What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327703?

The tribunal order states: Rosemary Itania Poching must pay City Rental Services Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5327703?

Cleaning: $370.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $731.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $977.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327703?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12959749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327703?

The tribunal order states: Rosemary Itania Poching must pay City Rental Services Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5327703?

Cleaning: $370.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $731.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $977.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327703?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12959749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4225D Great North Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327703 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327703 — net $2,757.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$731.11	Repairs
Repairs	$977.50	Repairs
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$370.80	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,757.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,757.41

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Rashid.

This application was scheduled as a face to face hearing. Prior to the hearing both parties requested that the application be heard by teleconference. Because both parties requested the same thing, I allowed both parties to attend by teleconference.

The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, unblocking a septic system, and damage to the electric pump control panel and wiring. The landlord is also seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

The tenant said that she left the premises in February 2025. The tenancy was terminated in the Tenancy Tribunal under Order NZTT 5244683 on 17 June 2025. Rent arrears was ordered up until that date.

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.

After the landlord took possession of the premises, the landlord discovered that the property had been left in a very poor condition. The tenant had left behind belongings and rubbish throughout the inside of the house and the outside of the house. This included food left in the fridge, clothing, furniture and bags of rubbish. A complete clean was required.

The landlord is seeking $650.00 for cleaning and $370.80 for rubbish removal. The tenant does not dispute these amounts.

These two claims are proved by consent.

Did the tenant damage 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.

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.

Sometime after the landlord regained possession of the property, he discovered there was a problem with the electric sewage pump system. In fact it appears there were two problems: The first problem was that the control panel for the electric pump to clear the sewage failed. When an electrician was bought in to investigate this problem, they discovered the septic chamber was blocked with what appeared to be plastic tissues.

The landlord produced a photograph of the chamber at the bottom of which is an electric pump, and as well as sewage floating in the chamber there are other items which appear to be plastic tissues.

The control panel is located on the house connected to the drain by an electric cord buried beneath the driveway. For attending on that day and not being able to remedy the problem because of the blocked drain, the electrician charged the landlord $731.11. The invoice for this work is dated 14 July 2025.

A drain un-blocker cleared the blocked drain and charged $977.50 for his services. The invoice for this work is dated 15 July 2025.

After the drain was cleared, the electrician returned to fix the problem with the control panel and the electrical cords.

The invoice for this work records work including cutting the concrete from the sewage tank to with the pump, alarm panel dislocated, trenching and installing new conduit, reinstating concrete, installing a new pump control panel, providing electrical conduit, core drill, concrete and other consumables, and sucking out the chamber to install the above relevant items. The landlord produced an invoice for $5,500.00 dated 24 July 2025.

The landlord also produced photographs of the chamber and of the work being done.

The landlord said the chamber was blocked because the tenant had put nappies, tissues, and hard food material down the drain, which is contrary to what is set out as allowable in the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy agreement sets out that solid food waste, oils and fats must not be disposed of in the kitchen and nothing but toilet paper and bodily wastes should be flushed down the toilet.

The tenant said that she had no children wearing nappies during the tenancy and that she had not flushed any nappies down the septic system. She said the kitchen was equipped with a waste-master and the only food that went down the drain was went through the waste-master. The tenant said she did not flush any plastic tissues down the toilet.

When I look at the photos provided by the landlord, I can see tissues floating in the chamber. There is no evidence of nappies in the chamber.

On the information before me I determine the chamber was blocked with plastic tissues, and I determine it is most likely they were put into the septic system during this tenancy.

This could be careless or intentional damage depending on whether the tenant or a guest or child unwittingly flushed the plastic tissues down the toilet. In the absence of more information I am not prepared to go beyond determining the damage is careless. In either case, the tenant is liable for the cost of unblocking the septic system.

I determine the cost of unlocking the chamber $977.50 should be borne by the tenant. The invoice for $731.11 which relates to the electrician coming to fix the control panel but being unable to access the pump due to the blockage in the chamber should also be borne by the tenant.

This part of the claim is proved.

The landlord asked me to conclude that because the chamber had been blocked this had caused the damage to the electric control panel. I am not persuaded by this; I cannot see how blocking a septic chamber causes a remote electrical control panel several metres away to fail. The electrical wiring that serves the pump was buried below concrete and must have been sealed against moisture from the chamber. If it wasn’t, that must be a failure of design or installation.

I am not persuaded by the landlord’s argument that all the repair costs for the control panel and electric cord should be borne by the tenant.

I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the failure of the control panel and wiring has not been proved to have been caused by the tenant.

This claim is dismissed.

Because City Rental Services Limited As Agent For Shafinaz Rahmin And A B M Wasi Uddin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327703 — net $2,757.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$731.11	Repairs
Repairs	$977.50	Repairs
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$370.80	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,757.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,757.41

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Rashid.

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

The tenant said that she left the premises in February 2025. The tenancy was terminated in the Tenancy Tribunal under Order NZTT 5244683 on 17 June 2025. Rent arrears was ordered up until that date.

The landlord is seeking $650.00 for cleaning and $370.80 for rubbish removal. The tenant does not dispute these amounts.

These two claims are proved by consent.

Did the tenant damage the premises?

The landlord produced a photograph of the chamber at the bottom of which is an electric pump, and as well as sewage floating in the chamber there are other items which appear to be plastic tissues.

A drain un-blocker cleared the blocked drain and charged $977.50 for his services. The invoice for this work is dated 15 July 2025.

After the drain was cleared, the electrician returned to fix the problem with the control panel and the electrical cords.

The landlord also produced photographs of the chamber and of the work being done.

The tenancy agreement sets out that solid food waste, oils and fats must not be disposed of in the kitchen and nothing but toilet paper and bodily wastes should be flushed down the toilet.

When I look at the photos provided by the landlord, I can see tissues floating in the chamber. There is no evidence of nappies in the chamber.

On the information before me I determine the chamber was blocked with plastic tissues, and I determine it is most likely they were put into the septic system during this tenancy.

This part of the claim is proved.

I am not persuaded by the landlord’s argument that all the repair costs for the control panel and electric cord should be borne by the tenant.

I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the failure of the control panel and wiring has not been proved to have been caused by the tenant.

This claim is dismissed.

Because City Rental Services Limited As Agent For Shafinaz Rahmin And A B M Wasi Uddin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327703 — Property damage at 4225D Great North Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327703 — Property damage at 4225D Great North Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant damage the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant damage the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions