What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396434?

The tribunal order states: Shae Nikita Raby to pay Reforma P.M. Limitedn As Agent For Douglas

How much money was awarded in case 5396434?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing - blocked gully trap (food…: $363.40 awarded to landlord; Plumbing -unblock sewer line (sanita…: $429.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $516.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396434?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13631172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396434?

The tribunal order states: Shae Nikita Raby to pay Reforma P.M. Limitedn As Agent For Douglas

How much money was awarded in case 5396434?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing - blocked gully trap (food…: $363.40 awarded to landlord; Plumbing -unblock sewer line (sanita…: $429.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $516.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396434?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13631172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59 Market Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396434 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396434 — net $2,032.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$695.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning and rubbish removal – by consent	$516.89	Cleaning and rubbish removal – by consent
Repairs: Plumbing -unblock sewer line (sanitary items	$429.00	Repairs: Plumbing -unblock sewer line (sanitary items
Repairs: Plumbing - blocked gully trap (food waste build up	$363.40	Repairs: Plumbing - blocked gully trap (food waste build up
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,032.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,032.29

Order

Shae Nikita Raby to pay Reforma P.M. Limitedn As Agent For Douglas Oxemham $2,032.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 8 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Vanessa Higgins, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by her partner Simon McKinley. History of the tenancy
The tenant told the Tribunal that she moved into the property sometime in April or May 2022.
On 4 October 2022, the parties signed a periodic tenancy agreement. The tenant and another party were named as the tenants on the tenancy agreement.
On 24 January 2023, the tenancy agreement was varied removing the second tenant from the agreement. The tenant was the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy ended on 18 August 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $695.00.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed.
The amount claimed is ordered.

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 “Act”).
When the application was filed the landlord sought $1,033.79 for the removal of rubbish and general cleaning and tidying around the property, pressure washing a burnout mark on the driveway, and the disposal of two tyres. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
During the hearing, the landlord accepted that some of the items disposed of were present at the commencement of the tenancy meaning the tenant was not liable for the full amount claimed.
The tenant accepted responsibility for some of the rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy and the burnout mark on the driveway.
The parties agreed to halve the cost for cleaning and rubbish removal. The order for cleaning and rubbish removal is made by consent.

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 49Bof the Act
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.

Is the tenant liable for plumbing costs?

The landlord seeks compensation for plumbing costs after paying two contractors to undertake the following work: a. Invoice date 2 August 2024: “Unblocked sewer line. Gully trap was overflowing on the right-hand side of the house. Used hydro jet with root cutter to 18 meters. Cause of the blockage was sanitary items.” Totalling $429.00 b. Invoice dated 28 March 2025: “Unblock of kitchen gully. Toilet and gully on opposite side of house cleaned recently. Hydro flushed via gully to clear. Hydro flushed line several times to clear fully. Fat and food waste buildup in line.” Totalling $622.76 of which the landlord seeks $363.40.
The landlord said the tenant misused the drains by flushing sanitary items down the toilet and washing food and fat down the kitchen sick causing the plumbing to block and the drains to overflow.
The tenant denies misusing that drains and states: a. The landlord has failed to provide evidence to prove the condition of the drains at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The tenant’s partner, who claimed to be a certified drainlayer, said the drains could have sagged over time causing the blockages. c. The blocked drains were a maintenance issue. d. The actions of previous tenants contributed to the build up of fat and food and sanitary items in the drains and sewer line. e. The actions of the tenants of the sleepout, which is connected to the property drainage system, also contributed to the blockages in the drains and sewer line. f. The blockages were as a result of fair wear and tear due to the age of the property. g. There were historic issues with the drains at the property. A text exchange between the tenant and landlord was provided. The text indicated water was pooling outside the gate by the road. Analysis and decision
For an award for compensation for plumbing costs the landlord needs to prove that the tenant, or someone at the property with the tenants consent, misused the drains causing a blockage carelessly or intentionally, and that the blockage was not due to fair wear and tear or some other obstruction (e.g. tree roots), old pipes or other structural issues.
To avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Having heard from the parties the Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved because: a. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s claims that the blockages were caused by the drains sagging. No evidence of sagging was provided. The tenant’s partner who gave evidence did not inspect the drains and was not presented when they were inspected and cleared by the landlord’s contractors. b. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s evidence that the tenant of the sleepout contributed to the blocked drains. The invoices do not record that the sleepout gully traps and drains required clearing or were jetted to clear the blockages. c. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s suggestion that the drains were not proved in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. There was no suggestion of any issues that Tribunal would normally expected to occur if the drains had been clogging over an extended period, such as a sewage or rotting food odours, slow drains, or a vermin activity. d. The plumbers invoices specifically record that the blockages were caused by was sanitary items in the first instance and food and fat in the second. e. The plumbers invoices do not record any structural defects or age-related issues with the plumbing.
The Tribunal is satisfied the blockages were caused carelessly by the tenant flushing sanitary items down the toilet and food and fat down the kitchen sink. The blockages were more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because Reforma P.M. Limitedn As Agent For Douglas Oxemham has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396434 — net $2,032.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$695.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning and rubbish removal – by consent	$516.89	Cleaning and rubbish removal – by consent
Repairs: Plumbing -unblock sewer line (sanitary items	$429.00	Repairs: Plumbing -unblock sewer line (sanitary items
Repairs: Plumbing - blocked gully trap (food waste build up	$363.40	Repairs: Plumbing - blocked gully trap (food waste build up
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,032.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,032.29

Order

Shae Nikita Raby to pay Reforma P.M. Limitedn As Agent For Douglas Oxemham $2,032.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 8 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Vanessa Higgins, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by her partner Simon McKinley. History of the tenancy
The tenant told the Tribunal that she moved into the property sometime in April or May 2022.
On 4 October 2022, the parties signed a periodic tenancy agreement. The tenant and another party were named as the tenants on the tenancy agreement.
On 24 January 2023, the tenancy agreement was varied removing the second tenant from the agreement. The tenant was the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy ended on 18 August 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $695.00.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed.
The amount claimed is ordered.

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 “Act”).
When the application was filed the landlord sought $1,033.79 for the removal of rubbish and general cleaning and tidying around the property, pressure washing a burnout mark on the driveway, and the disposal of two tyres. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
During the hearing, the landlord accepted that some of the items disposed of were present at the commencement of the tenancy meaning the tenant was not liable for the full amount claimed.
The tenant accepted responsibility for some of the rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy and the burnout mark on the driveway.
The parties agreed to halve the cost for cleaning and rubbish removal. The order for cleaning and rubbish removal is made by consent.

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 49Bof the Act
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.

Is the tenant liable for plumbing costs?

The landlord seeks compensation for plumbing costs after paying two contractors to undertake the following work: a. Invoice date 2 August 2024: “Unblocked sewer line. Gully trap was overflowing on the right-hand side of the house. Used hydro jet with root cutter to 18 meters. Cause of the blockage was sanitary items.” Totalling $429.00 b. Invoice dated 28 March 2025: “Unblock of kitchen gully. Toilet and gully on opposite side of house cleaned recently. Hydro flushed via gully to clear. Hydro flushed line several times to clear fully. Fat and food waste buildup in line.” Totalling $622.76 of which the landlord seeks $363.40.
The landlord said the tenant misused the drains by flushing sanitary items down the toilet and washing food and fat down the kitchen sick causing the plumbing to block and the drains to overflow.
The tenant denies misusing that drains and states: a. The landlord has failed to provide evidence to prove the condition of the drains at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The tenant’s partner, who claimed to be a certified drainlayer, said the drains could have sagged over time causing the blockages. c. The blocked drains were a maintenance issue. d. The actions of previous tenants contributed to the build up of fat and food and sanitary items in the drains and sewer line. e. The actions of the tenants of the sleepout, which is connected to the property drainage system, also contributed to the blockages in the drains and sewer line. f. The blockages were as a result of fair wear and tear due to the age of the property. g. There were historic issues with the drains at the property. A text exchange between the tenant and landlord was provided. The text indicated water was pooling outside the gate by the road. Analysis and decision
For an award for compensation for plumbing costs the landlord needs to prove that the tenant, or someone at the property with the tenants consent, misused the drains causing a blockage carelessly or intentionally, and that the blockage was not due to fair wear and tear or some other obstruction (e.g. tree roots), old pipes or other structural issues.
To avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Having heard from the parties the Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved because: a. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s claims that the blockages were caused by the drains sagging. No evidence of sagging was provided. The tenant’s partner who gave evidence did not inspect the drains and was not presented when they were inspected and cleared by the landlord’s contractors. b. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s evidence that the tenant of the sleepout contributed to the blocked drains. The invoices do not record that the sleepout gully traps and drains required clearing or were jetted to clear the blockages. c. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s suggestion that the drains were not proved in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. There was no suggestion of any issues that Tribunal would normally expected to occur if the drains had been clogging over an extended period, such as a sewage or rotting food odours, slow drains, or a vermin activity. d. The plumbers invoices specifically record that the blockages were caused by was sanitary items in the first instance and food and fat in the second. e. The plumbers invoices do not record any structural defects or age-related issues with the plumbing.
The Tribunal is satisfied the blockages were caused carelessly by the tenant flushing sanitary items down the toilet and food and fat down the kitchen sink. The blockages were more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because Reforma P.M. Limitedn As Agent For Douglas Oxemham has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396434 — Leaks at 59 Market Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396434 — Leaks at 59 Market Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

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?

Is the tenant liable for plumbing costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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?

Is the tenant liable for plumbing costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions