Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5439751 — Rent arrears at 32 Brookland Road, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015
Published 19 May 2026 · Application 5439751
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Rotorua
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
S Young
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $550.00 | Rent arrears | |
| Window repairs: Insurance excess | $400.00 | liability is limited to the amount of the excess. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00. | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement |
Claims and awards for application 5439751. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $550.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Window repairs: Insurance excess
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- liability is limited to the amount of the excess. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00.
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Alissha Arahanga at 32 Brookland Road, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 is terminated, and possession is granted to Etb Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Rotorua, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 26 May 2026 .
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $978.00 to Etb Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Rotorua immediately as calculated in the table below.
- The balance of the bond of $1,002.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the remote hearing.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where:
- On 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and (a) on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and (b)each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and (c)the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- In this case, I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
- The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Section 56 RTA
- The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
- The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 April 2026, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
- It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the condition of the premises is deteriorating due to the rubbish accumulating in the sleep out and garage.
- The landlord said in evidence that they first noticed the rubbish in both the sleep out and garage in November 2025. Since then, landlord has attempted to communicate with the tenant to resolve the problem. The landlord has provided a letter for the tenant to hand to WINZ to seek help. The tenant has taken no steps. On the day of the hearing the tenant sent an email to Tenancy Services saying that she needed a skip bin and could not afford to get one until the end of the month.
- The landlord said that the tenant had been talking about getting a skip bin for three months and nothing had happened.
- The landlord provided photos showing rubbish piled up in the garage and sleep out. Vines are growing in the through the roof. Mould is beginning to grow on the walls. The landlord is quite reasonably concerned about the ongoing deterioration to the premises. It seems unlikely that one skip bin would be sufficient to remove the rubbish.
How much is owed for rent ?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $550.00.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the landlord’s policy of insurance is $400.00.
- 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A window in the sleep out was broken. The landlord said that the broken glass was discovered outside suggesting that the window had been broken from the inside. An invoice for $438.34 was provided by the landlord. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord is insured. The tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the excess. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00.
- The amounts ordered are proven.
- As Etb Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Rotorua has wholly succeeded with the 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
s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s55(1), s56, s56(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- ETB REALTY LIMITED T/a Harcourts Rotorua (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5439751?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Alissha Arahanga at 32 Brookland Road, Western Heights,
How much money was awarded in case 5439751?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439751?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439751?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13621695-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.