Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5436546 — Rent arrears
Decided 4 Jun 2026 · Published 4 Jun 2026 · Application 5436546
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Sina Tiumalu must pay [The landlord/s] $5,958.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [officers of the landlord company].
- There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
- This tenancy of a 2-bedroom, 1 bathroom standalone house began on 10 July 2025 and ended on 21 January 2026.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond (although this was released to the landlord by consent prior to the hearing today), and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The landlord accepts that the tenancy ended on 21 January 2026, despite the tenant giving insufficient notice (notice given on 14 January 2026).
- The landlord seeks rent arrears to 19 January 2026 in the amount of $4,200.00. The landlord produced a rent summary, and bank account statements, proving the amount owing.
- The claim for rent arrears is proved.
- The landlord also claimed for three months of water invoices that were unpaid at the end of the tenancy. Once the fixed charges are removed, the total amount of those invoices is $255.25.
- The claim for water arrears 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The landlord said that the property was left very dirty, rubbish was left behind and that there were cockroaches and fleas.
- The landlord produced photos and videos showing the condition of the property. The photos show the bathroom sink left clogged (full with water) that the shower had not been cleaned, the property was generally in an unclean condition and that there was rubbish left in drawers and both inside and outside the property (including large furniture items).
- The landlord also produced videos showing a significant number of cockroaches crawling about, and gave evidence that they were bitten by fleas.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the property was not left clean and tidy and the tenants did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $600.00. I consider the invoice to be reasonable given the amount of cleaning required and order payment of this amount.
- The landlord said that they tried to treat the pest infestation with flea and cockroach bombs themselves without success. They then engaged a professional pest control company who came to treat the property. They produced an invoice for pest control in the amount of $172.50. As the landlord has claimed the amount of $150.00 I have ordered compensation in that amount.
- The landlord said that their builder (who repaired the damage listed below) removed the rubbish and that the amount was $300.00 but they did not produce an invoice.
- I am satisfied that the landlord would have had to remove the rubbish left behind. Having carefully considered the photo and video evidence I consider that the amount of $300.00 is reasonable and order compensation in that amount.
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 has claimed for the following damage: a. Blind repairs - $150.00 b. Glass damage (large sliding door mirrors) - $2525.00 c. Bathroom and bedroom door repairs - $300.00 d. Lock repair/replace - $100.00 e. Damage to ceiling light - $50.00 f. Repair to ripped wallpaper - $100.00.
- The landlord produced photos of the above damage but did not produce ingoing inspection photos.
- The landlord referred me to the publicly available Ray White listing for the property when they purchased the property and said that the property began soon after and the property was in the same condition when rented out.
- The listing photos however did not clearly show the wallpaper, ceiling light, glass, or bathroom and bedroom door repairs. They did show the blinds but it is difficult to tell whether these are the same blinds in the outgoing photos.
- In any event however, the landlord did not produce an invoice for any of the claimed damage except the glass damage.
- These claims (with the exception of the glass damage which is discussed below) are not proved.
- The landlord produced quote for the glass damage. The landlord also produced correspondence with the tenant in which the tenant accepted liability for the damage, which occurred when moving furniture.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the glass damage occurred during the tenancy as is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is reasonable given the very large size of the doors.
- I therefore order that the tenant pay compensation in the amount of $2,525.00 for glass repairs. Filing fee and name suppression
- As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.00.
- The landlord sought an order for name suppression (including the tenancy address) and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).