What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444590 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5444590?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $297.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444590?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479234-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444590 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5444590?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $297.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444590?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479234-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444590 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5444590 — net $825.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.2.2026	$297.71	Rent arrears to 16.2.2026
Rubbish removal and cleaning	$500.00	Rubbish removal and cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$825.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$825.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5444590 — net $825.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.2.2026	$297.71	Rent arrears to 16.2.2026
Rubbish removal and cleaning	$500.00	Rubbish removal and cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$825.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$825.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Yuliana Meza Molano must pay [The landlord/s] $825.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], Ms Meza Molano, the tenant, and Mr Rombouts, who represented the tenant, with the landlord’s consent, all attended the video conference hearing. The tenant and her representative joined the video conference hearing half an hour after it started but all the evidence that had already been discussed was discussed again for the tenant’s benefit.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, notice to quit, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the filing fee.
At the start of the hearing, and when the tenant joined the hearing, the landlord confirmed they wished to withdraw the claim to terminate the tenancy as the tenancy had ended.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 16 February 2026. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is the burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 16 February 2026, the end of the tenancy, which is $297.71. The tenant agreed this is likely the correct amount of rent arrears owing.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord did not provide any inspection reports or photographs before the hearing but during the hearing they sent in a total of 14 photographs to show the property’s condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided an invoice in the amount of $1,581.25 for cleaning and an invoice they sent to the tenant asking her to contribute only $1,000.00 of this cleaning and rubbish removal invoice. The cleaning and rubbish removal invoice in the amount of $1,581.25 showed 17.5 hours of work was required. The landlord said they had to repaint and recarpet the property but were not claiming these costs from the tenant.
The landlord said the property was left dirty, with a greasy oven, stained walls, writing on the wall and some rubbish left by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs showing some writing on a wall, some rubbish items left in the kitchen cupboard and also a rubbish pile with an old Christmas tree, large cushion, wooden shelf and other items. Some of the photographs also showed greasy walls and a cobweb on an air duct, and some old dirty blinds. There was one photographs of some smaller rubbish items left in a garden, which the tenant said was not her garden but was that of the neighbour.
The tenant said she had cleaned the property as best she could at the end of the tenancy, given recent shoulder surgery and had had some assistance. She acknowledged the items left in the kitchen cupboard and another rubbish pile with the old Christmas tree and other items left. She said the blinds were old and broken and belonged to the landlord and could not be cleaned. The tenant believed she left the property reasonably clean and tidy and said the landlord would have needed to do a big clean of the property, after her tenancy had lasted for 8 years anyway. She did not believe she should have to pay for professional cleaning that the landlord felt was required to leave the property ‘perfect’. The tenant believed there was probably less than one cubic metre of rubbish left.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I find the landlord did not provide sufficient photographs or inspection reports to prove the amount of their claim of $1,000.00. However, the tenant has acknowledged leaving some rubbish that had to be removed, as outlined above. I also accept from the photographs the landlord did provide during the hearing that the landlord would have needed to clean the writing off the wall, had to clean the greasy walls showing in the photographs, clean cobwebs and remove the tenant’s rubbish left. Based on the evidence provided, particularly the photographs provided during the hearing and the tenant’s admission of the rubbish left, I find a reasonable cost to remove the tenant’s rubbish and clean the property from the issues identified in the photographs only, and as acknowledged by the tenant, would be $500.00, being $170.00 to remove rubbish left and $330.00 to clean. As such, based on the evidence provided, I award the landlord $500.00 for rubbish removal and cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Locks
The landlord claimed $166.52 as a contribution towards locksmith costs incurred during the tenancy. The landlord provided a locksmith invoice for $636.03 and said they only claimed a contribution from the tenant to cover the cost of the upstairs bedroom lock, front door lock and domestic key cut in the amount of $166.52. The landlord said the tenant had originally agreed to cover this cost. However, at the hearing, the tenant said she disputed this claim.
The locksmith invoice contained a work order narrative outlining the reasons for the locksmith’s engagement, including a break-in at the property, which left a twisted lock, some of the locks malfunctioning and the tenant’s son getting locked in the upstairs bedroom so needing to free him from there. The landlord said this was why they only claimed a portion of the full invoice from the tenant.
The tenant said the upstairs bedroom lock was malfunctioning, and this is why her son got stuck in the bedroom, that there was break-in at the property so the front door lock had to be replaced and new keys cut, and she had a stranger get inside the property during one night, and the other locks also had issues.
The landlord did not provide any additional supporting evidence as to the condition of the locks, either during the tenancy as claimed or after the tenancy ended, such as routine or final inspection reports, correspondence between the parties, assessment by the locksmith, photographs of the condition of the locks, or other evidence.
As the tenant disputes this claim and the landlord has not provided additional supporting evidence of the claim, I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence of this claim and so dismiss the claim for locks. Light fittings
The landlord said there were 8 missing light fittings (covers and light bulbs) missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $1,515.70 to replace 8 premium light fittings.
The landlord did not provide any inspection reports or photographs or correspondence between the parties about or of the missing light fittings.
The tenant said some light fittings were missing but they were left in the cupboards at the property. The tenant said she tried to replace any missing light fittings before she left. The tenant objected to a claim being made for premium light fittings to be installed when they were not available to her at this level during the tenancy. She argued this was an upgrade by the landlord after the tenancy ended.
The landlord disputed the light fittings were an upgrade and said they only replaced what was originally existing. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence of the quality of the light fittings that had been there before they were replaced.
As the landlord has not provided additional supporting evidence that the light fittings were missing, such as inspection reports, photographs, correspondence or any other additional supporting evidence, or their quality before they were replaced, I dismiss this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Rangehood a. That the tenant removed the filters from the rangehood during the tenancy, which were not replaced and so the rangehood had to be replaced, on the advice of their technicians. The landlord claimed $493.35 to replace the rangehood, which they said was only 50% of the total full cost of $986.70 to replace the rangehood. The landlord provided invoices of the full amount of this replacement and their invoice to the tenant for this claim of $493.35. b. The landlord did not provide any inspection reports, photographs, correspondence between the parties or any other additional supporting evidence of the condition of the rangehood for this claim. c. The tenant said she had removed the filters from the rangehood as they were totally dirty after 8 years of use by her family. The tenant indicated the electricians could have come sooner before any damage occurred and thought the filters leaking could have caused damaged. She believed the filters could have been replaced rather than replacing the entire rangehood. The tenant said further that the lifespan of the rangehood, which she expected to be around 10 years, was almost exceeded in any event, given her tenancy lasted 8 years. The landlord confirmed the rangehood had been new at the start of the tenancy. d. It is up to the landlord to prove their claims. I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence of this claim, such as a report from the electricians assessing and repairing the rangehood, photographs, inspection reports, or any correspondence between the parties, given the landlord said the tenant had originally agreed to pay for this and had made some payments towards it and other claims. Given the insufficient additional supporting evidence provided, I dismiss this claim. Stair handrail e. The landlord said the tenant had broken the handrail about the stairs and that it cost $276.00 to repair. The landlord provided an invoice for repair in this amount but did not provide any photographs of the broken handrail, any inspection reports noting this at the end of the tenancy, correspondence between the parties, as the landlord said the tenant had originally agreed to cover this cost, or other additional supporting evidence showing the requirement for the landlord to incur this cost. f. The tenant said this handrail was somewhat twisted and was not safe to put weight on and so it was likely not installed properly. The tenant did not recall it being broken. g. As the landlord has not provided sufficient additional supporting evidence of this claim, such as photographs, any inspection reports noting this issue or correspondence between the parties about it, as they said the tenant had originally agreed to cover this cost also, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. The tenant did not request name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful with the claim, their name is suppressed. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address is not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444590 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444590 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions