What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5471027 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 5471027?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Remediation Costs: $6,612.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,147.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $749.00 awarded to landlord; Unblocking Drain: $154.10 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $411.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471027?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13822452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5471027 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 5471027?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Remediation Costs: $6,612.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,147.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $749.00 awarded to landlord; Unblocking Drain: $154.10 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $411.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471027?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13822452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5471027 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471027 — net $10,047.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$411.30	Water rates
Rent arrears	$1,147.14	Rent arrears
Remediation costs	$6,612.50	Remediation costs
Rubbish removal	$749.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Unblocking drain	$154.10	Unblocking drain
Oven replacement	$600.00	Oven replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,047.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,047.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Courtney Carmen Smith must pay [The landlord/s] $10,047.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$411.30 Rent arrears$1,147.14 Remediation costs$6,612.50 Rubbish removal$749.00 Cleaning$345.00 Unblocking drain$154.10 Oven replacement$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,047.04 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,047.04

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. The tenant was served notice of the hearing by way of the email address recorded on the tenancy agreement. I have no reason to believe that the tenant has not been notified of the hearing, so I will proceed in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Courtney Carmen Smith. The tenancy commenced on 4 September 2024, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 2 September 2025. I presume the tenancy was enrolled into a periodic tenancy.
The landlord states that the premises were found abandoned by the tenant on 4 October 2025. The landlord now seeks to recover costs for cleaning and remediation after receiving possession of the Tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The landlord has filed a number of claims, which I will consider in return. Claim 1 – Water rate
The landlord claims $411.30 on a volumetric basis. Analysis
Tenants are responsible for utility charges that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the Tenancy. In this case the landlord claims $411.30 for water used at the premises, being the volumetric charges. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 2 – Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $1,147.14, being the rent arrears as of 4 October 2025, the date the tenant found the premises abandoned. Analysis
The landlord has established the rent due at the end of the tenancy by way of the rent record. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Damage
The landlord claims for remediation and repairs at a total cost of $6,612.50, as recorded on an invoice from Y & M Construction. The invoice includes work for: a. The removing goods and rubbish left in the premises. b. Repairing damaged walls c. Replacing fire alarms d. Replacing damaged curtains e. Replacing damaged mailbox f. Replacing door stops removed during the tenancy g. Repairing the deck. h. Replacement of digital door lock that was damage. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case, taking into consideration the photographs provided by the landlord, I find this claim has been established. I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy. The dwelling was some two years old when the tenancy ended. The tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than intentional damage, so she is liable for the full cost. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Rubbish disposal
The landlord seeks to recover the cost from Junk 2 Go for the disposal of goods and rubbish at the house. An invoice has been presented for $749.00. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Again, the photographs support this claim. The photographs confirmed there was a reasonable amount of rubbish and goods left at the end of the tenancy, the tenant is responsible for the cost of disposing of those items. This claim has been established, and is ordered in full. Claim 5 - Cleaning
Once the premises had the goods and rubbish cleared and repairs completed, the landlord had the premises commercially cleaned and pest treated. An invoice has been provided from Vivi Cleaning Limited to the sum of $345.00 Analysis
The evidence does not support the tenant returning the premises to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I accept that commercial cleaning was proportionate, the claim is reasonable, and is ordered in full.
x Claim 6 – Toilet blockage.
At the end of the tenancy the toilet was blocked. The landlord claims the cost from the plumber of $154.10, supported by an invoice to the Tribunal. That records that the blockage was cleared with a plunger, and the plumber also removed hair blocking a drain upstairs. Analysis
I accept that the toilet was blocked at the end of the tenancy. I am not persuaded this would be a maintenance cost; normally when blockages arise, certainly a new dwellings, it is from items blocking the drains. This is akin to damage, where the tenant is liable for careless actions which arise during the tenancy, which blocking a drain would constitute. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 7 – Oven replacement
The landlord seeks to recover the replacement cost of the oven which was dirty at the end of the tenancy, and the interior of the oven was rusty. The door of the oven was broken. The landlord seeks the cost to replace the oven of $995.65. Analysis
I am satisfied on the evidence available, that the oven was damaged during the tenancy, and the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. The oven was two years old, I accept it had become rusted, and the door was broken. Replacing the oven in those circumstances would be unsurprising. The damage was not fair wear and tear, it occurred during the tenancy, and I find the tenant has not established that it is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
While I award compensation for the replacement cost, I have also taken into consideration depreciation. The landlord should be compensated for their loss at the time it was incurred, which means the loss of an oven, of some two years of age.
I consider a fair level of compensation for the oven would be $600.00, about 60% of the cost, that is ordered. Claim 8 – Dishwasher replacement
At the end of the tenancy, the dishwasher was not working, and it was two years old also. The landlord considers the tenant was too rough with the unit. Analysis
I must conclude that, as far as the dishwasher is concerned, this claim has not been established. I accept that the dishwasher is not working at the end of the tenancy, but there is insufficient evidence to show that it is anything other than a maintenance issue, or that it is likely to have arisen from careless or intentional damage. This claim must be declined. Claim 9 – Filing fee.
Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and as the landlord has been almost entirely successful, landlord name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471027 — net $10,047.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$411.30	Water rates
Rent arrears	$1,147.14	Rent arrears
Remediation costs	$6,612.50	Remediation costs
Rubbish removal	$749.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Unblocking drain	$154.10	Unblocking drain
Oven replacement	$600.00	Oven replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,047.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,047.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Courtney Carmen Smith must pay [The landlord/s] $10,047.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$411.30 Rent arrears$1,147.14 Remediation costs$6,612.50 Rubbish removal$749.00 Cleaning$345.00 Unblocking drain$154.10 Oven replacement$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,047.04 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,047.04

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. The tenant was served notice of the hearing by way of the email address recorded on the tenancy agreement. I have no reason to believe that the tenant has not been notified of the hearing, so I will proceed in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Courtney Carmen Smith. The tenancy commenced on 4 September 2024, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 2 September 2025. I presume the tenancy was enrolled into a periodic tenancy.
The landlord states that the premises were found abandoned by the tenant on 4 October 2025. The landlord now seeks to recover costs for cleaning and remediation after receiving possession of the Tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The landlord has filed a number of claims, which I will consider in return. Claim 1 – Water rate
The landlord claims $411.30 on a volumetric basis. Analysis
Tenants are responsible for utility charges that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the Tenancy. In this case the landlord claims $411.30 for water used at the premises, being the volumetric charges. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 2 – Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $1,147.14, being the rent arrears as of 4 October 2025, the date the tenant found the premises abandoned. Analysis
The landlord has established the rent due at the end of the tenancy by way of the rent record. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Damage
The landlord claims for remediation and repairs at a total cost of $6,612.50, as recorded on an invoice from Y & M Construction. The invoice includes work for: a. The removing goods and rubbish left in the premises. b. Repairing damaged walls c. Replacing fire alarms d. Replacing damaged curtains e. Replacing damaged mailbox f. Replacing door stops removed during the tenancy g. Repairing the deck. h. Replacement of digital door lock that was damage. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case, taking into consideration the photographs provided by the landlord, I find this claim has been established. I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy. The dwelling was some two years old when the tenancy ended. The tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than intentional damage, so she is liable for the full cost. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Rubbish disposal
The landlord seeks to recover the cost from Junk 2 Go for the disposal of goods and rubbish at the house. An invoice has been presented for $749.00. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Again, the photographs support this claim. The photographs confirmed there was a reasonable amount of rubbish and goods left at the end of the tenancy, the tenant is responsible for the cost of disposing of those items. This claim has been established, and is ordered in full. Claim 5 - Cleaning
Once the premises had the goods and rubbish cleared and repairs completed, the landlord had the premises commercially cleaned and pest treated. An invoice has been provided from Vivi Cleaning Limited to the sum of $345.00 Analysis
The evidence does not support the tenant returning the premises to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I accept that commercial cleaning was proportionate, the claim is reasonable, and is ordered in full.
x Claim 6 – Toilet blockage.
At the end of the tenancy the toilet was blocked. The landlord claims the cost from the plumber of $154.10, supported by an invoice to the Tribunal. That records that the blockage was cleared with a plunger, and the plumber also removed hair blocking a drain upstairs. Analysis
I accept that the toilet was blocked at the end of the tenancy. I am not persuaded this would be a maintenance cost; normally when blockages arise, certainly a new dwellings, it is from items blocking the drains. This is akin to damage, where the tenant is liable for careless actions which arise during the tenancy, which blocking a drain would constitute. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 7 – Oven replacement
The landlord seeks to recover the replacement cost of the oven which was dirty at the end of the tenancy, and the interior of the oven was rusty. The door of the oven was broken. The landlord seeks the cost to replace the oven of $995.65. Analysis
I am satisfied on the evidence available, that the oven was damaged during the tenancy, and the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. The oven was two years old, I accept it had become rusted, and the door was broken. Replacing the oven in those circumstances would be unsurprising. The damage was not fair wear and tear, it occurred during the tenancy, and I find the tenant has not established that it is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
While I award compensation for the replacement cost, I have also taken into consideration depreciation. The landlord should be compensated for their loss at the time it was incurred, which means the loss of an oven, of some two years of age.
I consider a fair level of compensation for the oven would be $600.00, about 60% of the cost, that is ordered. Claim 8 – Dishwasher replacement
At the end of the tenancy, the dishwasher was not working, and it was two years old also. The landlord considers the tenant was too rough with the unit. Analysis
I must conclude that, as far as the dishwasher is concerned, this claim has not been established. I accept that the dishwasher is not working at the end of the tenancy, but there is insufficient evidence to show that it is anything other than a maintenance issue, or that it is likely to have arisen from careless or intentional damage. This claim must be declined. Claim 9 – Filing fee.
Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and as the landlord has been almost entirely successful, landlord name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471027 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471027 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions