How much money was awarded in case 4797937?

Animal Carer Fee: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction/Bailiff Fees And Costs: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hay Bales: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.49 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $98,536.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797937?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12718691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4797937?

Animal Carer Fee: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction/Bailiff Fees And Costs: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hay Bales: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.49 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $98,536.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797937?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12718691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35 Whitford Park Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797937 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797937 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797937 — net $100,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$98,536.51	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$186.49	Lock/key replacement
Animal carer fee	$360.00	Animal carer fee
Hay bales	$250.00	Hay bales
Eviction/bailiff fees and costs	$640.00	Eviction/bailiff fees and costs
Net award	$100,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100,000.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Nikki Lewis must pay [The landlord/s] $100,000.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 24 July 2025, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$98,536.51 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Lock/key replacement$186.49 Animal carer fee$360.00 Hay bales$250.00 Eviction/bailiff fees and costs$640.00 Total award$100,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$100,000.00

Nikki Lewis is granted access to the property on 24 November 2025 between the hours of 9.30am to 1.00pm to collect barrels, tyres, wooden jumps, and the dingy left in the “cross country paddock” on the property.

Nikki Lewis is to enter the property for this purpose via the main front driveway on Whitford Park Road, Whitford. The landlord will be on site with the tenant on this day and time.

I have dismissed the landlords’ quotes for $450.00 carpet cleaning and $2295.00 for cleaning, due to the landlord conducting a renovation of the property after the tenancy ended. The work was not carried out at the end of the tenancy and the landlord confirms the carpet is to be replaced and a full clean of the property will be required after the renovation work is completed.

I have dismissed the landlord’s claim for the plumber’s invoice and camera hire age.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Jurisdiction:

Prior to the hearing of evidence, I decided on the issue of monetary jurisdiction for the landlord’s claim. An interim order, dated 12 October 2025, concluded that the Tribunal can consider claims over $100,000 but cannot make orders (awards) over the jurisdiction limit.

After receiving the Tribunal’s directions on this point the tenant’s counsel withdrew their claims from the Tribunal and stated they intend to refile their application after the landlords’ claims were determined during this hearing.

The only matters now before the Tribunal is the landlord claim for rent arrears and vacated costs post eviction. The landlord amended their claim to $100,000 after the tenant withdrew their claims, to remain within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Background:

On 3 February 2024, the landlord filed an application with tenancy services seeking termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.

On 2 June 2024, the tenant filed an application with tenancy services seeking a work order, claiming breaches of Healthy Homes Standards, failure to maintain the property, failure to lodge the bond and provide a tenancy agreement, exemplary damages, and compensation.

The tenant had taken over the tenancy in 2022 from the previous tenant. No tenancy agreement was prepared, despite the tenant seeking one.

There have been previous hearings and a case conference to define the issues for hearing. Parties to the tenancy:

The tenant claims that the correct parties are not noted on the order and seeks to amend the name of the tenant. The tenant seeks to claim that Whitford Park Equestrian Limited is the correct identity for the tenant.

I have considered this and find that Nikki Lewis is the correct tenant and not Whitford Park Equestrian Limited (“WPEL”).

Evidence provided to the Tribunal from the tenant supports this view. The bank statements and rent summary identify N. Lewis as the payee for the rent on the property. Evidence provided by the tenant showing emails to the previous head tenant ( Janice McDonald) , Joanna Jiang the previous property manager from Barfoot and Thompson, Rocky Liou and Jasmine Hui-chun Han who are the owners/landlords of the property. All correspondence is in Nikki Lewis’s name and not WPEL.

The subtenants, Karl Brickell, Julie Rumsey, and John Keogh all provided statements to the Tribunal which clearly state that Nikki Lewis collected the rent from them personally and dealt with all property matters.

The application filed by the tenant may have been in the name of WPEL, but throughout the course of the tenancy, all dealings, payments, and correspondence have been conducted in her personal capacity. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any formal assignment or variation of the tenancy to a business entity, nor any agreement by the landlord to such a change. The Tribunal must consider the substance of the agreement and the conduct of the parties, rather than any retrospective claims or labels. Accordingly, I find that Nikki Lewis is personally liable for all obligations arising under this tenancy as head tenant. Relevant legal considerations:

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant),establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence...

In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded. Landlords’ claims:

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 July 2025 after the tenant was evicted after a tribunal order dated 6 June 2025. The tenancy was to have terminated under the order on 4 July 2025, but the tenant did not vacate the property until the bailiff attended the property on 24 July 2025.

The landlord provided rent records which stated the amount owing as of 24 July 2025 was $145,760.00. However, to keep within the monetary jurisdiction, after deducting the vacate costs, prove that the landlord is owed $98,536.51 in rent arrears.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears to 24 July 2025.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord seeks to claim the cost of $450.00 for carpet cleaning, $2295.00 for cleaning the interior of the house and $1680.00 for cleaning the garage and pool area and rubbish removal.

The landlord has provided quotes for this work to be done dated 11 August 2025. However, subsequently the landlord decided to conduct a major renovation of the property which is part way through completion. The landlord acknowledged that the carpets are to be replaced and that after the major renovation a significant clean would be required as a result of building work.

The landlord accepts these points but says the tenant had an obligation to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. I consider that a moot point given the renovation and replacing of the carpets. Therefore, the landlord would not in fact be incurring these costs.

I do not consider the landlord has proven their claim for cleaning costs and I dismiss the claims. Bailiff costs:

The end of the tenancy came about due to a termination order from the Tribunal. The tenant was still in possession of the property at the end of the tenancy requiring the assistance of the bailiff to evict the tenant.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of bailiff costs incurred in enforcing the possession order. The Tribunal is satisfied that these costs were reasonably incurred as a result of the tenant’s failure to vacate the premises as required. The tenant is therefore ordered to reimburse the landlord the sum of $640.00 for bailiff costs and fees. Animals left on the property:

The tenant says she could not remove all the items from the subtenants and previous tenancy in the time she had. Furthermore, she had to make arrangements for the 49 horses, cats, dogs and chickens to be moved from the property.

After the eviction, the Ministry of Primary Industries(“MPI”) became involved due to concerns about the welfare of animals left on the property without proper supervision or care.

MPI put in place obligations on the landlord to provide for the care for the animals left behind. The landlord was obliged to pay an animal carer to dress and bandage wounds on two horses, feed and attend to all the horse’s needs. The landlord provided an invoice for $360.00 dated 28 July 2025 for animal care for the week ending 27 July 2025.

In addition to providing an animal carer to the horses, the landlord had to pay for hay bales to be delivered to the property to feed the horses. The landlord provided an invoice from Allegra Walsh dated 27 July 2025 for $250.00. Attached to that invoice was a receipt from Kevin stating he had received $250.00 cash from Allegra Walsh on 27 July 2025 for the hay.

The tenant claims she paid for those hay bales, but it is clear from the receipts that the landlord paid for the hay.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the animal carer and the hay bales supplied. Camera’s:

The landlord seeks to recover the costs of security cameras he had to set up after the eviction to protect the tenants remaining property, their property from the tenant or others coming back unlawfully to the property and surveillance on the animals left at the property.

The landlord provided invoices dated 4 August for one month’s hire age of security cameras. I appreciate why the landlord felt the need to provide the cameras, but I am not satisfied that the cost should be imposed on the tenant.

There were no contractual obligations on the tenant to be held responsible for steps the landlord took to protect the property after eviction.

I must dismiss that claim. Plumbers invoice:

Immediately after the eviction the landlord realised that there was no water supply to the paddocks to provide water to the horses left in the paddock and called the plumber. The tenant says there was nothing wrong with the water supply to the paddock, but you had to know how to divert the system from the house to the paddocks. The tenants says if she had been able to assist the landlord, she could have shown him how to divert the water supply and a plumber would not have been needed.

The landlord did not dispute the tenants claim. In these circumstances I must dismiss the claim for the plumbers’ costs. Locksmith costs:

The landlord has provided an invoice dated 24 July 2025 for $1827.06 from Local Locksmiths. The invoice showed multiple locks replacement inside and outside of the property, repairs to ranch sliders and internal doors over two call outs.

I cannot determine from the invoice what was required solely for securing the property after the eviction and maintenance and improvements.

Due to the lack of clarity on the invoice I must dismiss the claim. Padlocks and chains:

For the eviction chains and a paddock had to be purchased to secure the property. The landlord has provided an invoice for $186.49 from Bunnings dated 22 July 2025.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the padlocks and chains. Access to the paddock to remove property:

The landlord is seeking to have items left at the property removed. The tenant wishes to uplift some property from the “cross country paddock.” The landlord has agreed to providing access to the tenant to remove items as stated in paragraph 44.

Nikki Lewis is to enter the property for this purpose via the main front driveway on Whitford Park Road, Whitford. The landlord will be on site with the tenant on this day and time. Costs Application Directions (RTA)

Counsel for the landlord has indicated an intention to apply for costs. The Tribunal directs that any application for costs, together with supporting submissions and evidence, must be filed and served within 14 days from the date of this order. The tenant may file and serve any submissions in response within 7days of receipt of the landlord’s application. The Tribunal will determine the application for costs on the papers, unless a further hearing is required.

For the avoidance of doubt, under section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may order reimbursement of the filing fee to the successful party and may only award further costs in limited circumstances (such as where a party has acted vexatiously or frivolously). Name Suppression/filing fee:

The successful party has applied for name suppression. Under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may order that the name and identifying details of a party not be published if that party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, unless publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

In this case, the landlord has been substantially successful. There are no factors that would make publication in the public interest, nor are there circumstances that would justify publication. Accordingly, I order that the name and identifying details of landlord are suppressed and must not be published.

The tenant sought suppression of her name and details, however she has withdrawn her claim from the Tribunal. Under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, name suppression is generally only granted to a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. As the applicant has not been successful in the proceedings, and there are no exceptional circumstances justifying suppression, the application for name suppression is declined.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797937 — net $100,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$98,536.51	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$186.49	Lock/key replacement
Animal carer fee	$360.00	Animal carer fee
Hay bales	$250.00	Hay bales
Eviction/bailiff fees and costs	$640.00	Eviction/bailiff fees and costs
Net award	$100,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100,000.00