What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5183074?

The tribunal order states: Samu Kubunavanua and Sereima Kubunavanua must pay Reh Property

How much money was awarded in case 5183074?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,488.14 awarded to landlord; Front Right Bedroom: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rear Bedroom: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $322.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183074?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11828980-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5183074?

The tribunal order states: Samu Kubunavanua and Sereima Kubunavanua must pay Reh Property

How much money was awarded in case 5183074?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,488.14 awarded to landlord; Front Right Bedroom: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rear Bedroom: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $322.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183074?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11828980-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183074 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

29 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183074 — 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 5183074 — net $2,192.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,488.14	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$322.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Repairs: front right bedroom	$345.00	Repairs: front right bedroom
Repairs: rear bedroom	$345.00	Repairs: rear bedroom
Repairs: lounge	$550.00	Repairs: lounge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,192.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,192.14

Claims and awards for application 5183074 — net $2,192.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,488.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $322.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $690.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: front right bedroom

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: front right bedroom

Repairs: rear bedroom

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Samu Kubunavanua and Sereima Kubunavanua must pay Reh Property Management Limited - As Agent For Julia Ioane & Tony Joseph $2,192.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5433800-011) to Reh Property Management Limited - As Agent For Julia Ioane & Tony Joseph immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,488.14 Carpet Cleaning$345.00 Rubbish removal$322.00 Cleaning$690.00 Repairs: front right bedroom$345.00 Repairs: rear bedroom$345.00 Repairs: lounge$550.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,112.14 Bond$1,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,192.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving the landlord’s claims has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. d. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. e. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an invoice for the work carried out and an email from the contractor detailing the work further. The amounts shown in the invoice and the email were not the same.
The Tribunal has awarded sums for cleaning and rubbish removal commensurate with invoices it sees regularly for work of this nature and scope.

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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole in the wall under the window of the front right bedroom. b. A hole in the wall of the front left bedroom. c. A hole in the wall of the rear bedroom. d. A hole in the wall under the lounge window. e. Hinges to the cupboards in the kitchen and a drawer front were broken.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. There was significant moisture and mould in the rooms which caused the plasterboard to swell and the paint to flake. The entry inspection photographs submitted by the landlord confirm the presence of some mould and flaking paint on the windowsills. The tenant claimed that the dampness and the plasterboard – rather than Gib - made the walls easily susceptible to damage from slight pressure. b. The hole in the front right bedroom resulted from deterioration of the plasterboard. c. The hole in the front left bedroom was present as a significant indentation at the start of the tenancy. This was shown in a photograph from the entry inspection. d. The tenant accepted that she caused the damage under the window in the lounge when she fell from a chair. This was careless damage. e. The tenant accepted the small hole in the rear bedroom which was caused by one of her sons. f. The latches for the kitchen cupboards were old and worn out. She estimated the kitchen was more than 20 years old. She explained that the hinges had simply detached and that the drawer front was damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s contractor claimed that the hinges were damaged due to misuse and that the holes in the walls were “a direct result off [sic] children/Adults fighting with each other and pushing against walls/Kicking walls directly”.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it determines that: a. The tenant is responsible for the damage under the front right bedroom window. It appears to be careless damage. b. The damage to the wall in the front left bedroom was present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. c. The tenant is responsible for the damage under the lounge window. It is careless damage and so the tenant’s liability is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess of $550.00. d. The tenant is responsible for the damage to the wall in the rear bedroom. It is a small hole and the damage is not extensive. The Tribunal determines that it is careless damage. e. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the kitchen cupboards and drawer was intentional damage or more than fair wear and tear. The landlord’s contractor had no direct knowledge of what caused the damage nor any rationale for his conjecture. The Tribunal accepts that the drawer front was damaged at the start of the tenancy as it is shown as damaged in a photograph from the first inspection of the property manager shortly after the start of the tenancy. Given the age and condition of the kitchen, the Tribunal accepts that the damage was fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal must consider 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.
The tenant explained that the landlord had painted the interior at the start of the tenancy but that it was not completed professionally and that because of the moisture present and the nature of the plasterboard, paint was already flaking off the walls.
In determining appropriate amounts to award the landlord for the damage, the Tribunal has considered the landlord’s contractor’s invoice and the conflicting evidence in his email. It has also considered invoices which it regularly sees in this locality for work of this nature on rental properties.
The amounts ordered are proven.
Because Reh Property Management Limited - As Agent For Julia Ioane & Tony Joseph 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 5183074 — net $2,192.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,488.14	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$322.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Repairs: front right bedroom	$345.00	Repairs: front right bedroom
Repairs: rear bedroom	$345.00	Repairs: rear bedroom
Repairs: lounge	$550.00	Repairs: lounge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,192.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,192.14

Claims and awards for application 5183074 — net $2,192.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,488.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $322.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $690.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: front right bedroom

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: front right bedroom

Repairs: rear bedroom

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Samu Kubunavanua and Sereima Kubunavanua must pay Reh Property Management Limited - As Agent For Julia Ioane & Tony Joseph $2,192.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5433800-011) to Reh Property Management Limited - As Agent For Julia Ioane & Tony Joseph immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,488.14 Carpet Cleaning$345.00 Rubbish removal$322.00 Cleaning$690.00 Repairs: front right bedroom$345.00 Repairs: rear bedroom$345.00 Repairs: lounge$550.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,112.14 Bond$1,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,192.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving the landlord’s claims has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. d. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. e. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an invoice for the work carried out and an email from the contractor detailing the work further. The amounts shown in the invoice and the email were not the same.
The Tribunal has awarded sums for cleaning and rubbish removal commensurate with invoices it sees regularly for work of this nature and scope.

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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole in the wall under the window of the front right bedroom. b. A hole in the wall of the front left bedroom. c. A hole in the wall of the rear bedroom. d. A hole in the wall under the lounge window. e. Hinges to the cupboards in the kitchen and a drawer front were broken.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. There was significant moisture and mould in the rooms which caused the plasterboard to swell and the paint to flake. The entry inspection photographs submitted by the landlord confirm the presence of some mould and flaking paint on the windowsills. The tenant claimed that the dampness and the plasterboard – rather than Gib - made the walls easily susceptible to damage from slight pressure. b. The hole in the front right bedroom resulted from deterioration of the plasterboard. c. The hole in the front left bedroom was present as a significant indentation at the start of the tenancy. This was shown in a photograph from the entry inspection. d. The tenant accepted that she caused the damage under the window in the lounge when she fell from a chair. This was careless damage. e. The tenant accepted the small hole in the rear bedroom which was caused by one of her sons. f. The latches for the kitchen cupboards were old and worn out. She estimated the kitchen was more than 20 years old. She explained that the hinges had simply detached and that the drawer front was damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s contractor claimed that the hinges were damaged due to misuse and that the holes in the walls were “a direct result off [sic] children/Adults fighting with each other and pushing against walls/Kicking walls directly”.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it determines that: a. The tenant is responsible for the damage under the front right bedroom window. It appears to be careless damage. b. The damage to the wall in the front left bedroom was present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. c. The tenant is responsible for the damage under the lounge window. It is careless damage and so the tenant’s liability is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess of $550.00. d. The tenant is responsible for the damage to the wall in the rear bedroom. It is a small hole and the damage is not extensive. The Tribunal determines that it is careless damage. e. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the kitchen cupboards and drawer was intentional damage or more than fair wear and tear. The landlord’s contractor had no direct knowledge of what caused the damage nor any rationale for his conjecture. The Tribunal accepts that the drawer front was damaged at the start of the tenancy as it is shown as damaged in a photograph from the first inspection of the property manager shortly after the start of the tenancy. Given the age and condition of the kitchen, the Tribunal accepts that the damage was fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal must consider 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.
The tenant explained that the landlord had painted the interior at the start of the tenancy but that it was not completed professionally and that because of the moisture present and the nature of the plasterboard, paint was already flaking off the walls.
In determining appropriate amounts to award the landlord for the damage, the Tribunal has considered the landlord’s contractor’s invoice and the conflicting evidence in his email. It has also considered invoices which it regularly sees in this locality for work of this nature on rental properties.
The amounts ordered are proven.
Because Reh Property Management Limited - As Agent For Julia Ioane & Tony Joseph has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183074 — Rent arrears at 29 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183074 — Rent arrears at 29 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions