What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441388 about?

The tribunal order states: Itavai Igasia must pay Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chun Yun Tung

How much money was awarded in case 5441388?

Bailiff'S Costs: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,519.15 awarded to landlord; Plaster patch and sand holes in wall…: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441388?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13787506-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441388 about?

The tribunal order states: Itavai Igasia must pay Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chun Yun Tung

How much money was awarded in case 5441388?

Bailiff'S Costs: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,519.15 awarded to landlord; Plaster patch and sand holes in wall…: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441388?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13787506-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Jackson Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5441388 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441388 — net $2,993.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 January 2026	$1,519.15	Rent arrears (to 10 January 2026
Cleaning	$316.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$300.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Plaster patch and sand holes in walls	$402.50	Repairs: Plaster patch and sand holes in walls
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump ducting cover	$161.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump ducting cover
Bailiff's costs	$267.00	Bailiff's costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,993.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,993.90

On 10 February 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Terrie-Leigh Taylor, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant had been properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. History of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 and was periodic.

On 22 December 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted the landlord possession of the property at 11:59pm on Sunday 4 January 2026.

The tenant was found to owe $5,363.71 in rent arrears (to 22 December 2025). The bond was refunded to the landlord to offset the rent arrears owed. The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $3,111.71 to the landlord immediately. 1

On 6 January 2026 the landlord applied to enforce the possession order after the tenant failed to vacate the property.

On 10 January 2026 the Bailiff’s evicted the tenant from the property.

The debt of $3,111.71 has been passed to a debt collector.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 January 2026. The landlord seeks rent arrears from 23 December 2025 to 10 January 2026 totalling $1,519.15. Up to date rent records were produced which prove the amount owed. 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”).

The landlord stated the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord and seeks compensation of $316.25 for cleaning and $300.00 for rubbish removal after contractors were engaged to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Invoices in the amount claimed were provided.

The landlord provided the Tribunal with a report which incorporated a pre and post tenancy inspection checklist, including comments about the condition of the 1 Watson Real Estate Limited as the Agent for Chun Yun Tung & Tsieh Shan Tung v Itavai Igasia [2025] NZTT 5378221 property, and photographs. The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs prove the property was provided in a good damage free condition, with new vinyl and carpet, and was free from rubbish.

The tenancy ended after Bailiff’s evicted the tenant from the property. The landlord said that because of this, the tenant only removed their belongings from the property and failed to undertake any cleaning and did not remove all rubbish. Specifically, the landlord drew the Tribunal’s attention to the following issues identified in the end of tenancy checklist and photographs: a. There was a strong odour in the carpets which required carpet cleaning (completed by the landlord at no cost to the tenant). b. The floors were dirty and needed vacuuming and mopping. c. The oven, hob and range hood were grease stained and soiled and required cleaning. d. There was visible dust and cobwebs on or around the corners of rooms, windows, window sill and skirting boards. e. The toilet was urine stained and needed to be cleaned and the cistern needed to be wiped down. f. The bathroom vanity cupboards needed to be wiped clean. g. The shower door needed to be cleaned to remove a build-up of soap scum and hair needed to be removed from the drain. h. A pile of rubbish had been left in the garage and needed to be dumped. i. Green waste had been left piled behind the garage along, with broken glass, which needed to be removed and dumped before the lawns could be mown.

The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to leave the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and failed to remove all rubbish. The amounts claimed are reasonable and that is what is ordered.

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 of 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.

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $402.50 after paying a contactor to repair the following wall damage they say was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the wall in the entrance hall - one tennis ball sized divot and one thumbnail sized hole. b. A large hole in a kitchen cupboard. c. One large hole and a dent in the wall in the dining room. d. Damage to the doors in bedrooms two and three.

In addition, the landlord seeks compensation of $161.00 after paying an electrician to investigate the exposed heat pump wiring after the ducting was broken and removed. The wiring was found to be in good condition but the deducting needed to be replaced.

Invoices for the amounts claimed were provided.

The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having considered the available evidence and comparing the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy, the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage identified by the landlord is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Given the nature of the repairs, no adjustment for betterment and depreciation have been made. Other matters

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $267.00, after the tenant failed to vacate the property requiring the Bailiff’s to enforce the possession order. The amount claimed is ordered

Because Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chun Yun Tung & Tsieh Shan Tung has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. The names and identifying particulars of the parties are in the public domain via an earlier order of the Tribunal. 2 On that basis the Tribunal declines to order name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441388 — net $2,993.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 January 2026	$1,519.15	Rent arrears (to 10 January 2026
Cleaning	$316.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$300.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Plaster patch and sand holes in walls	$402.50	Repairs: Plaster patch and sand holes in walls
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump ducting cover	$161.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump ducting cover
Bailiff's costs	$267.00	Bailiff's costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,993.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,993.90

On 10 February 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 and was periodic.

On 22 December 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted the landlord possession of the property at 11:59pm on Sunday 4 January 2026.

On 6 January 2026 the landlord applied to enforce the possession order after the tenant failed to vacate the property.

On 10 January 2026 the Bailiff’s evicted the tenant from the property.

The debt of $3,111.71 has been passed to a debt collector.

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?

Invoices for the amounts claimed were provided.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $267.00, after the tenant failed to vacate the property requiring the Bailiff’s to enforce the possession order. The amount claimed is ordered

Because Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chun Yun Tung & Tsieh Shan Tung has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441388 — Rent arrears at 20 Jackson Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441388 — Rent arrears at 20 Jackson Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions