Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5419893 — Rent arrears at 32 Grove Street, Saint Kilda, Dunedin 9012
Published 5 March 2026 · Application 5419893
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Dunedin
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Wilson
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,277.86
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,277.86
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $2,277.86 | Rent arrears | |
| Net award | $2,277.86 | ||
| Bond | $2,520.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,277.86 |
Claims and awards for application 5419893 — net $2,277.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $2,277.86
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Net award
Landlord $2,277.86
Bond
Landlord $2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,277.86
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Nanaya Iharaira to pay Mohammed Alqassab $2,277.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (BN-00150328) immediately apportioned as follows: Mohammed Alqassab: $2,277.86 Nanaya Iharaira: $242.14
- The application for compensation of $2,370.85 is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by telephone.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy was for a fixed term from 20/5/2025 to 17/11/25 and then rolled over to a periodic tenancy at $635.00 rent per week. Standard of proof
- This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that his claim is more likely than not.
- The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
- Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
- Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
- The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support his claim. If he fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 9/1/2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant agreed with the amount of arrears owing.
- An award has been made from the bond for the arrears.
Did the tenant comply with her 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 landlord claimed compensation of $298.40 as follows: a. $248.40 for cleaning, b. $50.00 for gardening.
- In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken between 21/1 and 23/1/2026 and invoices for cleaning and gardening.
- On the other hand, the tenant disputed that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and explained the cleaning she did.
- Further the tenant confirmed that she had done the gardening around a week before she left and pointed out that the landlord took the photograph of the garden two weeks after the tenancy ended.
- I am not persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including the garden.
- The legislation only requires reasonable cleanliness and tidiness and anything over and above that is a matter for the landlord.
- The claim for compensation fails.
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.
- The landlord claimed compensation of $1,610.98 as follows: a. $1,388.04 for painting of five internal walls, b. $140.00 for a washing machine agitator repair, c. $82.94 for replacement of curtain tracks.
- In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken between 21/1 and 23/1/2026, invoices for the agitator and curtain tracks and a quote for painting.
- The landlord submitted that the painting work was necessary due to the tenant having used a different colour to “patch” paint repairs in several rooms which he had not agreed to.
- The landlord confirmed the work had not been undertaken and the premises had been re-let on 14/2/2026.
- In response the tenant submitted that she had installed a television bracket which had left holes and with the agreement of the landlord had used paint stored in the shed to cover the repair.
- The tenant confirmed she had also used the paint, which she believed had matched to paint over scuff and other marks.
- The tenant said she was not aware the agitator in the washing machine was broken and thought “that was just the way it was”.
- While agreeing that the curtain rails had come away from the walls the tenant suggested that this was wear and tear because the tracks were old and brittle.
- 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.
- I find damage was caused during the tenancy to walls, the washing machine agitator and curtain tracks.
- However, I consider the damage was fair wear and tear, in particular in regard to the curtain tracks which the landlord confirmed were very old.
- While there may have been colour mismatching of paint in some rooms the photographs do not support that it was other than minor, and the landlord has not suffered any loss because the premises were able to be re-let without any repainting having been undertaken.
- The claim for compensation fails.
Is the tenant liable to pay electricity costs?
- The landlord sought a refund of electricity for the premises for the period from 19/5/ to 18/6/2025 amounting to $461.47 because the electricity was still in his name at the beginning of the tenancy.
- As there was a dispute with the electricity provider about who should pay the outstanding account the landlord paid the amount owing to avoid the electricity to his own residence being cut off by the same provider.
- On the other hand, the tenant did not believe she was liable for what the landlord had paid because she thought he should have arranged disconnection when she moved in and the fact that he did not had affected her ability to connect power with another provider.
- The tenant provided evidence of the dispute that she raised with Utilities Disputes in July 2025 about the debt referral raised by the electricity provider, and which is still ongoing.
- Section 39 sets out the responsibility of landlords and tenants for outgoings in respect of premises.
- Generally, a tenant is responsible for, among other matters the costs of electricity.
- Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
- The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
- In this instance, and despite the provisions of section 39, I do not consider it is reasonable to find the tenant is liable for the electricity costs paid by the landlord.
- There are two reasons for this. First because the landlord should have arranged disconnection of the account in his name on the date the tenancy began.
- Second because there is an unresolved dispute being reviewed by Utilities Disputes which resolves disputes about, among other matters electricity, the results of which may affect the tenant’s liability for a debt.
- The claim for the electricity costs fails.
- No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful with the claim
- Suppression of the landlord’s name is not granted pursuant to section 95A because he did not wholly or substantially succeed with the proceedings.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s39, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s85, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5419893?
The tribunal order states: Nanaya Iharaira to pay Mohammed Alqassab $2,277.86 from the bond,
How much money was awarded in case 5419893?
Rent Arrears: $2,277.86 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419893?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419893?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232074-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.