What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392661?

The tribunal order states: Rata Pua Hale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,124.08 (the

How much money was awarded in case 5392661?

Cleaning: $692.75 awarded to landlord; Hall Wall Hole: $86.20 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard Door: $173.50 awarded to landlord; Laundry Wall Hole: $49.84 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,836.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $268.88 awarded to landlord; Stove Knob: $16.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392661?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072490-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392661?

The tribunal order states: Rata Pua Hale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,124.08 (the

How much money was awarded in case 5392661?

Cleaning: $692.75 awarded to landlord; Hall Wall Hole: $86.20 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard Door: $173.50 awarded to landlord; Laundry Wall Hole: $49.84 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,836.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $268.88 awarded to landlord; Stove Knob: $16.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392661?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072490-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Warspite Avenue, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392661 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392661 — net $3,124.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears at end of tenancy	$1,836.29	Rent arrears at end of tenancy
Kitchen cupboard door	$173.50	Kitchen cupboard door
Laundry wall hole	$49.84	Laundry wall hole
Hall wall hole	$86.20	Hall wall hole
Stove knob	$16.62	Stove knob
Cleaning	$692.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$268.88	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,124.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,124.08

Order

Rata Pua Hale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,124.08 (the Debt) calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears at end of tenancy$1,836.29 Kitchen cupboard door$173.50 Laundry wall hole$49.84 Hall wall hole$86.20 Stove knob$16.62 Cleaning$692.75 Rubbish removal$268.88 Total award$3,124.08 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,124.08
The debt as set out above, is to be paid by weekly payments of $10.00, to be paid until the debt is paid in full. Those payments are to commence on Thursday 12 February 2026. If any payment is missed by more than two working days, then the entire remaining debt will become payable immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has now ended, but there are various amounts claimed by the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Porirua today.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 13 May 2020. The landlord is Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, the sole tenant is Rata Pua Hale.
The tenancy ended following notice from the tenant.
I note for completeness that there is no bond held for these premises; the landlord did not require a bond when the tenancy commenced.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, Ms Smith who was representing the landlord, confirmed the landlords claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears $1,836.29 b. Damage i. Kitchen cupboard ii. Carpet bedroom 2 iii. Damage to laundry floor / wall iv. Wall hole in laundry v. Bathroom hole vi. Hallway hole vii. Missing stove knob viii. Bathroom lino c. Cleaning i. Cleaning stove ii. Cleaning house iii. Exterior rubbish removal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

The claims fall into three broad categories, that is rent arrears, damage and cleaning. I will consider them separately on that basis. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears of $1,836.29.
The tenant agrees she owes this money, so it is ordered by consent. Claim 2 - Damage
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Having set out the general law that applies, I will now consider the landlords claims for damage to the premises. Kitchen cupboard door
The landlord claims $173.50 for a missing cupboard door.
The tenant believes that the door was probably thrown out at the end of the tenancy in error. The tenant said the door came off because the screws were loose.
The landlord has claimed compensation for a missing kitchen cupboard door. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
It tenant is right, that the door should have been returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Because it was missing, the tenant must be liable for replacing the door. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Carpet bedroom 2
This claim is withdrawn by the landlord. Damage to laundry floor / wall
The landlord states that there was damage to the corner of the floor in the laundry, where the vinyl curled up.
I am not entirely certain what the tenant considers is the cause of the hole, however when I consider the photographs, I must conclude that the landlord has not proven that the hole has not been the result of fair wear and tear. In short, this claim has not been established. Wall hole in laundry
The landlord claims for damage to a laundry wall which has a hole around the door. The landlord does not consider this is from the door handle, because it does not line up.
The tenant is not sure what caused the hole, but questions if it occurred when they were burgled.
The hole in the wall is reasonably sizable, and I do not consider it would be fair wear and tear that has caused it. The evidence supports that it was caused during the tenancy. That means, the tenant must prove that the hole was not caused carelessly or intentionally, and I do not believe she has proven that.
Landlord has claimed $49.84 for the repair. That seems entirely reasonable, and is ordered in full. Bathroom wall hole
The landlord withdraws this claim. Hallway wall hole
The landlord claims for damage to a wall in the hallway to the sum of $86.20.
The tenant says that this damage was caused by a child who lashed out.
Again the hole in the hallway wall is not fair where in tear, and it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so she must be liable for it.
The landlord has claimed $86.20 to repair the hole, which seems reasonable, and has ordered in full. Missing stove knob
The landlord claims for a missing knob on the stove to the sum of $16.62.
The tenant is not sure what happened to the knob.
As discussed above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all channels provided for the tenant’s use. The knob was part of the stove, and needed to be returned to the landlord. The replacement cost was fairly modest, and the tenant is liable for that full amount Bathroom lino damage
The landlord withdraws this claim. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Cleaning stove
The landlord claims for cleaning costs for the stove. The landlord refers to photos showing the metal bowl under the element, submitting that something must have boiled over, causing water to sit in the bowl, resulting in rust.
The tenant said she does not know how to remove the elements.
On balance, I find this claim has not been established. The photographs show the appearance of rust in the metal bowl that sits underneath the kitchen elements. It may very well be that something has boiled over on the stove, causing liquid to be caught in the bowl, resulting in rusting. But I am also minded that the purpose of that bowl is to catch liquids that boil over, or other moisture or items that fall through an element, to that extent, it would be expected to be reasonably robust, and not rust easily. I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to show that the work needed to clean the bowls under the elements would reasonably have cost $165.86 as claimed; it should reasonably fall within the overall house cleaning claim, which I will consider next. Cleaning house
The landlord states that cleaning was needed throughout the house, and the cost incurred for the cleaning was $692.75. The landlord refers to the photographs showing the general state of the house.
The tenant said that the power was off at the end of the tenancy so they could not vacuum the premises, nor was there hot water for cleaning. The tenant had the power turned off because she was not staying in the premise.
As I indicated at the hearing today, it is very difficult to undertake post Tenancy cleaning without power in order to do the vacuuming, and without hot water also necessary to clean the premises. But the problem for the tenant, is that the obligation to return the premises recently clean and tidy, sits with her. If there had been some fault in the property which meant there was no electricity, she may have an argument, but in this case, it was the tenant who had the power turned off, so the tenant must be responsible for any cost incurred by the landlord, including Tenancy cleaning.
I have considered the photographs provided, and I do accept that the premises were not returned at a reasonably clean and tidy level. The landlord has claimed for the general cleaning. I consider the amount of the claim reasonable, and it is ordered in full. Exterior rubbish removal
The landlord states there was assorted rubbish around the premises at the end of the tenancy, and claims $268.88 for its removal.
The tenant agrees that there was rubbish left on the premises, and agrees to this claim. It is ordered by consent. Payment arrangement
As we discussed at the hearing, certainly there are amounts owing, even at the hearing the tenant agreed with some of the landlord’s claims. The tenant agrees that she owes money to the landlord, and following discussion, a payment arrangement was agreed.
The Parties have agreed that the debt established by the Tribunal will be paid by the tenant at $10 each week. The tenant understands that the payments need to be made regularly, and as I noted, if the payments are missed, then the landlord may seek to recover the entire remaining debt at that time. Because of that, I strongly encourage the tenant to ensure the regular payments are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392661 — net $3,124.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears at end of tenancy	$1,836.29	Rent arrears at end of tenancy
Kitchen cupboard door	$173.50	Kitchen cupboard door
Laundry wall hole	$49.84	Laundry wall hole
Hall wall hole	$86.20	Hall wall hole
Stove knob	$16.62	Stove knob
Cleaning	$692.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$268.88	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,124.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,124.08

Order

Rata Pua Hale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,124.08 (the Debt) calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears at end of tenancy$1,836.29 Kitchen cupboard door$173.50 Laundry wall hole$49.84 Hall wall hole$86.20 Stove knob$16.62 Cleaning$692.75 Rubbish removal$268.88 Total award$3,124.08 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,124.08
The debt as set out above, is to be paid by weekly payments of $10.00, to be paid until the debt is paid in full. Those payments are to commence on Thursday 12 February 2026. If any payment is missed by more than two working days, then the entire remaining debt will become payable immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has now ended, but there are various amounts claimed by the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Porirua today.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 13 May 2020. The landlord is Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, the sole tenant is Rata Pua Hale.
The tenancy ended following notice from the tenant.
I note for completeness that there is no bond held for these premises; the landlord did not require a bond when the tenancy commenced.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, Ms Smith who was representing the landlord, confirmed the landlords claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears $1,836.29 b. Damage i. Kitchen cupboard ii. Carpet bedroom 2 iii. Damage to laundry floor / wall iv. Wall hole in laundry v. Bathroom hole vi. Hallway hole vii. Missing stove knob viii. Bathroom lino c. Cleaning i. Cleaning stove ii. Cleaning house iii. Exterior rubbish removal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

The claims fall into three broad categories, that is rent arrears, damage and cleaning. I will consider them separately on that basis. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears of $1,836.29.
The tenant agrees she owes this money, so it is ordered by consent. Claim 2 - Damage
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Having set out the general law that applies, I will now consider the landlords claims for damage to the premises. Kitchen cupboard door
The landlord claims $173.50 for a missing cupboard door.
The tenant believes that the door was probably thrown out at the end of the tenancy in error. The tenant said the door came off because the screws were loose.
The landlord has claimed compensation for a missing kitchen cupboard door. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
It tenant is right, that the door should have been returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Because it was missing, the tenant must be liable for replacing the door. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Carpet bedroom 2
This claim is withdrawn by the landlord. Damage to laundry floor / wall
The landlord states that there was damage to the corner of the floor in the laundry, where the vinyl curled up.
I am not entirely certain what the tenant considers is the cause of the hole, however when I consider the photographs, I must conclude that the landlord has not proven that the hole has not been the result of fair wear and tear. In short, this claim has not been established. Wall hole in laundry
The landlord claims for damage to a laundry wall which has a hole around the door. The landlord does not consider this is from the door handle, because it does not line up.
The tenant is not sure what caused the hole, but questions if it occurred when they were burgled.
The hole in the wall is reasonably sizable, and I do not consider it would be fair wear and tear that has caused it. The evidence supports that it was caused during the tenancy. That means, the tenant must prove that the hole was not caused carelessly or intentionally, and I do not believe she has proven that.
Landlord has claimed $49.84 for the repair. That seems entirely reasonable, and is ordered in full. Bathroom wall hole
The landlord withdraws this claim. Hallway wall hole
The landlord claims for damage to a wall in the hallway to the sum of $86.20.
The tenant says that this damage was caused by a child who lashed out.
Again the hole in the hallway wall is not fair where in tear, and it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so she must be liable for it.
The landlord has claimed $86.20 to repair the hole, which seems reasonable, and has ordered in full. Missing stove knob
The landlord claims for a missing knob on the stove to the sum of $16.62.
The tenant is not sure what happened to the knob.
As discussed above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all channels provided for the tenant’s use. The knob was part of the stove, and needed to be returned to the landlord. The replacement cost was fairly modest, and the tenant is liable for that full amount Bathroom lino damage
The landlord withdraws this claim. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Cleaning stove
The landlord claims for cleaning costs for the stove. The landlord refers to photos showing the metal bowl under the element, submitting that something must have boiled over, causing water to sit in the bowl, resulting in rust.
The tenant said she does not know how to remove the elements.
On balance, I find this claim has not been established. The photographs show the appearance of rust in the metal bowl that sits underneath the kitchen elements. It may very well be that something has boiled over on the stove, causing liquid to be caught in the bowl, resulting in rusting. But I am also minded that the purpose of that bowl is to catch liquids that boil over, or other moisture or items that fall through an element, to that extent, it would be expected to be reasonably robust, and not rust easily. I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to show that the work needed to clean the bowls under the elements would reasonably have cost $165.86 as claimed; it should reasonably fall within the overall house cleaning claim, which I will consider next. Cleaning house
The landlord states that cleaning was needed throughout the house, and the cost incurred for the cleaning was $692.75. The landlord refers to the photographs showing the general state of the house.
The tenant said that the power was off at the end of the tenancy so they could not vacuum the premises, nor was there hot water for cleaning. The tenant had the power turned off because she was not staying in the premise.
As I indicated at the hearing today, it is very difficult to undertake post Tenancy cleaning without power in order to do the vacuuming, and without hot water also necessary to clean the premises. But the problem for the tenant, is that the obligation to return the premises recently clean and tidy, sits with her. If there had been some fault in the property which meant there was no electricity, she may have an argument, but in this case, it was the tenant who had the power turned off, so the tenant must be responsible for any cost incurred by the landlord, including Tenancy cleaning.
I have considered the photographs provided, and I do accept that the premises were not returned at a reasonably clean and tidy level. The landlord has claimed for the general cleaning. I consider the amount of the claim reasonable, and it is ordered in full. Exterior rubbish removal
The landlord states there was assorted rubbish around the premises at the end of the tenancy, and claims $268.88 for its removal.
The tenant agrees that there was rubbish left on the premises, and agrees to this claim. It is ordered by consent. Payment arrangement
As we discussed at the hearing, certainly there are amounts owing, even at the hearing the tenant agreed with some of the landlord’s claims. The tenant agrees that she owes money to the landlord, and following discussion, a payment arrangement was agreed.
The Parties have agreed that the debt established by the Tribunal will be paid by the tenant at $10 each week. The tenant understands that the payments need to be made regularly, and as I noted, if the payments are missed, then the landlord may seek to recover the entire remaining debt at that time. Because of that, I strongly encourage the tenant to ensure the regular payments are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392661 — Rent arrears at 40 Warspite Avenue, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392661 — Rent arrears at 40 Warspite Avenue, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions