Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5421251 — Rent arrears at 58 Ardern Avenue, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932
Published 10 April 2026 · Application 5421251
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Whangaparaoa
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Baker
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $960.35
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $960.35
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $492.85 | Rent arrears | |
| Repairs: door handle | $117.50 | Repairs: door handle | |
| Cleaning | $350.00 | Cleaning | |
| Net award | $960.35 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $960.35 |
Claims and awards for application 5421251 — net $960.35 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $492.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Repairs: door handle
- Amount
- $117.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: door handle
Cleaning
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Net award
Landlord $960.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $960.35
Dismissed claims
- Property Damage — __________________________________________________________________________________ 54212515 The tenant’s claims
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Kirsty Rodgers and Brendan Rodgers must pay Star Family Trust (Trustee: Linda Gordon) $960.35 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$492.85 Repairs: door handle$117.50 Cleaning$350.00 Total award$960.35 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$960.35
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) in relation to draughts. See sections 45(1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and HHS Regulation 26. Standard of proof and evidence
- In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
- The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
- While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
- By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
- It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
- The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 8 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy after receipt of the bond.
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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence that the stove top and oven required cleaning, the base of the toilet was unclean, and the window and sliding door tracks required cleaning. She also claimed that the carpet required professional cleaning because of the smell remaining from the tenant’s pets and that there were cobwebs which required removal.
- The tenant accepted that the stove top and oven required cleaning and provided an invoice for the cleaning of part of the carpets where the pets were located. The tenant denied that any further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. d. There is no requirement that each individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
- A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
- However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
- The evidence has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the stove top and oven required cleaning and there were some surfaces and some of the carpet which required further cleaning to bring them to the required standard.
- As the landlord’s invoice did not particularise these costs, the Tribunal has determined a sum that is consistent with invoices which it regularly sees for work of this type.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence of a small square of carpet removed from the carpet in the lounge. She also provided a photograph of the room at the start of the tenancy showing the same carpet intact.
- The tenant denied knowledge of or responsibility for the damage.
- The Tribunal accepts that the damage is not fair wear and tear.
- Despite having enlarged the landlord’s photograph of the lounge at the start of the tenancy some 600%, the Tribunal cannot be persuaded that it is more likely than not that there was no damage present. A professionally repaired carpet patch is all but undetectable. The uniform and tidy nature of the carpet square is consistent with it being a patch. It is possible that the patch was in place at the start of the tenancy and was removed by two professional carpet cleans.
- On the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot determine whether the patch was present or not at the start of the tenancy. It has not therefore been persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
- The landlord’s claim for the carpet repair is dismissed. The tenant’s claims
- The tenant claimed that the ranch sliders in the lounge allowed draughts and water ingress and that the landlord was in breach of her obligation to maintain the premises and to comply with the draught stopping standard in the HHS.
- The tenant supplied photographs of billowing curtains and dampness in front of the ranch sliders and gave evidence that complaint had been made regarding the ranch slider at the first property inspection.
- In response, the landlord gave the following evidence: a. A copy of the HHS compliance schedule prepared by the landlord showing no issue with compliance. b. The tenant made no complaint regarding the issue at the inspection in May 2025 and provided the tenant with a copy of the HHS report in July 2025 when they complained of the draught. c. She believes the water issue was caused by a build-up of dirt in the ranch slider tracks. The landlord believed this was a cleaning rather than maintenance issue and offered to come and clean it out. d. The tenant gave notice and the matter was not pursued by the tenant.
- The Tribunal is not persuaded that the landlord has breached either of its obligations under section 45 RTA. The tenant has not provided evidence from a suitably qualified person that the landlord has breached HHS Regulation 26 and while the photographs show a billowing curtain and damp carpet, it is hard to understand how a ranch slider could have “unreasonable gaps”. If there had been such gaps, then photographic evidence could have been provided.
- The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that the water ingress was caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain. It is likely that it was a build up of dirt in the tracks which blocked the drainage features of the ranch slider.
- The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s30, s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s85(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
- Star Family Trust (Trustee: Linda Gordon) (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421251?
The tribunal order states: Kirsty Rodgers and Brendan Rodgers must pay Star Family Trust (Trustee:
How much money was awarded in case 5421251?
Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $492.85 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $117.50 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421251?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421251?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13424499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.