What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403838?

The tribunal order states: Te-Paea Hinemoa Davina Nathan must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And

How much money was awarded in case 5403838?

Cleaning: $618.06 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $100.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,016.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403838?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383687-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403838?

The tribunal order states: Te-Paea Hinemoa Davina Nathan must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And

How much money was awarded in case 5403838?

Cleaning: $618.06 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $100.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,016.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403838?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383687-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat B, 41 Rosehill Drive, Papakura, Auckland 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5403838 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403838 — net $2,925.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.10.2025	$100.20	Rent arrears to 16.10.2025
Cleaning	$618.06	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: interior and exterior	$2,016.47	Rubbish removal: interior and exterior
Repairs: plaster 3 holes, replace toilet roll holder, repair kitchen drawer	$190.80	Repairs: plaster 3 holes, replace toilet roll holder, repair kitchen drawer
Net award	$2,925.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,925.53

Order

Te-Paea Hinemoa Davina Nathan must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,925.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Perese, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 16 October 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 16 October 2025, which is $100.20.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided copies of an Entry Inspection Report dated 2 April 2024, a Final Inspection Report dated 16 October 2025, and work orders for the amounts claimed, as outlined below. Cleaning
The landlord claimed a total of $618.06 for cleaning costs, which included a fixed charge for cleaning the whole house of $465.35, a charge for cleaning the kitchen cupboards in the amount of $104.26, and $48.45 for cleaning the kitchen rangehood.
The landlord pointed to photographs in the Final Inspection Report showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed stained carpets, dirty kitchen cupboards and rangehood, extensive brown staining throughout the carpets upstairs (apparently left by a puppy at the property), dirty sink and floor in the toilet and a dirty laundry floor. The landlord said most of the cost for cleaning the whole house was cleaning the carpets stains from the biohazard left by the puppy at the property (faeces stains), after the biohazard itself was removed.
Given the evidence provided, I find the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, I find the cleaning costs claimed to be reasonable and so award the landlord $618.06 for cleaning costs incurred at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal
The landlord claimed a total of $2,016.47 to remove rubbish from the inside and outside of the property. This included a claim of $150.00 to retain a specialist to remove the biohazard waste left at the property before other work could proceed.
The landlord highlighted photographs in the Final Inspection Report which showed that the tenant left multiple items both inside and outside of the property at the end of the tenancy. Inside the property, the items left included mattresses, 3 seater couch, 2 large armchairs, small shopping trolley, clock, several full rubbish bags, clothing, hangars, baby walker, vacuum cleaner and hose, armchair, entertainment unit and many other items. The landlord claimed $1,149.47 to remove interior rubbish, which they said was 7 cubic metres of rubbish.
In terms of exterior rubbish, the photographs showed the tenant left a mattress, armchair, laundry basket, rugs, drawers, chair, pot plants, large child’s play park, entertainment unit, wine rack, dog bowl and a full rubbish bin. The landlord claimed $717.00 to remove exterior rubbish, which they said was 4 cubic metres of rubbish.
Given the evidence provided, particularly the photographs in the Final Inspection Report, I find the tenant did not remove rubbish. The staining by the puppy left at the property was extensive and I accept that a biohazard specialist would have been required to remove the biohazard waste before other work could proceed and so this is a reasonable cost claimed in the circumstances. The photographs provided showed the amounts claimed by the landlord are reasonable. Therefore, I award the landlord a total of $2,016.47 to remove biohazard waste and remove all rubbish both interior and exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy.
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.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Toilet roll holder a. There was a missing toilet roll holder which had to be replaced at a cost of $30.64. The landlord highlighted the photographs showing the toilet area before and at the end of the tenancy, which showed the toilet roll holder missing at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlord $30.64 to replace the toilet roll holder, as this cost is reasonable. Plastering holes b. The landlord said they had to plaster 3 holes left by the tenant, that no painting was carried out. The landlord showed the photographs in the Final Inspection Report showing a large badly plastered area at the bottom of the hallway area, and 2 other separate holes in the walls around the entry/hallway area. The landlord claimed $120.48 to plaster these 3 holes, which I find is a reasonable cost, given the evidence. I find this is likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. As the landlord only plastered the holes and did not paint them, depreciation does not apply here. Therefore, I award the landlord $120.48 to plaster 3 holes at the end of the tenancy. Repair kitchen drawer c. The landlord said the front of one of the long kitchen drawers was broken and had to be repaired and resecured to the drawer. The landlord claimed $39.68 for this repair. Given the evidence provided, particularly the photographs in the Final Inspection Report of the broken front panel of the kitchen drawer, which did not appear as if it was careless damage, but rather look wrenched off, I find this to likely be intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. As the front panel was just reattached to the drawer and the drawer was not replaced, depreciation does not apply here. Therefore, I award the landlord $39.68 to repair the kitchen drawer at the end of the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403838 — net $2,925.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.10.2025	$100.20	Rent arrears to 16.10.2025
Cleaning	$618.06	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: interior and exterior	$2,016.47	Rubbish removal: interior and exterior
Repairs: plaster 3 holes, replace toilet roll holder, repair kitchen drawer	$190.80	Repairs: plaster 3 holes, replace toilet roll holder, repair kitchen drawer
Net award	$2,925.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,925.53

Order

Te-Paea Hinemoa Davina Nathan must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,925.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Perese, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 16 October 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 16 October 2025, which is $100.20.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided copies of an Entry Inspection Report dated 2 April 2024, a Final Inspection Report dated 16 October 2025, and work orders for the amounts claimed, as outlined below. Cleaning
The landlord claimed a total of $618.06 for cleaning costs, which included a fixed charge for cleaning the whole house of $465.35, a charge for cleaning the kitchen cupboards in the amount of $104.26, and $48.45 for cleaning the kitchen rangehood.
The landlord pointed to photographs in the Final Inspection Report showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed stained carpets, dirty kitchen cupboards and rangehood, extensive brown staining throughout the carpets upstairs (apparently left by a puppy at the property), dirty sink and floor in the toilet and a dirty laundry floor. The landlord said most of the cost for cleaning the whole house was cleaning the carpets stains from the biohazard left by the puppy at the property (faeces stains), after the biohazard itself was removed.
Given the evidence provided, I find the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, I find the cleaning costs claimed to be reasonable and so award the landlord $618.06 for cleaning costs incurred at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal
The landlord claimed a total of $2,016.47 to remove rubbish from the inside and outside of the property. This included a claim of $150.00 to retain a specialist to remove the biohazard waste left at the property before other work could proceed.
The landlord highlighted photographs in the Final Inspection Report which showed that the tenant left multiple items both inside and outside of the property at the end of the tenancy. Inside the property, the items left included mattresses, 3 seater couch, 2 large armchairs, small shopping trolley, clock, several full rubbish bags, clothing, hangars, baby walker, vacuum cleaner and hose, armchair, entertainment unit and many other items. The landlord claimed $1,149.47 to remove interior rubbish, which they said was 7 cubic metres of rubbish.
In terms of exterior rubbish, the photographs showed the tenant left a mattress, armchair, laundry basket, rugs, drawers, chair, pot plants, large child’s play park, entertainment unit, wine rack, dog bowl and a full rubbish bin. The landlord claimed $717.00 to remove exterior rubbish, which they said was 4 cubic metres of rubbish.
Given the evidence provided, particularly the photographs in the Final Inspection Report, I find the tenant did not remove rubbish. The staining by the puppy left at the property was extensive and I accept that a biohazard specialist would have been required to remove the biohazard waste before other work could proceed and so this is a reasonable cost claimed in the circumstances. The photographs provided showed the amounts claimed by the landlord are reasonable. Therefore, I award the landlord a total of $2,016.47 to remove biohazard waste and remove all rubbish both interior and exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy.
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.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Toilet roll holder a. There was a missing toilet roll holder which had to be replaced at a cost of $30.64. The landlord highlighted the photographs showing the toilet area before and at the end of the tenancy, which showed the toilet roll holder missing at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlord $30.64 to replace the toilet roll holder, as this cost is reasonable. Plastering holes b. The landlord said they had to plaster 3 holes left by the tenant, that no painting was carried out. The landlord showed the photographs in the Final Inspection Report showing a large badly plastered area at the bottom of the hallway area, and 2 other separate holes in the walls around the entry/hallway area. The landlord claimed $120.48 to plaster these 3 holes, which I find is a reasonable cost, given the evidence. I find this is likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. As the landlord only plastered the holes and did not paint them, depreciation does not apply here. Therefore, I award the landlord $120.48 to plaster 3 holes at the end of the tenancy. Repair kitchen drawer c. The landlord said the front of one of the long kitchen drawers was broken and had to be repaired and resecured to the drawer. The landlord claimed $39.68 for this repair. Given the evidence provided, particularly the photographs in the Final Inspection Report of the broken front panel of the kitchen drawer, which did not appear as if it was careless damage, but rather look wrenched off, I find this to likely be intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. As the front panel was just reattached to the drawer and the drawer was not replaced, depreciation does not apply here. Therefore, I award the landlord $39.68 to repair the kitchen drawer at the end of the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403838 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat B, 41 Rosehill Drive, Papakura, Auckland 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403838 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat B, 41 Rosehill Drive, Papakura, Auckland 2113

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

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

Frequently asked questions