Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5395121 — Rent arrears at 45 Sea Vista Drive, Pukerua Bay, Pukerua Bay 5026
Decided 11 March 2026 · Published 11 March 2026 · Application 5395121
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Pukerua Bay
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Woodhouse
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $10,444.94
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $7,404.94
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $6,108.57 | Rent arrears | |
| Silicone damage | $672.75 | Silicone damage | |
| Lock/key replacement | $724.50 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Window repairs | $381.80 | Window repairs | |
| Garage door repair | $1,030.00 | Garage door repair | |
| Oven replacement | $519.00 | Oven replacement | |
| Door and knob replacement | $78.81 | Door and knob replacement | |
| Curtain repairs | $134.00 | Curtain repairs | |
| Door replacement | $767.51 | Door replacement | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $7,404.94 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $7,404.94 |
Claims and awards for application 5395121 — net $7,404.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $6,108.57
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Silicone damage
- Amount
- $672.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Silicone damage
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $724.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Window repairs
- Amount
- $381.80
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Window repairs
Garage door repair
- Amount
- $1,030.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Garage door repair
Oven replacement
- Amount
- $519.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Oven replacement
Door and knob replacement
- Amount
- $78.81
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Door and knob replacement
Curtain repairs
- Amount
- $134.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Curtain repairs
Door replacement
- Amount
- $767.51
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Door replacement
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $7,404.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $7,404.94
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Ashleigh Elizabeth Clow must pay Property Management Andco Limited T/A Moloney And Co $7,404.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 (BN-17117405) to Property Management Andco Limited T/A Moloney And Co immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$6,108.57 Silicone damage$672.75 Lock/key replacement$724.50 Window repairs$381.80 Garage door repair$1,030.00 Oven replacement$519.00 Door and knob replacement$78.81 Curtain repairs$134.00 Door replacement$767.51 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,444.94 Minus bond$3,040.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,404.94
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
- Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.
BACKGROUND
- The tenancy commenced on 13 August 2022. The tenancy ended on 4 December 2025. The landlord is Lisa Pointon, by way of a property manager, Moloney and Co. The sole tenant is Ashleigh Elizabeth Clow.
- The landlord has applied for orders that the tenant pay rent arrears and compensation for damage to the premises.
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.
- It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Cleaning and rubbish removal
- 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. Compensation for 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. Lock and key replacement.
- The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
ANALYSIS
Rent arrears
- The landlord’s position is that the rent arrears are $6,108.57, being rent arrears as of 4 December 2025, when the tenant returned possession of the premises to the landlord.
- The landlord has provided a rent ledger, I have no reason to believe that ledger is not accurate. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Silicone damage
- The landlord states that the tenant siliconed the all-around one of the rooms. At the end of the tenancy that needed to be removed, and in the process, there needed to be sanding and repainting of the damaged surfaces impacted by the silicone. The invoice has been provided from Blueprint Builds Limited for $672.75.
- I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has not proven that the damage was anything other than intentional damage, so must be liable for the remediation cost in full. Lock and key replacement
- The landlord claims the cost for lock and key replacement. The tenant had changed some locks, but keys were not returned otherwise. The invoice has been provided from The Lock Doctor for $724.50.
- As above, the tenant is required to return all keys at the end of the tenancy, the tenant has not done that, so must be liable for the lock replacement cost. Window repairs
- During the tenancy the tenant had further locks put on the windows. The cost to remove and remediate that was $381.80, as confirmed in the invoice from Window Rescue.
- I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has not proven the damage was not careless or intentional, so is liable for the remediation cost. This claim is ordered in full. Garage door
- The landlord states that the garage door and automatic door opener was damaged during the tenancy. The repair costs were $1,030.00, as supported in the invoice from Wellington Garage Doors.
- Again I accept this damage was caused during the tenancy, and this has also not been proven by the tenant to be anything other than intentional damage. Oven replacement
- The landlord states that the oven had been damaged during the tenancy. The elements had been “wrecked” and seals in the oven were removed. It was not cost-effective to repair the oven, so it was replaced at a cost of $519.00 as shown in the Trade Depot invoice.
- I have no reason not to accept the landlords evidence that replacing the entire oven was more cost-effective than a repair. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has not proven the damage was not careless or intentional, so the tenant is liable for the remediation cost. This claim is ordered in full. Door knob and interior door
- The landlord claims $78.81 for a replacement door and knobs from Bunnings. The landlord states that some of the doors in the house were damaged, including holes in doors.
- I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has not proven the damage was not careless or intentional, so is liable for the remediation cost. This claim is ordered in full. Curtain tracks and hooks
- The landlord states that the curtains were pulled down during the tenancy, the landlord claims the costs for track hardware purchased from Spotlight for $134.00.
- I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has not proven the damage was not careless or intentional, so is liable for the remediation cost. This claim is ordered in full. Rubbish costs
- The landlord states there was extensive rubbish left at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks tip fees of $84.00.
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant was required to remove all rubbish and belongings from the Tenancy, she has not done so, so was liable for the costs incurred disposing of the rubbish. Door replacement
- The landlord states that the tenant removed a number of doors inside the house. The cost to have them rehung was $767.51, as confirmed in an invoice from Denison Property Services.
- This would also fall within the category of damage, in that the tenant had removed the existing doors, so they needed to be replaced. The doors were removed during the tenancy, and the tenant has not shown that this was anything other than an intentional act on her behalf, so she must be liable for the cost of having the doors rehung.
FILING FEE
- Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s17, s23, s31, s33, s40, s5
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5395121?
The tribunal order states: Ashleigh Elizabeth Clow must pay Property Management Andco Limited T/A
How much money was awarded in case 5395121?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $381.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,030.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $78.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $134.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $767.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,108.57 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395121?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395121?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13264878-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.