Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5394782 — Rent arrears at 53 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021
Decided 19 March 2026 · Published 19 March 2026 · Application 5394782
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,064.64
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,980.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,084.64
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 October 2025 | $4,757.14 | Rent arrears to 26 October 2025 | |
| Trade me advertising | $287.50 | Trade me advertising | |
| Credit check | $20.00 | Credit check | |
| Net award | $2,084.64 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,084.64 |
Claims and awards for application 5394782 — net $2,084.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 26 October 2025
- Amount
- $4,757.14
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 26 October 2025
Trade me advertising
- Amount
- $287.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Trade me advertising
Credit check
- Amount
- $20.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Credit check
Net award
Landlord $2,084.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,084.64
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Renee Cadenhead must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon Van Megen $2,084.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (BN-00040335) to Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon Van Megen immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties 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. This was a fixed term tenancy that ended by agreement and the landlord has also claimed the costs of finding a new tenant.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord has claimed rent to 26 October 2025, which is the day before a new fixed term tenancy started. This is the landlord’s claim to prove.
- The tenant said she should not have to pay rent to that date because the landlord did not act promptly or fairly in assessing three prospective tenants. I have considered the tenancy agreement and I do not find that pets were allowed because the specific pet clause at pages 2 and 3 is clear and overrides the general rules if a pet is allowed set out later in the tenancy agreement. I have also considered the evidence and the dates. I do not find the landlord acted unreasonably in the process of choosing a new tenant.
- This means the tenant should pay rent up to 26 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Should I allow the claim for water rates?
- The landlord has claimed water rates for the whole tenancy. I was not provided with copies of the invoices. The tenant said she never received these either, and was only aware she had to pay water at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the bills were sent to the tenant during the tenancy addressed to “the occupier”. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for water because I do not have copies of the invoices, and because I have not seen any evidence from the provider confirming that the invoices were sent during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- There is a claim for cleaning. Tenants are required to the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
- In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably 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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
- This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos taken at the exit inspection. The house looks reasonably clean and tidy to me. This claim is dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the floors?
- There is a claim for repairs to the engineered timber flooring in the lounge. The 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 she 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.
- It is hard to see if there were any scratches on the floor by looking at the photos in the entry and exit inspections. The landlord provided me close up photos. I can see there are a number of fine surface scratches. It is not clear from the close up photos how much flooring was marked, but the landlord said the boards were where the tenant had her sofa.
- I am not persuaded the marks are more than fair wear and tear. The landlord said the tenancy was too short for there to be any wear and tear but I do not agree. Fair wear and tear is any damage that arises from the normal use of the premises. Having a sofa on the wooden boards in the lounge is normal use. I also note the floor is still fully functional and a new tenant has moved in even though the repair has not been done. The landlord has not proved the claim and it is dismissed.
Can the landlord recover expenses?
- The landlord has attempted to recover expenses incurred in respect of the termination under section 50(1)(d) RTA. An accounting of costs was provided to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is allowed to claim any reasonable expenses incurred in finding the new tenant. See section 44A RTA.
- I find the landlord has proved there were advertising and credit check costs and the tenant should pay these. The exit inspection and the inspection for the new tenant should be paid by the landlord because these are done for the landlord’s benefit.
- The claim for a flat fee of $851 for time and travel to viewings is not allowed because section 44A RTA requires a claim for reasonable expenses and an itemised account. A flat fee specified in advance is no longer allowed. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s17, s2, s40(1), s40(2), s44A, s50(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394782?
The tribunal order states: Renee Cadenhead must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Leon
How much money was awarded in case 5394782?
Credit Check: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,757.14 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Advertising: $287.50 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394782?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394782?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13315026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.