accordingly I award $350.00, being 70% of the value attributed to the outside unit. Towel rail and outside flood light
- From the landlord’s evidence I am satisfied that the heated towel rail and the outside flood light were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord said a standard non-heated towel rail was installed and a new flood light.
- Both items involve electrical wiring and accordingly a registered electrician was required to do the work. For the same reasons stated above I am not convinced that this work has been carried out safely or that the landlord has met her obligations under s 45(1)(c).
- Accordingly the landlord is not entitled to any labour costs for this work. Wonderland’s invoice does not identify the costs of the items replaced separate to labour. Based on the evidence presented I find it reasonable to allow $20.00 and $30.00 for the towel rail and the flood light respectively taking betterment and depreciation into account. Cat door
- The landlord’s evidence proves that the cat door was damaged during the tenancy. I find the amount claimed to replace the cat door is reasonable. property to carry out work where the property is occupied or intended to be occupied by the owner or members of their family, and the work is tested and certified by a registered person with a current licence.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Loss of rent
- The landlord claims 4 weeks loss of rent based on the time taken to clean the property and carry out the repairs required before the premises could be re-let.
- This is a type of loss that the landlord can recover. It is a loss suffered by the landlord as a direct consequence of the tenant failing to meet their legal duty to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and not to cause damage beyond fair wear and tear.
- However the Tribunal treats claims such as this with some caution. Often landlords will have to do some cleaning and repair work between tenancies. That is a normal part of the business of being a landlord. When damage is significant the Tribunal will consider additional compensation for loss of rent, but the difficulty for claims of this type is that it is not possible to know whether the premises would have been re-let quickly even if they were available.
- In this instance I do not accept that the extent of damage was significant enough that premises were unavailable for a prolonged period after the end of this tenancy or that the work required took the time claimed by the landlord. For that reason this part of the claim is dismissed. Other matters
- Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the landlord has mainly succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- Suppression: The landlord has applied for suppression. Section 95A, RTA states that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- I decline to award suppression for the landlord. The landlord has committed a serious breach in not using a registered electrician to carry out work on the premises. This leads me to the conclusion that it is in the public interest that the landlord’s name and the address of the tenancy should be published. In my view any future tenants of this property or other tenancies owned by the landlord should have the ability to read this decision and see her name and the address of this tenancy.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s30, s4, s40(1), s40(2), s45(1), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s50, s74, s79, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379110?
The tribunal order states: Shakelia Phyllis Gates must pay Jennifer Hong Zhang $670.31 immediately,
How much money was awarded in case 5379110?
Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $777.86 awarded to landlord; Cat Door: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Flood Light: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $20.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Sheer Curtain: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,121.25 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $80.50 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379110?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Smoke alarms.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379110?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13503659-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.