Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5388984 — Rent arrears at 100 Main South Road, Green Island, Dunedin 9018
Published 25 March 2026 · Application 5388984
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Dunedin
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Wilson
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,400.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,400.00
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 23/10/2025 | $2,142.85 | Rent arrears to 23/10/2025 | |
| Garden work | $150.00 | Garden work | |
| Rubbish removal | $107.15 | Rubbish removal | |
| Net award | $2,400.00 | ||
| Bond | $2,400.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,400.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5388984 — net $2,400.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 23/10/2025
- Amount
- $2,142.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 23/10/2025
Garden work
- Amount
- $150.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Garden work
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $107.15
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Net award
Landlord $2,400.00
Bond
Landlord $2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,400.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Juliet Lee Pattison to pay Paulisa Properties Limited $2,400.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3401309-006) to Paulisa Properties Limited immediately.
- The landlord’s claim for further compensation is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the rescheduled hearing.
- On 15/11/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears of $2,142.85.
- In addition, the landlord claimed for disposal of goods and compensation of $1,533.20.
- The parties reached agreement at mediation on 6/1/2026 about the disposal of goods.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy was for a fixed term to 20/1/2026 and ended on 23/10/2025.
- The premises were re-let on 24/10/2025.
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant did not dispute the arrears but was unhappy with the amount of time taken to re-let the premises.
- There is no evidence to support that the Property Manager engaged by the landlord delayed in re-letting the premises.
- I find the tenant is liable under the fixed term tenancy for the rent until the premises were re-let.
- An order has been made for the amount claimed.
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord sought amended compensation of $1,043.20 as follows: a. $644.00 for tidying the garden, b. $239.20 for interior cleaning, c. $160.00 for rubbish removal.
- In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit photographs dated January 2022 and 22/10/2025 respectively and invoices.
- On the other hand, the tenant disputed the cleaning, except for the rangehood, garden except for along the front of the house, and suggested that the rubbish was building material present at the beginning of the tenancy.
- I am persuaded, just, by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- However, I consider the amounts claimed do not reflect the work needed to be undertaken to re-let the premises.
- I consider the claim for cleaning fails because, based on the evidence of the tenant that the only cleaning needed was to the rangehood.
- In particular the claim for work in the garden includes trimming of bushes which is not the responsibility of a tenant.
- Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
- I consider the substantial merits and justice of the case mean it is reasonable to reduce the claims for gardening and rubbish removal to the balance of the bond.
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 claimed $350.00 for damages to walls, doors and broken doorstops.
- In response the tenant suggested any marks on walls were wear and tear and she was unaware any doorstops were broken.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
- 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.
- Based on the photographs I find damage was caused during the tenancy to walls and door stops.
- However, given the four year length of the tenancy, number of tenants and the fact that the landlord was able to re-let the premises immediately without undertaking the work, I consider the damage was fair wear and tear.
- The claim for compensation fails.
- No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful with the claim.
- The landlord did not seek name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(3), s85
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
- PAULISA PROPERTIES LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5388984?
The tribunal order states: Juliet Lee Pattison to pay Paulisa Properties Limited $2,400.00 from the
How much money was awarded in case 5388984?
Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,142.85 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $107.15 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388984?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388984?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13342902-Tribunal_Order.pdf.