What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420866?

The tribunal order states: Kamalita Nathan must pay Djiw Property Management Ltd T/A Pukeko Rental

How much money was awarded in case 5420866?

Cleaning: $148.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420866?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420866?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456076-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420866?

The tribunal order states: Kamalita Nathan must pay Djiw Property Management Ltd T/A Pukeko Rental

How much money was awarded in case 5420866?

Cleaning: $148.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420866?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420866?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456076-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

157A Bradbury Road, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420866 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420866 — net $148.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$148.75	Cleaning
Net award	$148.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$148.75

Both parties attended the hearing held on 16 April 2026 remotely.

The tenancy began on 28 August 2013 and ended on 11 December 2025.

The landlord applied for compensation for a blocked sink, cleaning and replacement of a light bulb.

The landlord produced photographs of the premises after the tenant vacated. While the tenant had employed a cleaner the photographs show that some mould was not removed from the walls and a curtain.

The tenant said that the house was old and needed renovating. She said that she had left the tenancy because of the mould. She said that there had been no painting in the 12 years of the tenancy.

The tenant said that the cleaner could not clean all of the mould, but the landlord said that after employing the cleaner for more hours the cleaning of the mould was improved.

While I accept that the mould may have been an issue during the tenancy the tenant is still required to leave the premises in a reasonable clean and tidy state 1 . The photographs show that parts of the tenancy were not in a reasonably clean state. The claim for cleaning is awarded.

The landlord claimed for replacement of a light bulb. The tenant said that there were electrical issues at the premises where new light bulbs sometimes did not work. The tenant complained to the landlord about this and in the evidence the landlord said that an electrician was employed to check the fixture and confirmed it was fine and the light bulb just needed replacing.

When asked for evidence from the electrician the landlord advised that he did not have any and instead withdrew the claim for the replacement light bulb.

The landlord claimed for the cost of a plumber unblocking the kitchen drain. The invoice states that the trap was cleared, and a major blockage was found.

The tenant said that when she left the premises the drain was not blocked and the cleaner, she employed used the sink with no problems.

The landlord claims the cost of clearing a blocked drain, alleging the blockage was caused by the tenant disposing of fat down the drain. The tenancy lasted for 12 years.

Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Tenants can be held liable for damage or blockages caused by their careless or intentional actions. However, after a long tenancy, it can be difficult to prove that a specific blockage was caused solely by the tenant’s actions, rather than a gradual build up over time or issues with the plumbing itself.

The landlord confirmed that there was no maintenance carried out in relation to the drainage during the 12 years of the tenancy.

In this case, the tenancy was of significant duration. There is no clear evidence that the tenant’s recent actions directly caused the blockage, rather than it being the result of a gradual build up over many years. The Tribunal has recognised that over a long tenancy, some maintenance issues – such as gradual build up 1 Section 40(1)(e)(111) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in drains – may be considered fair wear and tear or the landlord’s responsibility as part of ongoing property maintenance.

Accordingly, the claim for the cost of cleaning the blocked drain is dismissed. The landlord has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant’s actions during the tenancy were the sole or primary cause of the blockage.

While the landlord has succeeded with a small part of the application, most of the claims have been dismissed. For this reason, the filing fee is not reimbursed, and I make no order for suppression of the landlord’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420866 — net $148.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$148.75	Cleaning
Net award	$148.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$148.75

Order

Kamalita Nathan must pay Djiw Property Management Ltd T/A Pukeko Rental Managers As The Agent For A & R Wilson $148.75 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 16 April 2026 remotely.
The tenancy began on 28 August 2013 and ended on 11 December 2025.
The landlord applied for compensation for a blocked sink, cleaning and replacement of a light bulb.
The landlord produced photographs of the premises after the tenant vacated. While the tenant had employed a cleaner the photographs show that some mould was not removed from the walls and a curtain.
The tenant said that the house was old and needed renovating. She said that she had left the tenancy because of the mould. She said that there had been no painting in the 12 years of the tenancy.
The tenant said that the cleaner could not clean all of the mould, but the landlord said that after employing the cleaner for more hours the cleaning of the mould was improved.
While I accept that the mould may have been an issue during the tenancy the tenant is still required to leave the premises in a reasonable clean and tidy state 1 . The photographs show that parts of the tenancy were not in a reasonably clean state. The claim for cleaning is awarded.
The landlord claimed for replacement of a light bulb. The tenant said that there were electrical issues at the premises where new light bulbs sometimes did not work. The tenant complained to the landlord about this and in the evidence the landlord said that an electrician was employed to check the fixture and confirmed it was fine and the light bulb just needed replacing.
When asked for evidence from the electrician the landlord advised that he did not have any and instead withdrew the claim for the replacement light bulb.
The landlord claimed for the cost of a plumber unblocking the kitchen drain. The invoice states that the trap was cleared, and a major blockage was found.
The tenant said that when she left the premises the drain was not blocked and the cleaner, she employed used the sink with no problems.
The landlord claims the cost of clearing a blocked drain, alleging the blockage was caused by the tenant disposing of fat down the drain. The tenancy lasted for 12 years.
Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Tenants can be held liable for damage or blockages caused by their careless or intentional actions. However, after a long tenancy, it can be difficult to prove that a specific blockage was caused solely by the tenant’s actions, rather than a gradual build up over time or issues with the plumbing itself.
The landlord confirmed that there was no maintenance carried out in relation to the drainage during the 12 years of the tenancy.
In this case, the tenancy was of significant duration. There is no clear evidence that the tenant’s recent actions directly caused the blockage, rather than it being the result of a gradual build up over many years. The Tribunal has recognised that over a long tenancy, some maintenance issues – such as gradual build up 1 Section 40(1)(e)(111) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in drains – may be considered fair wear and tear or the landlord’s responsibility as part of ongoing property maintenance.
Accordingly, the claim for the cost of cleaning the blocked drain is dismissed. The landlord has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant’s actions during the tenancy were the sole or primary cause of the blockage.
While the landlord has succeeded with a small part of the application, most of the claims have been dismissed. For this reason, the filing fee is not reimbursed, and I make no order for suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420866 — Cleanliness at 157A Bradbury Road, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420866 — Cleanliness at 157A Bradbury Road, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions