Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5420859 — Rent arrears at 22 John Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019
Published 17 March 2026 · Application 5420859
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Stirling
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $21,378.11
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $21,378.11
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 9.1.2026 | $7,614.29 | Rent arrears to 9.1.2026 | |
| Cleaning upstairs interior | $800.00 | Cleaning upstairs interior | |
| Rubbish removal and cleaning of basement | $1,200.00 | Rubbish removal and cleaning of basement | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $200.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Lock/key replacement | $478.60 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Landfill charges | $316.93 | Landfill charges | |
| Replace furnishings: lounge carpet | $1,139.99 | Replace furnishings: lounge carpet | |
| Electrical fittings replacement/repair | $1,172.26 | Electrical fittings replacement/repair | |
| Replace furnishings: 7 pairs of curtains | $780.00 | Replace furnishings: 7 pairs of curtains | |
| Replace heat pump remote | $165.60 | Replace heat pump remote | |
| Repairs: plaster multiple holes in walls | $700.00 | Repairs: plaster multiple holes in walls | |
| Paint, cleaning products, gib and skirting boards | $602.82 | Paint, cleaning products, gib and skirting boards | |
| osts to sand and paint 7 damaged internal doors and replace damaged door handles, install replacement skirting; removal | $3,099.62 | osts to sand and paint 7 damaged internal doors and replace damaged door handles, install replacement skirting; removal | |
| Landlord labour--painting walls, installing curtains, removing and disposing of tenant furniture | $3,080.00 | Landlord labour--painting walls, installing curtains, removing and disposing of tenant furniture | |
| __________________________________________________________________________________ 54208592 Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | __________________________________________________________________________________ 54208592 Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $21,378.11 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $21,378.11 |
Claims and awards for application 5420859 — net $21,378.11 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 9.1.2026
- Amount
- $7,614.29
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 9.1.2026
Cleaning upstairs interior
- Amount
- $800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning upstairs interior
Rubbish removal and cleaning of basement
- Amount
- $1,200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal and cleaning of basement
Lawns and Garden work
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $478.60
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Landfill charges
- Amount
- $316.93
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Landfill charges
Replace furnishings: lounge carpet
- Amount
- $1,139.99
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: lounge carpet
Electrical fittings replacement/repair
- Amount
- $1,172.26
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Replace furnishings: 7 pairs of curtains
- Amount
- $780.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: 7 pairs of curtains
Replace heat pump remote
- Amount
- $165.60
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace heat pump remote
Repairs: plaster multiple holes in walls
- Amount
- $700.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: plaster multiple holes in walls
Paint, cleaning products, gib and skirting boards
- Amount
- $602.82
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Paint, cleaning products, gib and skirting boards
osts to sand and paint 7 damaged internal doors and replace damaged door handles, install replacement skirting; removal
- Amount
- $3,099.62
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- osts to sand and paint 7 damaged internal doors and replace damaged door handles, install replacement skirting; removal
Landlord labour--painting walls, installing curtains, removing and disposing of tenant furniture
- Amount
- $3,080.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Landlord labour--painting walls, installing curtains, removing and disposing of tenant furniture
__________________________________________________________________________________ 54208592 Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- __________________________________________________________________________________ 54208592 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $21,378.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $21,378.11
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Samantha Louise Ayers must pay Mahoose Limited (Glen Martin and Hilary Asquith, Directors) $21,378.11 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing represented by Glen Martin. There was no attendance by the tenant. Background facts and claims
- This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 1 September 2025 and was to end on 31 August 2026.
- The tenant did not pay a bond as required and quickly fell into arrears. On 17 November 2025, she emailed the landlord asking to end the tenancy early. The landlord agreed in principal (to mitigate any further loss of rent) subject to the landlord and the tenant signing an agreement to record the date the tenancy would end and other conditions in consideration for an early release from the tenancy.
- The tenant wanted to end the tenancy on 24 November 2025 and agreed to meet the landlord at the premises that day for an inspection and for signing an agreement setting out the terms for early release from the tenancy. Prior to this, the landlord advised the tenant by a message on 20 November 2025 that he was happy to terminate the fixed term on 24 November 2025 so that the tenant would have no further obligation to pay rent after that date provided that by that date: a. She vacated the premises together with all her belongings; b. Returned the keys to the premises; c. Left the premises clean and tidy ready for re-letting to new tenants.
- The landlord drafted an agreement recording the above terms and conditions. However, the tenant advised on 24 November that she would be unable to meet that day. She also advised that she had already moved out 2 weeks prior and a friend was tidying the premises for her but she still had some belongings to remove.
- The landlord then gave notice to conduct an inspection on 26 November 2025. The inspection revealed the following: a. All four doors to the property were unlocked with some of the keys left on the bench; b. The premises were extremely dirty with 10 cubic metres (820 kg) of rubbish in the basement, including faeces and food scraps; c. The grounds were overgrown and covered in rubbish; d. The premises were substantially damaged with holes in walls and doors throughout, stains on carpet, broken power points and electrical fittings; damaged curtains; and many other broken items; e. The tenant still had a large amount of furnishings and belongings at the property.
- The landlord telephoned the tenant advising her of the above issues on 29 November 2025. The tenant apologised and blamed it on her “friend” who she had let into the premises to tidy for her. In an email to the tenant on 1 December 2025, the landlord sent photos showing the condition of the premises and documented the various issues. He asked her to call him and arrange a suitable time to collect her possessions by 4 December 2025. The tenant did not collect her possessions. The landlord retained the items until 9 January 2026, and then disposed of the items, following the process for doing so in sections 62 and 62A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The landlord now seeks rent arrears, and compensation for the enormous amount of cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs that were required to reinstate the premises to their condition at the start of the premises. The landlord provided photos of the premises before and after the tenancy started, and a video also showing the condition of the premises after the tenant left the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that the premises were fully refurbished (new carpets, curtains, and freshly painted) just before the tenancy began.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord took possession of the premises on or about 26 November 2025. They were required to carry out significant remedial work to reinstate the premises to their condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord says it took until 9 January 2026 to complete cleaning, repairs and removal of the tenant’s belongings and rubbish. Therefore, they seek rent to that date on the basis that the tenant did not comply with the landlord’s reasonable conditions for releasing her from the tenancy early which was to vacate the property, take all her belongings and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They say that she abandoned the tenancy. The premises were able to be re- tenanted from 14 January 2026.
- Section 61(3)(b) RTA provides that a tenant who abandons a fixed term tenancy is liable to pay the rent until the earlier of the date of the expiry of the term; or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises. Section 61(4) also provides that a landlord is not required to mitigate loss by granting a new tenancy.
- The issue to determine here is whether the tenant abandoned the tenancy.
- The Tribunal in Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited v Mundy and Cole 1 traversed the law regarding abandonment and repudiation. The Tribunal stated at [10-13]: “10. Abandonment is not defined in the RTA. It has been described in Grinlinton: Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice (4th ed) as: An abandonment occurs when a tenant unlawfully departs the premises with no intention of returning and no intention of honouring his or her obligation under the lease.
- In my view this definition is too broad. It describes the act ‘repudiation’, which is where a party no longer wants to be bound by their obligations under a contract. However, not every act of repudiation amounts to abandonment.
- In most cases of abandonment, the tenant leaves the premises without notifying the landlord, keys are not returned, the premises are left unclean, and rubbish and goods have been left behind. It is not necessary that all these factors be present for there to be an abandonment, but in most cases lack of notification is a decisive factor.
- Where a tenant makes it clear to the landlord by words or actions that they want to end a fixed term tenancy early, and they stop paying rent, this is a repudiation of the contract but not necessarily an abandonment. This is particularly so where the parties discuss ending the tenancy but cannot agree on the terms. In this situation the landlord can terminate for rent arrears but not, in my view, for abandonment.”
- If a fixed term tenancy is not abandoned but the tenancy agreement is repudiated, there is no statutory equivalent to s61(3)(b) entitling the landlord to claim rent after the landlord terminates the tenancy. However, the Tribunal in Oxygen v Mundy and Cole found that compensation for loss of rent can be awarded in appropriate circumstances and summarised the position as follows 2 : a. Where a tenancy is terminated for abandonment, the landlord can claim rent past the termination date (until the tenancy ends or the premises are earlier re-tenanted) and is not required to mitigate loss as per sections 61(3)(b) and (4) RTA. b. Where the landlord elects to terminate the tenancy for rent arrears, and there is no evidence the tenant has repudiated the tenancy, the landlord cannot claim rent past the termination date. c. Where the landlord applies to terminate the tenancy for rent arrears, and there is convincing evidence that the tenant has repudiated the tenancy, the landlord may be entitled to compensation for loss of rent past the termination date. However the landlord must take reasonable steps to mitigate loss.
- In this case, I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant repudiated the fixed term tenancy agreement because she made it clear that she wanted to end the 1 Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited v Mundy and Cole [2020] NZTT 4225871 2 Ibid n1 above at [14-22] tenancy and nominated a date; she stopped paying rent; and she returned some of the keys. While the landlord did not apply to terminate the tenancy in the Tribunal for abandonment or rent arrears, he effectively terminated the tenancy by taking possession of the premises on 26 November 2024 after the tenant confirmed to him that she had vacated two weeks prior. In those circumstances, the landlord is in my view entitled to compensation for loss of rent until the premises were re-tenanted. However, the landlord has a duty to mitigate their loss.
- The landlord could not re-tenant the premises until significant cleaning, repairs and removal of rubbish and belongings had been completed. The landlord says that all of these tasks were completed by 9 January 2026, approximately 6 weeks after taking possession and they re-tenanted from 14 January 2026. The landlord explained that he obtained quotes for the extensive work required to reinstate the premises but he could not afford to pay contractors and did most of the work himself.
- I am satisfied on the evidence, that the landlord has clearly worked tirelessly and efficiently to be able to reinstate the premises and have them relet by 14 January 2026. I have no hesitation in finding that he has taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. For that reason, I consider he is entitled to the rent owed to 26 November 2025, when he took possession of the premises (effectively terminating the tenancy), and he is entitled to compensation for the loss of rent from 27 November 2025 to 9 January 2026. The amount order is proved.
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) RTA.
- The tenant did not leave the premises and exterior grounds reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish and belongings. In particular, there was 820kgs of refuse and waste that had been piled up in the basement causing a vile stench and infestation of flies. The photo and video evidence demonstrates the massive clean-up task required.
- The landlord provided a breakdown of the hours he spent cleaning and removing rubbish and belongings. He generally seeks compensation calculated at a rate of $27.50/hour which I consider reasonable and justified.
- The tenant did not return all keys and there was also a concern that keys had been handed to a friend who was at the premises towards the end of the tenancy.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
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: a. Carpets stained and damaged with lounge carpet needing replacement; b. Several electrical switches and light fittings smashed; c. Multiple holes in walls and doors throughout the premises; d. Broken door handles; e. Seven pairs of curtains damaged; f. Heat pump remote broken.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was more than likely intentional damage for which the tenant is fully liable.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. In this case the premises had been fully refurbished just prior to the tenancy starting. The tenancy lasted less than three months. Therefore, I consider no depreciation is justified. I also comment that the landlord did the work as economically as possible with many tradespeople/friends offering to do the work at discounted prices to assist him.
- In relation to a claim for replacing the toilet cistern. I am not satisfied that the landlord proved that the cistern was damaged other than through fair wear and tear, Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
- The landlord has substantially succeeded with his claims and is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s2, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s61(3), s61(4), s62, s820kgs
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- MAHOOSE LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420859?
The tribunal order states: Samantha Louise Ayers must pay Mahoose Limited (Glen Martin and Hilary
How much money was awarded in case 5420859?
Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $602.82 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Landfill Charges: $316.93 awarded to landlord; Landlord Labour--Painting Walls, Ins…: $3,080.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $478.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,172.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,099.62 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,614.29 awarded to landlord; Plaster Multiple Holes In Walls: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: 7 pairs of curt…: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Lounge Carpet: $1,139.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $165.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420859?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420859?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13299016-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.