What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438156 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan

How much money was awarded in case 5438156?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Wallpaper: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $34.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $261.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438156?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438156?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377952-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438156 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan

How much money was awarded in case 5438156?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Wallpaper: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $34.32 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $261.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438156?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438156?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377952-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Nicholas Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510, Front Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438156 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

24 Nicholas Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510, Front Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438156 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438156 — net $1,297.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$320.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: Gardening	$270.00	Lawns and Garden work: Gardening
Rubbish removal: Garden waste	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Garden waste
Rubbish removal: Dump fees	$34.32	Rubbish removal: Dump fees
Lock/key replacement: Key replacement	$24.00	Lock/key replacement: Key replacement
Repairs: Wallpaper	$100.00	Repairs: Wallpaper
Water rates	$261.63	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,297.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,297.95

Claims and awards for application 5438156 — net $1,297.95 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $320.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work: Gardening

Amount: $270.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: Gardening

Rubbish removal: Garden waste

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Garden waste

Rubbish removal: Dump fees

Amount: $34.32
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Dump fees

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Wallpaper costs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates Compensation

Order

dated 27 March 2026 failed to include the $28.00 filing fee costs award in the calculation table nor was it included in the bond refund calculations. II.The order has been amended to include the $28.00 filing fee cost award in the calculation table. III.The order has been amended to include the $28.00 filing fee cost award in the bond refund calculations at para [2] below. IV.The order is amended accordingly. No other changes to the order have been made.

ORDER

[The tenant/s] to pay M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan Davies $1,297.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,297.95 (BN-10074340) to M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan Davies immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,002.05 (BN-10074340) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 5 February 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by video conference. Ms Jasmin Cottle-Gallichan, property manager appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 27 April 2022 with the fixed term expiring on 27 April 2023.
The tenancy ended on 28 November 2025.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks outstanding water rates totalling $261.63 and provided: a. photographs of the water meters proving the tenant used 153 cubic meters of water; and b. An invoice from the water authority proving the cost charged per cubic meter.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed and that is what is ordered.

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) of the Act. Cleaning costs
The landlord seeks $280.00 cleaning costs after paying a contractor to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided both pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
During the hearing the parties negotiated the cleaning costs. It was agreed the tenant would pay the landlord $200.00 compensation for cleaning costs, and that is what is ordered. Carpet cleaning costs
The landlord seeks $320.00 after paying a contractor to professionally clean the carpets to remove a cat urine odour at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed and acknowledged the cat urine odour, which they said was due to stray cats spraying. The amount claimed is ordered. Garden maintenance and the removal of a trellis
The landlord seeks $371.25 after paying a contractor to tidy the gardens and remove a broken piece of trellis. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided photographs which proved the garden had areas which were overgrown at the end of the tenancy and required general weeding and tidying. These photographs also prove that a piece of trellis was damaged.
The tenant said that there was some confusion over where their responsibility for the garden started and stopped but accepted that garden maintenance issues had been raised with them during the tenancy.
The tenant disputed liability for damaging the trellis, stating it was broken during a storm as the wood was aged and in poor condition. The landlord said they had not been notified of the storm damage but accepted the trellis had not been properly maintained.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the garden in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is responsible for damage to the trellis and deducts $101.25 from the amount claimed to reflect the removal cost. The Tribunal orders $270.00 compensation for garden maintenance and tidying. Rubbish removal costs
The landlord seeks garden and trellis dump fees of $84.66 and general inorganic dump fees of $34.32. An invoice and a receipt in the amount claimed were provided.
The tenant accepted liability for the inorganic dump fee. The tenant challenged the amount claimed for garden waste and trellis removal costs. They said the amount also included the costs of dumping a rusty wheel barrow that was left at the property at the commencement of the tenancy, and, as the trellis was storm damaged, they should not have to pay for its removal.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of the inorganic dump fee and a portion of the green waste dump costs. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant should pay to dump the wheel barrow or trellis and $24.66 is deducted from the amount claimed to reflect this. Key cutting
The landlord seeks $24.00 after paying to have new keys cut for the property following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant takes no issue with the amount claimed and that is what is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Compensation for broken blind tension poles and a replacement curtain
The landlord seeks compensation of $40.00 for two broken blind tension poles and $79.00 to replace one broken blind following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed for the blind was provided.
The landlord said that two blind tension poles had broken during the tenancy and the window treatments were later replaced with curtains.
The landlord said that a blind was damaged during the tenancy and produced a photograph showing the blind in bedroom two could not be fully lowered.
The tenant disputed being responsible for the damage to the blind tension poles and the blind in bedroom two. The tenant said the damage was the result of fair wear and tear, the items were old and the plastic had degraded and was brittle due to sun damage.
The landlord accepted that the blinds were old and suggested that they could be original to the house.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant intentionally or carelessly caused damaged to the blind tension rods or the blind in bedroom two. The Tribunal accepts the tenants evidence that the damage was caused by fair wear and tear from sun damage causing the plastic tension rods to break and the plastic eyes in the blind to break, catching the fabric. The Tribunal notes that the entry inspection photographs show the blind in bedroom two was showing signs of wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Wallpaper costs
The landlord seeks $1,000.00 compensation, the cost of their insurance excess, after paying a contractor to wallpaper the family room after the wallpaper was ripped in two places. Invoices in the amount of $690.00 for wallpapering, dado and materials, $318.23 for builders labour and $256.70 for paint was provided. No insurance claim was made.
The landlord said that due to the age of the wallpaper they were unable to match the pattern to repair the two damaged sites and the whole family room needed to be re-wallpapered.
The tenant said that due to the age of the wallpaper it had started to lift and their children had then ripped the paper in two places.
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is partially responsible for the damage to the wallpaper. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that because of its age the wallpaper had started to lift, however, the Tribunal finds the rips were caused by her children.
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.
The Tribunal notes the exit inspection report records the wallpaper is starting to lift in various rooms throughout the property; this suggests the adhesive may be starting to degrade due to age. Wallpaper has an average depreciable lifespan of six to 12 years. Given the age of the wallpaper balanced against its inherent value as a wall covering and betterment and depreciation the Tribunal orders $100.00 compensation for wallpapering costs. Other matters
Because M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan Davies has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Having made enquiries with the parties the Tribunal determined name suppression was not sought.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438156 — net $1,297.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$320.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: Gardening	$270.00	Lawns and Garden work: Gardening
Rubbish removal: Garden waste	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Garden waste
Rubbish removal: Dump fees	$34.32	Rubbish removal: Dump fees
Lock/key replacement: Key replacement	$24.00	Lock/key replacement: Key replacement
Repairs: Wallpaper	$100.00	Repairs: Wallpaper
Water rates	$261.63	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,297.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,297.95

Claims and awards for application 5438156 — net $1,297.95 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $320.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work: Gardening

Amount: $270.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: Gardening

Rubbish removal: Garden waste

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Garden waste

Rubbish removal: Dump fees

Amount: $34.32
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Dump fees

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Wallpaper costs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates Compensation

Order

ORDER

[The tenant/s] to pay M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan Davies $1,297.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,297.95 (BN-10074340) to M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan Davies immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,002.05 (BN-10074340) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 5 February 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by video conference. Ms Jasmin Cottle-Gallichan, property manager appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 27 April 2022 with the fixed term expiring on 27 April 2023.
The tenancy ended on 28 November 2025.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks outstanding water rates totalling $261.63 and provided: a. photographs of the water meters proving the tenant used 153 cubic meters of water; and b. An invoice from the water authority proving the cost charged per cubic meter.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed and that is what is ordered.

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) of the Act. Cleaning costs
The landlord seeks $280.00 cleaning costs after paying a contractor to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided both pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports with photographs which proved the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
During the hearing the parties negotiated the cleaning costs. It was agreed the tenant would pay the landlord $200.00 compensation for cleaning costs, and that is what is ordered. Carpet cleaning costs
The landlord seeks $320.00 after paying a contractor to professionally clean the carpets to remove a cat urine odour at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed and acknowledged the cat urine odour, which they said was due to stray cats spraying. The amount claimed is ordered. Garden maintenance and the removal of a trellis
The landlord seeks $371.25 after paying a contractor to tidy the gardens and remove a broken piece of trellis. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided photographs which proved the garden had areas which were overgrown at the end of the tenancy and required general weeding and tidying. These photographs also prove that a piece of trellis was damaged.
The tenant said that there was some confusion over where their responsibility for the garden started and stopped but accepted that garden maintenance issues had been raised with them during the tenancy.
The tenant disputed liability for damaging the trellis, stating it was broken during a storm as the wood was aged and in poor condition. The landlord said they had not been notified of the storm damage but accepted the trellis had not been properly maintained.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the garden in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is responsible for damage to the trellis and deducts $101.25 from the amount claimed to reflect the removal cost. The Tribunal orders $270.00 compensation for garden maintenance and tidying. Rubbish removal costs
The landlord seeks garden and trellis dump fees of $84.66 and general inorganic dump fees of $34.32. An invoice and a receipt in the amount claimed were provided.
The tenant accepted liability for the inorganic dump fee. The tenant challenged the amount claimed for garden waste and trellis removal costs. They said the amount also included the costs of dumping a rusty wheel barrow that was left at the property at the commencement of the tenancy, and, as the trellis was storm damaged, they should not have to pay for its removal.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of the inorganic dump fee and a portion of the green waste dump costs. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant should pay to dump the wheel barrow or trellis and $24.66 is deducted from the amount claimed to reflect this. Key cutting
The landlord seeks $24.00 after paying to have new keys cut for the property following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant takes no issue with the amount claimed and that is what is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Compensation for broken blind tension poles and a replacement curtain
The landlord seeks compensation of $40.00 for two broken blind tension poles and $79.00 to replace one broken blind following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed for the blind was provided.
The landlord said that two blind tension poles had broken during the tenancy and the window treatments were later replaced with curtains.
The landlord said that a blind was damaged during the tenancy and produced a photograph showing the blind in bedroom two could not be fully lowered.
The tenant disputed being responsible for the damage to the blind tension poles and the blind in bedroom two. The tenant said the damage was the result of fair wear and tear, the items were old and the plastic had degraded and was brittle due to sun damage.
The landlord accepted that the blinds were old and suggested that they could be original to the house.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant intentionally or carelessly caused damaged to the blind tension rods or the blind in bedroom two. The Tribunal accepts the tenants evidence that the damage was caused by fair wear and tear from sun damage causing the plastic tension rods to break and the plastic eyes in the blind to break, catching the fabric. The Tribunal notes that the entry inspection photographs show the blind in bedroom two was showing signs of wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Wallpaper costs
The landlord seeks $1,000.00 compensation, the cost of their insurance excess, after paying a contractor to wallpaper the family room after the wallpaper was ripped in two places. Invoices in the amount of $690.00 for wallpapering, dado and materials, $318.23 for builders labour and $256.70 for paint was provided. No insurance claim was made.
The landlord said that due to the age of the wallpaper they were unable to match the pattern to repair the two damaged sites and the whole family room needed to be re-wallpapered.
The tenant said that due to the age of the wallpaper it had started to lift and their children had then ripped the paper in two places.
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is partially responsible for the damage to the wallpaper. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that because of its age the wallpaper had started to lift, however, the Tribunal finds the rips were caused by her children.
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.
The Tribunal notes the exit inspection report records the wallpaper is starting to lift in various rooms throughout the property; this suggests the adhesive may be starting to degrade due to age. Wallpaper has an average depreciable lifespan of six to 12 years. Given the age of the wallpaper balanced against its inherent value as a wall covering and betterment and depreciation the Tribunal orders $100.00 compensation for wallpapering costs. Other matters
Because M H Realty Limited As Agent For Jaqueline & Kaitlan Davies has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Having made enquiries with the parties the Tribunal determined name suppression was not sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438156 — Cleanliness at 24 Nicholas Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510, Front

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438156 — Cleanliness at 24 Nicholas Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510, Front

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

ORDER

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

ORDER

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions