What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4670789?

The tribunal order states: Muimui Fisi also known as Mui mui Fisi also known as Fisi He Hau Mei Moana

How much money was awarded in case 4670789?

Cleaning: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstatement Of Grass/Pig Pen: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,971.43 awarded to landlord; Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Fence: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Tiles: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $613.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670789?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675399-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4670789?

The tribunal order states: Muimui Fisi also known as Mui mui Fisi also known as Fisi He Hau Mei Moana

How much money was awarded in case 4670789?

Cleaning: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstatement Of Grass/Pig Pen: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,971.43 awarded to landlord; Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Fence: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Tiles: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $613.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670789?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675399-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Buckville Road, Buckland, RD 2, Pukekohe 2677 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670789 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

4 Buckville Road, Buckland, RD 2, Pukekohe 2677 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670789 — Rent arrears | 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 4670789 — net $7,005.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023	$1,971.43	Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023
Repairs: Door	$300.00	Repairs: Door
Repairs: Kitchen cupboard	$75.00	Repairs: Kitchen cupboard
Carpet Cleaning	$275.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Interior	$700.00	Cleaning: Interior
Repairs: Fence	$400.00	Repairs: Fence
Rubbish removal: Skip bin	$450.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin
Rubbish removal	$600.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	28. I have allocated amounts for cleaning, rubbish and repairs.
Stables cleaning	$450.00	Stables cleaning
Reinstatement of grass/pig pen	$650.00	Reinstatement of grass/pig pen
Repairs: tiles	$50.00	Repairs: tiles
Carpet Cleaning: Clean oven	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning: Clean oven
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46707892 Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46707892 Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates: May- End of Tenancy	$613.20	Water rates: May- End of Tenancy
Net award	$7,005.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,005.07

Claims and awards for application 4670789 — net $7,005.07 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023

Amount: $1,971.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023

Repairs: Door

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Door

Repairs: Kitchen cupboard

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen cupboard

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $275.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning: Interior

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Interior

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

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

Order

Muimui Fisi also known as Mui mui Fisi also known as Fisi He Hau Mei Moana Muimui must pay Calum Chen $7,005.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order amends and replaces the order of the 10 May 2024 under this same application number.

Reasons

On the 10 May 2024 I made an order in this matter.
When the landlord went to enforce that order he realised that the tenant’s name on the order was incorrect and should have been Muimui Fisi not Mui Mui Fisi.
The landlord was unable to enforce the order of the 10 May 2024.
The landlord sought a rehearing of this matter to allow the name of the tenant to be correct and it was granted by me on the 18 March 2025.
I do not consider that I need to have a further hearing on this matter. I am satisfied that the tenant was Muimui Fisi also known as Mui Mui Fisi also known as Fisi He Hau Mei Moana Muimui to the landlord because those names were the names recorded on the tenancy agreement and previous orders. I am satisfied that the tenant was known to the landlord as Muimui Fisi and Mui Mui Fisi. The tenant’s names are therefore recorded on this order so the landlord can enforce this order. Reasons given in the 10 May 2024.
The tenancy ended by termination order on the 8 June 2023 – see TT 4507783. Adjudicator Tam also awarded the landlord rent arrears to 8 June 2023 , water rates to April 2023 and compensation for the repair of a boundary fence which had been damaged by the tenant’s pigs.
The tenancy premises are an older 3-bedroom home, garage and stables on 19 acres in Pukekohe.
The tenants lived in the property for 10 months.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, repairs and damage, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

After the tenancy ended the tenants remained in the property until the 20 June. Tenants are liable for rent for the period they remain in possession see s60 RTA. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that these amounts are additional to the awards made by the Tribunal in TT 4507783.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
There was considerable rubbish strewn throughout the garden and grounds of the property including in the swimming pool.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. • Damage to a door • Damage to a cupboard door • Ripped wallpaper -accepted by the tenant. • Damage to the pig pen and stables- this damage was accepted by the tenants. • Removal of tiles on the fireplace hearth. • Damage to another fence around the curtilage of the house.
The tenant did not dispute that the cleaning rubbish removal or damage had occurred. The tenant mainly disputed the amounts claimed by the landlord as compensation.

What compensation should be awarded?

After the tenancy ended the landlord obtained a quote from Taurus Projects Limited to remedy the damage, rubbish removal and cleaning. The quote came to $31,561.35. The landlord could not afford to pay for the work to be done as the contractor required a 50% deposit and to have the house empty and not earning rent whilst the work was undertaken.
The landlord was fortunately able to find tenants to take over the property from the 26 June 2023. However, the landlord says he had to reduce the rent significantly from $1150 which is what the tenant was paying to $805 per week because of the condition of the property. In addition, the landlord allowed the new tenants a four-week rent free period, because the new tenants agreed to clean up the interior and the exterior of the property and remove the rubbish and reinstate the property before they moved in. The landlord says this work has been completed.
The landlord has asked me to award the sums as per the quote, but that is not the amount he has lost as a result of the work. His loss is the four weeks rent that he has forgone to allow the new tenants to reinstate the property. Whilst he claims he has also lost the difference between the rent of $1150 and $805 paid by the new tenants, it is not clear if that was due to market factors or as a result of how the tenant left the property.
Compensation should restore a party to the position that they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
I also take 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.
I have allocated amounts for cleaning, rubbish and repairs. These have largely been guided by the quoted amounts However, I note my award for those items equals $4,420.44 which is less than the 4 x weeks rent. I consider that the amount awarded is fair and reasonable given the evidence that was submitted. The Tribunal considers awards for cleaning, rubbish removal, reinstatement of lawns and gardens on a daily basis and these awards are in keeping with the types of awards made. I record that I did not have any evidence from the new tenants as to what work they had actually completed and the cost of materials and labour for that work.
Mr Chen also submitted that the grass required further and more extensive reinstatement than what was on the quote, as he says that the land was contaminated. I do not have any evidence which supports that proposition.
Mr Chen claimed that the oven was so dirty that it needed replacement. The tenant says that the oven never worked and was not used and the mould etc shown in the oven photographs occurred simply because of time.
There are no photographs of the condition of the oven at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant never complained in writing about the oven and Mr Chen says he was never told that the oven was not working.
The state of the photographs shows an oven that is very dirty. I do not accept Mr Chen submission that it was cheaper to replace it. There was no evidence that it had been replaced, but I accept that it would have required extensive cleaning and I award compensation to reflect that.
I have not made any award for the wallpaper, as there were no photographs of the condition of the wallpaper at the beginning of the tenancy, and the wallpaper looks to be quite old in the photographs taken from the end of the tenancy.
I have awarded much less than claimed for the fence, this is because there was no evidence of the actual cost of repairing the fence provided by Mr Chen.
As the swimming pool was not usable by the tenants throughout the tenancy (this was accepted by Mr Chen) then I do not consider that they are liable for the swimming pool ladder as well. The filing fee.
Because Calum Chen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 4670789 — net $7,005.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023	$1,971.43	Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023
Repairs: Door	$300.00	Repairs: Door
Repairs: Kitchen cupboard	$75.00	Repairs: Kitchen cupboard
Carpet Cleaning	$275.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Interior	$700.00	Cleaning: Interior
Repairs: Fence	$400.00	Repairs: Fence
Rubbish removal: Skip bin	$450.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin
Rubbish removal	$600.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	28. I have allocated amounts for cleaning, rubbish and repairs.
Stables cleaning	$450.00	Stables cleaning
Reinstatement of grass/pig pen	$650.00	Reinstatement of grass/pig pen
Repairs: tiles	$50.00	Repairs: tiles
Carpet Cleaning: Clean oven	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning: Clean oven
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46707892 Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46707892 Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates: May- End of Tenancy	$613.20	Water rates: May- End of Tenancy
Net award	$7,005.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,005.07

Claims and awards for application 4670789 — net $7,005.07 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023

Amount: $1,971.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears 9 June to 20 June 2023

Repairs: Door

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Door

Repairs: Kitchen cupboard

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen cupboard

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $275.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning: Interior

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Interior

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

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

Order

Muimui Fisi also known as Mui mui Fisi also known as Fisi He Hau Mei Moana Muimui must pay Calum Chen $7,005.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order amends and replaces the order of the 10 May 2024 under this same application number.

Reasons

On the 10 May 2024 I made an order in this matter.
When the landlord went to enforce that order he realised that the tenant’s name on the order was incorrect and should have been Muimui Fisi not Mui Mui Fisi.
The landlord was unable to enforce the order of the 10 May 2024.
The landlord sought a rehearing of this matter to allow the name of the tenant to be correct and it was granted by me on the 18 March 2025.
I do not consider that I need to have a further hearing on this matter. I am satisfied that the tenant was Muimui Fisi also known as Mui Mui Fisi also known as Fisi He Hau Mei Moana Muimui to the landlord because those names were the names recorded on the tenancy agreement and previous orders. I am satisfied that the tenant was known to the landlord as Muimui Fisi and Mui Mui Fisi. The tenant’s names are therefore recorded on this order so the landlord can enforce this order. Reasons given in the 10 May 2024.
The tenancy ended by termination order on the 8 June 2023 – see TT 4507783. Adjudicator Tam also awarded the landlord rent arrears to 8 June 2023 , water rates to April 2023 and compensation for the repair of a boundary fence which had been damaged by the tenant’s pigs.
The tenancy premises are an older 3-bedroom home, garage and stables on 19 acres in Pukekohe.
The tenants lived in the property for 10 months.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, repairs and damage, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

After the tenancy ended the tenants remained in the property until the 20 June. Tenants are liable for rent for the period they remain in possession see s60 RTA. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that these amounts are additional to the awards made by the Tribunal in TT 4507783.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
There was considerable rubbish strewn throughout the garden and grounds of the property including in the swimming pool.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. • Damage to a door • Damage to a cupboard door • Ripped wallpaper -accepted by the tenant. • Damage to the pig pen and stables- this damage was accepted by the tenants. • Removal of tiles on the fireplace hearth. • Damage to another fence around the curtilage of the house.
The tenant did not dispute that the cleaning rubbish removal or damage had occurred. The tenant mainly disputed the amounts claimed by the landlord as compensation.

What compensation should be awarded?

After the tenancy ended the landlord obtained a quote from Taurus Projects Limited to remedy the damage, rubbish removal and cleaning. The quote came to $31,561.35. The landlord could not afford to pay for the work to be done as the contractor required a 50% deposit and to have the house empty and not earning rent whilst the work was undertaken.
The landlord was fortunately able to find tenants to take over the property from the 26 June 2023. However, the landlord says he had to reduce the rent significantly from $1150 which is what the tenant was paying to $805 per week because of the condition of the property. In addition, the landlord allowed the new tenants a four-week rent free period, because the new tenants agreed to clean up the interior and the exterior of the property and remove the rubbish and reinstate the property before they moved in. The landlord says this work has been completed.
The landlord has asked me to award the sums as per the quote, but that is not the amount he has lost as a result of the work. His loss is the four weeks rent that he has forgone to allow the new tenants to reinstate the property. Whilst he claims he has also lost the difference between the rent of $1150 and $805 paid by the new tenants, it is not clear if that was due to market factors or as a result of how the tenant left the property.
Compensation should restore a party to the position that they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
I also take 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.
I have allocated amounts for cleaning, rubbish and repairs. These have largely been guided by the quoted amounts However, I note my award for those items equals $4,420.44 which is less than the 4 x weeks rent. I consider that the amount awarded is fair and reasonable given the evidence that was submitted. The Tribunal considers awards for cleaning, rubbish removal, reinstatement of lawns and gardens on a daily basis and these awards are in keeping with the types of awards made. I record that I did not have any evidence from the new tenants as to what work they had actually completed and the cost of materials and labour for that work.
Mr Chen also submitted that the grass required further and more extensive reinstatement than what was on the quote, as he says that the land was contaminated. I do not have any evidence which supports that proposition.
Mr Chen claimed that the oven was so dirty that it needed replacement. The tenant says that the oven never worked and was not used and the mould etc shown in the oven photographs occurred simply because of time.
There are no photographs of the condition of the oven at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant never complained in writing about the oven and Mr Chen says he was never told that the oven was not working.
The state of the photographs shows an oven that is very dirty. I do not accept Mr Chen submission that it was cheaper to replace it. There was no evidence that it had been replaced, but I accept that it would have required extensive cleaning and I award compensation to reflect that.
I have not made any award for the wallpaper, as there were no photographs of the condition of the wallpaper at the beginning of the tenancy, and the wallpaper looks to be quite old in the photographs taken from the end of the tenancy.
I have awarded much less than claimed for the fence, this is because there was no evidence of the actual cost of repairing the fence provided by Mr Chen.
As the swimming pool was not usable by the tenants throughout the tenancy (this was accepted by Mr Chen) then I do not consider that they are liable for the swimming pool ladder as well. The filing fee.
Because Calum Chen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670789 — Rent arrears at 4 Buckville Road, Buckland, RD 2, Pukekohe 2677

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670789 — Rent arrears at 4 Buckville Road, Buckland, RD 2, Pukekohe 2677

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions