What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325281?

The tribunal order states: Konifele Misi Levelu and Misilopa Misi must pay The Rent Shop Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5325281?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $587.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blinds: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $642.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325281?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12949800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325281?

The tribunal order states: Konifele Misi Levelu and Misilopa Misi must pay The Rent Shop Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5325281?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $587.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blinds: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $642.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325281?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12949800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Challen Close, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325281 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

36 Challen Close, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325281 — 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 5325281 — net $917.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 05 September 2025	$587.14	Rent arrears to 05 September 2025
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$862.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Blinds	$345.00	Replace furnishings: Blinds
Repairs: Damage to the locks, doors and walls	$345.00	Repairs: Damage to the locks, doors and walls
Water rates	$642.60	Water rates
Net award	$917.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$917.24

Claims and awards for application 5325281 — net $917.24 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 05 September 2025

Amount: $587.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 05 September 2025

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal

Amount: $862.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Replace furnishings: Blinds

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Blinds

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Konifele Misi Levelu and Misilopa Misi must pay The Rent Shop Limited $917.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (5025039-004) immediately to The Rent Shop Limited as the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 05 September 2025$587.14 Lawns and Garden work$150.00 Rubbish removal$862.50 Cleaning$345.00 Replace furnishings: Blinds$345.00 Repairs: Damage to the locks, doors and walls$345.00 Water rates$642.60 Total award$3,277.24 Bond$2,360.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$917.24

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
Ms Gow, the property manager, attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
In reaching out to the tenants, I first confirmed with Ms Gow the contact details listed in the tenancy application. The main tenant was identified as Ms Konifele Misi Levelu, and the additional name, Ms Misilopa Misi, was confirmed to be her daughter.
I reviewed the notice of hearing, which included clear instructions for attending by video or by telephone. Noting that the tenants had not joined the hearing by either method, I informed Ms Gow that, while I was not required to contact them directly, I would nonetheless make reasonable efforts to reach them.
Using the telephone number provided (ending 8772), I placed a call to Ms Konifele Misi Levelu. The call did not connect, and the number appeared to be no longer active. I attempted the call a second time with the same result. Ms Gow advised that this was the only number on record, though she later provided a secondary number believed to belong to the daughter (ending 3585). I attempted to reach that number as well, but no one answered and no connection was established.
Having made two unsuccessful calls to the primary number and one to the secondary number, I concluded that reasonable attempts had been made to contact the tenants. The hearing then proceeded in their absence, based on the evidence and submissions provided by the property manager.
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 began on 20 August 2018 and ended on 05 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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, 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.
Ms Gow took me through the outgoing inspection report (dated 08 September 2025) and accompanying photographic evidence to substantiate her claims. She referred to photographs showing large quantities of rubbish and inorganic materials left on the premises, particularly around the exterior and garden areas. She stated that removal and disposal of these items cost $862.50.
She then directed my attention to photographs of the kitchen and adjoining areas, including the oven, cupboards, and rangehood. These showed significant grease, grime, and general uncleanliness. Ms Gow stated that professional cleaning was required for these areas, costing $345.
Finally, Ms Gow identified photographs showing overgrown lawns and weeds along the fences and deck area. She stated that the cost of restoring the lawns and garden areas was $150.
Throughout the hearing, Ms Gow provided clear references to photographs, invoices, and supporting documents.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Ms Gow referred me to the pre-tenancy inspection report (dated 20 August 2018) and the outgoing inspection report to support her claims for the blinds, interior fittings, doors and walls repairs or replacement cost. Blinds and the interior fittings a. Ms Gow referred me to the condition of the blinds and interior fittings in the outgoing inspection report. She explained that most blinds in the bedrooms were broken or missing, with visible clips and cords damaged beyond repair. b. According to Ms Gow’s evidence during the hearing, the blinds were not brand-new at the start of the tenancy, but they were in good working condition and relatively new at that time. She explained that the blinds had been fitted before the previous tenancy and were still functioning properly when Ms Konifele Misi Levelu and her family took possession of the property in August 2018. c. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not intentional. d. Ms Gow submitted that while two blinds already had slightly bent blades, they were still usable and intact when the current tenants moved in. Over the seven years of the tenancy, however, the blinds were not cleaned or maintained and were found broken and unusable at the end of the tenancy. e. Ms Gow told me that her client replaced all the blinds but, acknowledging depreciation, only sought 50% of the replacement cost, which is $345. Doors, locks and walls f. Ms Gow also discussed other aspects of the property’s condition, including door and wall damage, supported by photographs from the outgoing inspection report. She clarified which damages were considered beyond fair wear and tear and provided an invoice for repair costs. g. She explained that several internal doors were left in poor condition when the tenants vacated. She described visible damage to the toilet door, hallway door, and other bedroom doors. h. She further clarified that some wall damage was present as well. She identified holes in the toilet and bathroom walls where towel rails had been fixed, noting that her client accepted these as normal wear and tear. However, she stated that other damage, including holes and marks on various interior walls, went beyond fair wear and tear and required repair. i. Ms Gow’s evidence was supported by the outgoing inspection photos. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not intentional. j. Ms Gow told me that her client acknowledged depreciation, only sought 50% of the repair cost, which is $345
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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. Filing fee
Because The Rent Shop Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 5325281 — net $917.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 05 September 2025	$587.14	Rent arrears to 05 September 2025
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$862.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Blinds	$345.00	Replace furnishings: Blinds
Repairs: Damage to the locks, doors and walls	$345.00	Repairs: Damage to the locks, doors and walls
Water rates	$642.60	Water rates
Net award	$917.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$917.24

Claims and awards for application 5325281 — net $917.24 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 05 September 2025

Amount: $587.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 05 September 2025

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal

Amount: $862.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Replace furnishings: Blinds

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Blinds

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Konifele Misi Levelu and Misilopa Misi must pay The Rent Shop Limited $917.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (5025039-004) immediately to The Rent Shop Limited as the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 05 September 2025$587.14 Lawns and Garden work$150.00 Rubbish removal$862.50 Cleaning$345.00 Replace furnishings: Blinds$345.00 Repairs: Damage to the locks, doors and walls$345.00 Water rates$642.60 Total award$3,277.24 Bond$2,360.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$917.24

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
Ms Gow, the property manager, attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
In reaching out to the tenants, I first confirmed with Ms Gow the contact details listed in the tenancy application. The main tenant was identified as Ms Konifele Misi Levelu, and the additional name, Ms Misilopa Misi, was confirmed to be her daughter.
I reviewed the notice of hearing, which included clear instructions for attending by video or by telephone. Noting that the tenants had not joined the hearing by either method, I informed Ms Gow that, while I was not required to contact them directly, I would nonetheless make reasonable efforts to reach them.
Using the telephone number provided (ending 8772), I placed a call to Ms Konifele Misi Levelu. The call did not connect, and the number appeared to be no longer active. I attempted the call a second time with the same result. Ms Gow advised that this was the only number on record, though she later provided a secondary number believed to belong to the daughter (ending 3585). I attempted to reach that number as well, but no one answered and no connection was established.
Having made two unsuccessful calls to the primary number and one to the secondary number, I concluded that reasonable attempts had been made to contact the tenants. The hearing then proceeded in their absence, based on the evidence and submissions provided by the property manager.
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 began on 20 August 2018 and ended on 05 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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, 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.
Ms Gow took me through the outgoing inspection report (dated 08 September 2025) and accompanying photographic evidence to substantiate her claims. She referred to photographs showing large quantities of rubbish and inorganic materials left on the premises, particularly around the exterior and garden areas. She stated that removal and disposal of these items cost $862.50.
She then directed my attention to photographs of the kitchen and adjoining areas, including the oven, cupboards, and rangehood. These showed significant grease, grime, and general uncleanliness. Ms Gow stated that professional cleaning was required for these areas, costing $345.
Finally, Ms Gow identified photographs showing overgrown lawns and weeds along the fences and deck area. She stated that the cost of restoring the lawns and garden areas was $150.
Throughout the hearing, Ms Gow provided clear references to photographs, invoices, and supporting documents.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Ms Gow referred me to the pre-tenancy inspection report (dated 20 August 2018) and the outgoing inspection report to support her claims for the blinds, interior fittings, doors and walls repairs or replacement cost. Blinds and the interior fittings a. Ms Gow referred me to the condition of the blinds and interior fittings in the outgoing inspection report. She explained that most blinds in the bedrooms were broken or missing, with visible clips and cords damaged beyond repair. b. According to Ms Gow’s evidence during the hearing, the blinds were not brand-new at the start of the tenancy, but they were in good working condition and relatively new at that time. She explained that the blinds had been fitted before the previous tenancy and were still functioning properly when Ms Konifele Misi Levelu and her family took possession of the property in August 2018. c. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not intentional. d. Ms Gow submitted that while two blinds already had slightly bent blades, they were still usable and intact when the current tenants moved in. Over the seven years of the tenancy, however, the blinds were not cleaned or maintained and were found broken and unusable at the end of the tenancy. e. Ms Gow told me that her client replaced all the blinds but, acknowledging depreciation, only sought 50% of the replacement cost, which is $345. Doors, locks and walls f. Ms Gow also discussed other aspects of the property’s condition, including door and wall damage, supported by photographs from the outgoing inspection report. She clarified which damages were considered beyond fair wear and tear and provided an invoice for repair costs. g. She explained that several internal doors were left in poor condition when the tenants vacated. She described visible damage to the toilet door, hallway door, and other bedroom doors. h. She further clarified that some wall damage was present as well. She identified holes in the toilet and bathroom walls where towel rails had been fixed, noting that her client accepted these as normal wear and tear. However, she stated that other damage, including holes and marks on various interior walls, went beyond fair wear and tear and required repair. i. Ms Gow’s evidence was supported by the outgoing inspection photos. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not intentional. j. Ms Gow told me that her client acknowledged depreciation, only sought 50% of the repair cost, which is $345
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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. Filing fee
Because The Rent Shop Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325281 — Rent arrears at 36 Challen Close, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325281 — Rent arrears at 36 Challen Close, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

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?

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 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions