Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5422796 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 111 Sturges Road, Henderson, Auckland
Published 29 May 2026 · Application 5422796
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
L Ryken
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $7,193.79
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,380.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,813.79
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 18 December 2025 | $2,100.00 | Rent arrears to 18 December 2025 | |
| Water rates: 31/03/2025 - 18/12/2025 | $577.79 | Water rates: 31/03/2025 - 18/12/2025 | |
| Cleaning | $966.00 | Cleaning | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $874.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $1,000.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $690.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Replace garage door remote | $120.00 | Replace garage door remote | |
| Repairs: Heat pump remote | $138.00 | Repairs: Heat pump remote | |
| Repairs: Living room windowsill | $100.00 | n that most likely reflects the depreciation in value to the windowsill. I find $100.00 to be reasonable. | |
| Repairs: Bedroom walls | $150.00 | Repairs: Bedroom walls | |
| Repairs: Curtains | $150.00 | Repairs: Curtains | |
| Exemplary damages: keeping a dog without landlord’s consent (section 42C(2 | $300.00 | keeping a dog without landlord’s consent (section 42C(2 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $4,813.79 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,813.79 |
Claims and awards for application 5422796 — net $4,813.79 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 18 December 2025
- Amount
- $2,100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 18 December 2025
Water rates: 31/03/2025 - 18/12/2025
- Amount
- $577.79
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates: 31/03/2025 - 18/12/2025
Cleaning
- Amount
- $966.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $874.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work
- Amount
- $690.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and Garden work
Replace garage door remote
- Amount
- $120.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace garage door remote
Repairs: Heat pump remote
- Amount
- $138.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Heat pump remote
Repairs: Living room windowsill
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- n that most likely reflects the depreciation in value to the windowsill. I find $100.00 to be reasonable.
Repairs: Bedroom walls
- Amount
- $150.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Bedroom walls
Repairs: Curtains
- Amount
- $150.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Curtains
Exemplary damages: keeping a dog without landlord’s consent (section 42C(2
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- keeping a dog without landlord’s consent (section 42C(2
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $4,813.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,813.79
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Matalena Pologa must pay Auckland Property Management Limited $4,813.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (BN-10067793) to Auckland Property Management Limited immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing on 29 May 2026. The tenant did not.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears and outstanding water rates invoices. They also claim the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy and kept a dog at the premises without the landlord’s permission. The landlord seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
- As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Compensation & Exemplary Damages: The law generally
- The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord or tenant of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
- The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
- Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts. 1 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
- Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
- In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
- Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 2 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
- Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
Did the tenant breach section 42C RTA?
- Section 42C RTA states: (1)A tenant may keep a pet on the premises – 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 (a)If the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may keep the pet or the landlord gives written consent to the tenant keeping the pet; and (b)In accordance with any reasonable conditions set out in the tenancy agreement or attached to the consent (see section 42G regarding reasonable conditions).
- A tenant who keeps a pet but fails to comply with section 42C(1)(a) RTA commits an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $750.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 3 Analysis
- The tenancy began on 20 April 2021 and ended on 18 December 2025. Section 42C RTA came into effect on 1 December 2025 and therefore applies to the tenancy. 4
- The landlord gave evidence that the premises smelt like dog at the end of the tenancy. They also submitted photographs taken at the end of tenancy, which show lots of pet fur in the carpet and on the walls in the living room. The fur looks like dog hair. Photographs of the heat pump remote show it has been damaged. The damage is consistent with chewing by a dog. Photographs of the windowsill in the living area were also submitted and show numerous scratches. The damage is consistent with a dog trying to balance its front paws on the windowsill and scratching it with its claws. The combined effect of all of this evidence, means I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant kept a dog at the premises during the tenancy.
- The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to keep a pet. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not request written permission to keep a dog, and the landlord never gave written consent. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
- For all of these reasons, I find the tenant kept a dog at the premises during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to keep a dog, and the landlord did not give their written consent. Therefore, I find the tenant breached section 42C(1)(a) RTA.
Should exemplary damages be ordered?
- I find the tenant acted intentionally in keeping a dog at the premises in breach of section 42C(1)(a) RTA. No evidence to prove the landlord gave written consent was submitted. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42C(2) & Schedule 1A. 4 Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, section 2(4).
- I find it just to order exemplary damages, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. The tenant acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The dog has caused damage to the premises and no pet bond was paid by the tenant. The general bond is insufficient to cover the cost of repairs. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The landlord has an interest in being compensated by the tenant for damage incurred to the premises as a result of the dog. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that tenants are dissuaded from keeping pets at a premises in breach of the tenancy agreement and without first seeking the landlord’s written consent. The RTA provides a pathway through which tenant’s can request to keep a pet. It prohibits landlord’s from unreasonably refusing such a request. Tenants should be encouraged to use the provisions in the RTA where they want to keep a pet.
- Taking all of these matters into account, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $300.00 in exemplary damages.
How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?
- The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves the tenant owes $2,100.00 in rent arrears up to this date.
How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?
- The landlord submitted a water invoice summary, together with copies of original invoices from Watercare for the tenancy address. These documents prove the tenant owes $577.79 in outstanding water rates invoices for the period 31 March 2025 – 18 December 2025.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
The law
- 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. 5
- “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 6 It does not mean commercially clean, 7 spotless 8 or to a hotel or motel standard. 9 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 10 Cleaning & carpet cleaning
- The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpets have not been vacuumed. There is a significant amount of dust, dog hair and grime on the skirting boards. There is dog hair on the walls in the living room. There are ants in the kitchen. The kitchen cupboards and drawers are dirty. The toilet and bathroom are also dirty.
- The landlord submitted invoices for $966.00 to clean the premises and $874.00 to clean the carpet, including dog urine treatment.
- The landlord gave evidence that the premises smelt strongly like dog, which I accept. Because I am convinced the tenant kept a dog at the premises, it was reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets commercially cleaned.
- For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $966.00 b. Carpet cleaning: $874.00 Rubbish removal
- The photographs taken at the end of tenancy prove the tenant did not remove all of their belongings or rubbish. A significant amount of personal belongings and rubbish was left in the garden area, including mattresses, bed bases, whiteware, tables and other personal belongings and rubbish. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 6 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 7 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 8 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 9 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 10 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,000.00 to remove all of the rubbish and abandoned goods.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,000.00. Lawns and garden maintenance
- The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the lawns and garden reasonably clean and tidy. There are large mounds of old lawn clippings. Parts of the lawn are overgrown. There is grass growing on the paved stone area and numerous weeds in the rock garden.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $690.00 to mow the lawns and de-weed the garden. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Garage door remote
- The landlord gave evidence the tenant was provided with a garage door remote at the beginning of the tenancy and submitted a photograph taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which shows a set of keys and garage door remote. The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the garage door remote at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
- The landlord has not replaced the garage door remote, because they do not have the money. The owner has moved back into the premises and is operating the garage door manually.
- The landlord submitted a quote for $168.75 (including GST) to replace the garage door remote. The amount sought seems reasonable and I am convinced the landlord will purchase a new remote.
- For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $168.75. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy? The law
- 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. 11
- Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 12 Living room windowsill
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the windowsill in the living room to be in good condition. It is painted white with no scratches or marks. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show the sill has numerous scratches on it. I find the windowsill was damaged during the tenancy, most likely from the tenant’s dog leaning on the windowsill with its front paws. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted a quote to repair the windowsill for $230.00 (including GST). The landlord is now living in the premises and has not completed the repairs. I have reservations about whether the repairs will be completed. For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to order a nominal amount of compensation that most likely reflects the depreciation in value to the windowsill. I find $100.00 to be reasonable. Heat pump remote
- The photographs of the heat pump remote taken at the beginning of the tenancy show it is in good condition. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show it has been badly damaged. I find the remote was damaged during the tenancy, most likely from the tenant’s dog chewing on it. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted a quote for $138.00 (including GST) to replace the remote. The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation to replace heat pump remotes. The usual cost is $138.00. I am convinced the landlord will purchase a new remote for the heat pump for winter. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $138.00. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 12 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. Bedroom walls
- The photographs of the bedroom taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls to be in good condition. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show lots of small scratches and marks, and a large gauge in the wall. The tenant has also stuck small mirrors on the walls, which are most likely to cause damage when removed.
- On the balance of probabilities, I find the walls in the bedroom were damaged during the tenancy. I consider the smaller marks and scratches to be fair wear and tear, but the larger scratches and gouge in the wall exceed fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
- The landlord submitted a quote to repaint two walls in the bedroom for $632.50 (including GST). The landlord has not painted the walls yet and is currently living in the premises. I have reservations about whether the walls will be repainted. For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to order a nominal amount of compensation that most likely reflects the diminution in value to the walls. I consider $150.00 to be reasonable. Curtains
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the curtains to be in good condition. They are clean and the landlord gave evidence that they were newly installed at the beginning of the tenancy. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some of the curtains to be very dirty and stained. Some of the staining and marks are small, whilst others are large. I find the curtains were damaged during the tenancy. If find the smaller marks to be consistent with fair wear and tear however, the other larger areas of staining exceed fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
- The landlord submitted a quote for $1,150.00 (including GST) to replace the curtain, but only seeks $575.00 considering the age of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has not replaced the curtains yet but has cleaned them and carried out some repairs. I have reservations about whether the curtains will be replaced. For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to order a nominal amount of compensation that most likely reflects the diminution in value to the curtains. I consider $150.00 to be reasonable. Should the tenant pay the landlord $1,890.00 in lost rent?
- The landlord claims the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy delayed their ability to re-tenant them quickly and therefore, the tenant should reimburse them 3 weeks in lost rent. The difficulty for the landlord, however, is that the premises were not re-tenanted. Instead, the owner moved back into them. Further, there is usually an inevitable delay in re-tenanting premises in between tenancies. This is because it takes time to advertise the premises and vet prospective tenants. In some cases, tenants also need to give 21 days’ notice to end their current tenancy before beginning a new one. For all of these reasons, I decline to order the tenant to pay the landlord $1,890.00 for three weeks lost rent. Filing fee
- Because the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s15, s2(4), s40(1), s40(2), s42C, s42C(1), s42C(2), s42G, s45, s48, s8
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- AUCKLAND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422796?
The tribunal order states: Matalena Pologa must pay Auckland Property Management Limited $4,813.79
How much money was awarded in case 5422796?
Cleaning: $874.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $966.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Living Room Windowsill: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $577.79 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422796?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422796?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13675033-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.