What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5285059?

The tribunal order states: Solomon Edgar Hauraki-Katene must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5285059?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13036898-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5285059?

The tribunal order states: Solomon Edgar Hauraki-Katene must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5285059?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13036898-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Pinehurst Place, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5285059 — Rent arrears

Order

Solomon Edgar Hauraki-Katene must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited as agent for Shane Xu $2,402.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was held by phone, represented by Mr Liu.
There was no appearance by the tenant. The Tribunal placed two calls to the tenant but both calls went to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 July 2025 by agreement. The landlord provided rent records proving that rent was in arrears in the amount of $3,454.29 at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that the bond of $3,120 be released to the landlord to cover most of the arrears, and Mr Liu confirmed that the landlord has already received the bond. I have therefore included the bond amount in the order above as having already been released to the landlord.
The landlord produced water rates invoices which prove the amount owing to the end of the tenancy in the amount of $165.09.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness - see s 45(1)(a) RTA. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition, they need only be returned “reasonably clean and tidy”. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photograph,s to determine whether the standard has been met.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Mr Liu referred me to the outgoing inspection report and comments and photos taken of specific areas.
The landlord produced an invoice from Tian Chen Building Ltd for “One Off Move Out Cleaning” in the amount of $402.40.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that the property was left close to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. I accept that an additional vacuum was likely required, the upstairs bathroom needed further cleaning and wiping down and the windowsills needed some cleaning. I consider that the portion of the invoice required to get the property to the reasonably clean and tidy standard to be $150.00. I order compensation in that amount.

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 said that the tenant kept a dog inside the garage for most of the tenancy and that the dog chewed and damage large portions of the carpet, scratched and tore the insulation on the inside of the garage door, and chewed on the inside of the door and the rubber seal at the bottom.
The landlord produced photos from start of the tenancy, photos taken during the tenancy showing the carpet damage, and then photos taken at the end of the tenancy showing the condition of the door.
The landlord produced an invoice to fix the garage rubber and insulation, fix garage carpet and fix garage door and paint in the amount of $1,725.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is either careless, or intentional in the sense that the tenant knew that the dog was causing damage and allowed the situation to continue.
The damage is not covered by insurance. The amount claimed is reasonable. I do not consider that any betterment or depreciation needs to be applied as the property was only a few months old at the start of the tenancy.
This claim is proved. Filing fee
Because Prestige Rental Management Limited as agent for Shane Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Filing of evidence
This was the third hearing that has been held in this matter.
The first hearing took place on 21 August 2025 but the hearing had to be adjourned as the tenant had moved out and the landlord wished to amend their claim and file additional evidence. Directions were made for the filing of supporting evidence
The second hearing took place on 5 November 2025. The landlord had not complied with the timetable directions and so the hearing was adjourned and orders were made directing the landlord to file all evidence at least ten working days before the rescheduled hearing.
At the hearing today the landlord had still not filed all relevant evidence. I reluctantly allowed the landlord to file evidence during the hearing this afternoon to allow the landlord to file additional evidence to support the claim.
The Tribunal is a fast-paced Tribunal providing timely resolution to tenancy disputes. The landlord’s failure to file evidence as directed in this case has led to additional hearings which have delayed the resolution of not only this claim but other claims awaiting hearing.
The landlord must ensure that all evidence is filed in advance of any future Tribunal hearings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5285059 — Rent arrears at 7A Pinehurst Place, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

Tenancy Tribunal case 5285059 — Rent arrears at 7A Pinehurst Place, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

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?

Property management

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?

Property management