Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5430001 — Rent arrears at 188A Dorset Road, Hillsborough, RD 2, New Plymouth 4372
Published 8 June 2026 · Application 5430001
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
New Plymouth
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,827.50
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$900.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,927.50
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears from 7 October to 22 December 2025 | $2,100.00 | Rent arrears from 7 October to 22 December 2025 | |
| Rubbish removal | $349.50 | Rubbish removal | |
| Cleaning: includes stove | $350.00 | Cleaning: includes stove | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,927.50 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,927.50 |
Claims and awards for application 5430001 — net $1,927.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears from 7 October to 22 December 2025
- Amount
- $2,100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears from 7 October to 22 December 2025
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $349.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Cleaning: includes stove
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: includes stove
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,927.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,927.50
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Fuafiva Pavihi must pay Suchy & Co Property Management Limited As Agents For Bruce Donald & Jennifer Margaret Adlam $1,927.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The other tenant is removed from the application.
- All other claims are dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (6162364-028) to Suchy & Co Property Management Limited As Agents For Bruce Donald & Jennifer Margaret Adlam immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. I telephoned both tenants named on the application form and neither answered my calls.
- There is a note on the file from Ms Pavihi’s ex husband saying he left the tenancy premises a number of years ago and he no longer has any responsibility for the tenancy. The property manager confirmed that she was aware of the separation, and that Ms Pavihi had been the one living at the premises and solely responsible for paying rent. The current property manager was not aware of any paperwork to remove the ex husband from the tenancy agreement. However, I find it would be unfair to include him in this order because of the length of time since he left and because everyone knew about it.
- I note the bond is in the ex husband’s name but find this can be refunded to the landlord. This is because it was paid as a safeguard for the landlord and should be refunded where the landlord establishes a breach.
- 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?
- The tenancy ended on 22 December 2025 after the tenant was served a 90 day notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing from the date the new property manager took over to the end of the tenancy.
Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- There is a claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
- In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
- The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
- This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with good photos showing the rubbish and an invoice for the dump. This claim is proved in full.
- I have carefully considered the photos and I have allowed an amount for the cleaning that seems reasonable to me. The owners have done the work and I am not sure what they have charged as an hourly rate for their labour. I have allowed 10 hours of cleaning at $30 an hour and the extra for the oven. This hourly rate is appropriate for the type of work done and is line with other decisions by the Tribunal.
- The claimed GST is not allowed. The invoice is not from a business so there is no GST to pay.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- There is a claim for repairs. 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 she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- I was provided with a property condition report from the start of the tenancy – attached to the tenancy agreement and completed and signed - but no photos showing the damage at the end of the tenancy. This means I cannot decide fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- I have sent a request to the Bond Centre. A copy of this order will be emailed to the ex husband as well.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5430001?
The tribunal order states: Fuafiva Pavihi must pay Suchy & Co Property Management Limited As Agents
How much money was awarded in case 5430001?
Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $349.50 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5430001?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5430001?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13713163-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.