Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5487205 — Tenancy dispute at 35 West Street, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121
Decided 20 Aug 2026 · Published 20 Aug 2026 · Application 5487205
- Cleanliness
- Leaks
- Rent arrears
- State of repair
Order
and CORRIGENDUM TO ORDER DATED 19 August 2026
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Melanie Devaney & Richard Watling $3,758.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-17171280) to Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Melanie Devaney & Richard Watling immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing held at Pukekohe Court today. Preliminary matters relating to procedure.
- The matter was set down as an in-person hearing. As such all parties are required to attend the hearing in person. At the beginning of the hearing Ms Datt one of the property managers requested that Mr Wattling, who she described as an owner attend by phone. I advised her that I was reluctant to do that, because it is expected that any person who wishes to attend a hearing does so in person, unless they have asked and be granted leave to attend in some other way.
- As the claims concerned damage to the prorepty and given the number of property management companies involved in this tenancy, I decided that I would allow Mr Wattling to attend by telephone. I did so keeping in mind that time in the Tribunal is at a premium, and that the tenant and the property management were at the hearing. I considered that having Mr Wattling attend by phone would have allowed for the matter to be heard today without any repercussions, including possible rehearing applications, if I had not allowed him to attend.
- I called Mr Wattling as requested. He informed me that he was not the owner, but a representative of the owner who was his partner. He said that he had full authority to attend the hearing as he was the person who had dealt with all the property managers and who could speak to the state of the property at different times during the tenancy. On that basis (as representative of the owner) I allowed him to partake in the hearing by telephone. Background.
- This was a tenancy of 5 years. In or about December 2025, Harcourts took over as property managers from Ray White.
- The tenancy ended on the 17 May 2026 after the landlord gave the tenant notice.
- The house is recorded on One Roof as being built in 2005. It is a four-bedroom brick and tile home.
- After the tenancy ended, the landlord undertook a renovation and refresh of the premises, telling me that they have painted throughout and replaced carpet. They do not seek any of those costs from the tenant.
- The tenant has lived in the property for 4 years with her 4 teenage children and at times her partner.
- The landlord provided me with inspection photographs and video taken on the 18 May 2025 at her exit inspection. As the property management firm did not manage the property for the whole of the tenancy, there were no ingoing inspection reports. However, the property management company gave me a copy of the routine inspection reports from Ray White in July 2024 and the routine inspection report completed by Harcourts- Ms Datt in December 2025
- The landlord claims: a. Rent arrears to 17 May 2026 $2462.14 b. Water rates $977.12 c. Skip bin, rubbish removal $632.50 d. Cleaning full house $1265.00 e. Repairs:
- Hot water cupboard $828.00
- Shower door $632.50
- Toilet 2x cracked bowl $2990
- Silicon replacement $350.00
- Toilet roll holder $75.00
- Supertub replacement $1702.00
- Kitchen sink and installation $485.75
- Plumblink invoice .$201.25 f. The filing fee.
- At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew its claims for silicon replacement toilet roll holder.
- The landlord also asked to add in an additional claim for a contribution for kitchen installation. The tenant was completely unaware of this claim, and was taken aback, especially when the landlord was seeking up to $10,000.00 for the replacement kitchen cabinetry. Rent.
- The landlord provided a rent ledger showing the rent owing until the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has proven the amount awarded. Water.
- Tenants are only liable for the water that they use. 1 1 Section 39 RTA.
- The landlord provided me with the Waikato District Council water rates from October 2025 to April 2026. They show that the tenant has been charged by use.
- The tenant said that during this period the toilet cistern was overflowing and running on, thereby using a lot of water. The tenant would turn the water off, but she said sometimes her children would use the bathroom and leave the inlet tap at the wall on.
- In the December 2025 inspection report it notes that the tenant mentioned the leaking toilet. The landlord had a plumber come to repair it.
- I do not consider that the water charged to the tenant is unreasonable and should be discounted for the cistern water running on. The tenant’s use of water is well below that of an average use for a family of her size, and therefore I consider that any leakage was minimal. Cleaning and Rubbish removal
- At the end of the tenancy tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish. 2
- Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 3 , not commercially clean 4 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 5
- What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
- The landlord provided both the overall 360 report and specific photographs of the problem areas.
- The overall report appears to show a property that has been left reasonably clean and tidy, however the specific photographs show areas, including windows, skiting boards, some walls, window frames, light fittings, inside of drawers and the oven that needed further cleaning.
- The landlord has not had the cleaning done. This is because the landlord has undertaken renovation/refresh. The cleaning is noted on the builder’s invoice as a post renovation full clean, and I would expect that after a renovation/ refresh that full cleaning would need to be done.
- However, I consider that it is reasonable in this circumstance to award $350 towards cleaning, this is because, I would have thought that some further 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. cleaning would have been required before painting, and that items like the oven will need further cleaning.
- The landlord also claimed the cost of the skip bin for rubbish removal. The only rubbish that was attributable to the tenants was a large wooden reel, 2 shower doors and a compost bin of garden waste.
- The landlord confirmed that the old carpet had gone into the skip bin, and I expect so had other waste from the renovation/ refresh. I consider it reasonable that the tenant should pay for the rubbish removal of the items she has left at the tenancy, given the size of those items I award the landlord $100.00 for their removal. Costs of repairs.
- A tenant is only responsible for the damage that they carelessly or intentionally cause.
- Landlords have a responsibility to provide and maintain the premises (including any facilities) to a reasonable standard. If an item becomes damaged or worn from fair wear and tea, which is its normal and expected use, then this is a maintenance cost not tenant damage.
- I did not have a pre- tenancy inspection report that showed me the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. This is because the agency who were the first property managers, had ceased trading and the owners could not get access to these reports. Hot water cupboard doors.
- The prorepty manager provided photographs that showed a large hole on the inside of one of the hot water cupboard doors and extensive cracks on the other door. She says that the holes and cracks occurred in between the inspections In December 2025 and the final inspection
- The tenant confirms that her sons caused the damage when they were playing around the doors and fell into them.
- The damage is careless, and I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the costs of the two doors, painting and installation. The landlord provided a quote for the doors from his builder. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable an award that amount. Shower doors.
- The tenant accepts that the shower door smashed, in or around 2024, when her daughter was in the shower. The tenant could not tell me how the door was smashed but she said that her daughter received cuts from the glass.
- The tenant accepted liability for the shower door in 2024 and began to pay money towards the cost. However, she fell into rent arrears and the money she paid was used by agreement for the rent.
- I am satisfied that the tenant accepted liability for the shower doors in 2024 and therefore is liable for the cost of the shower doors as was charged at that time and as agreed. The toilets
- The landlord says that both toilets are cracked.
- The inspection photographs do not show my any cracks.
- The tenant disputes that the toilets are cracked.
- The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the toilets were cracked, or how they were cracked.
- The landlord’s claim for the toilets is therefore dismissed. The supertub
- The landlord says that the super tub needed to be replaced because at the end of the tenancy the tap covers were taken off, leaving only the internal componentry for the taps. The landlord produced evidence from his builder and plumber that said that the tap ‘covers’ were difficult to source and that it was more cost effective to replace the whole tub.
- The tenant says that the plastic taps were cracked and loose and did not work and that is why they were removed. She says that she thought she left these at the property.
- The inspection photographs taken in July 2024 show the laundry taps in place and at the December 2025 inspection they are not there.
- I do not consider it likely that the damage to the taps was more than fair wear and tear. Even If I had considered that the damage to the taps was careless, I would not have ordered the tenant to pay for a replacement laundry tub. The tenant would have only been liable for the costs of the replacement covers. Despite the builder’s assertion that theses are both difficult to find and expensive, I had no evidence apart from the builders say so that showed me that. I conducted a google search during the hearing and put to the parties, the results that shows that tap covers could be obtained at much cheaper cost.
- The landlord’s claim for the replacement super tub is not proven. Kitchen sink and installation.
- The landlord is claiming the cost of the kitchen sink and installation. The landlord says that there is a puncture in the kitchen sink and that water is leaking out.
- The tenant denies that the dent/puncture allows leaking.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the kitchen sink is leaking. The sink is clearly dented and there is pot placed directly under the sink. This must have been put there by the tenant and curiously was the only item left in any drawer or cupboard. I consider that the placement of the pot shows that the tenant was aware that the sink was leaking.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I consider the tenant liable for the damage.
- The amounts claimed are reasonable and are awarded. The Plumblink invoice.
- The landlord says that this claim is for a callout in April to check the toilet cistern, after the tenant had once again complained that it was running over and a knocking sound could be sometimes heard.
- The landlord says that the plumber went to investigate and found nothing wrong. The landlord says that the tenant should be liable for the invoice.
- I disagree, the tenant had genuine concerns about the leak, she was required to report any issues with the property. Given the history of toilet leaks, it was appropriate that she reported this. She told me that after the repair was completed in January, that the cistern would still leak, and that if another tap in the house was turned on whilst the inlet was turned on, then a knocking sound could be heard. The property manager also confirmed that when she had gone to the house in March that the tenant had told her about the sound and the leak, but that she could not hear the knocking sound.
- I consider that it was appropriate that the plumber investigate these matters. This is a cost to the landlord not the tenant. If tenants are afraid to report potential concerns as they may end up paying expensive call out fees, then they may be less likely to report resulting in more widespread damage. The kitchen bench.
- Whilst this issue was only raised today, and I would not normally deal with a claim of this size at such short notice, I do so, because I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven this claim.
- The tenant says that the kitchen doors have come off the hinges. The kitchen cupboard doors have been left behind. There is no evidence that the tenant did anything to cause the damage. It is likely the damage is caused by age and wear.
- The landlord’s claim for damage to the kitchen is not proven. Depreciation and betterment
- I confirm that I have taken into account depreciation and betterment when making these awards. The filing fee
- The landlord has been successful in some but not all of the claims. I do not award the filing fee. Name suppression
- The tenant has asked for suppression. The tenant has not been successful in her defence of the claims and therefore I see no reason to suppress the tenant’s name.