What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4914493 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4914493?

Credit: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,228.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $943.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4914493?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4914493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11748467-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4914493 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4914493?

Credit: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,228.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $943.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4914493?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4914493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11748467-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4914493 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4914493 — net $700.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,228.56		Rent arrears
Water rates	$943.49		Water rates
Rubbish removal: Flexibin purchase and disposal	$207.69		The claim for rubbish removal is proven, and is fair and reasonable.
Cleaning and rubbish removal (labour	$640.00		26. Mr Brandt has done his best to assess the probable water consumption and has worked to a low average figure in his calculation.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit		$200.00	Credit
Bond released to landlord		$2,140.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$3,040.18	$2,340.00
Net award	$700.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$700.18

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Northland Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Kent & Joanna McIntyre, trustees of the MB2 Trust) $700.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 16 January 2025 sets out the background to the applications.
The second hearing took place by phone on 17 April 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Brandt represented the landlord. Tenant application
In the adjournment order I commented that it was unclear whether [The tenant/s] were seeking compensation in her application. The principal purpose of [The tenant/s]’ application was clarification of the landlord’s inspection rights, and amendment of the tenancy agreement to reflect her understanding of the ‘standing arrangement’ in respect of inspection of her son’s bedroom and bathroom. Clarification and amendment became moot once the tenancy ended.
After the last hearing, [The tenant/s] provided a written submission clarifying that she is seeking compensation of “at least $5000 to address the significant impact on my health and living situation resulting from being forced to vacate the property”. I am grateful to [The tenant/s] for that clarification.
I acknowledge that the circumstances around the end of the tenancy caused significant stress and financial cost for [The tenant/s], and that her health has also suffered.
However, there is more to a successful legal claim than just proving a loss. The claimant must also show that the other party breached a legal duty, and that the loss resulted from that breach of a legal duty.
It is important to understand that the relevant duty under consideration here is a legal one, and not a moral or a ‘good business practice’ consideration. The legal duties of landlords and tenants are set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The RTA also established the Tenancy Tribunal, and gave the Tribunal its powers.
I discussed the legal issues around inspections in the adjournment order. In summary: a. Landlords have a legal right to inspect all of the premises. b. Landlords can, by agreement, surrender or reduce their legal rights. Tenants cannot. c. The written tenancy agreement does not restrict the landlord’s right to inspect all of the premises. However, it is clear that [The tenant/s] included this term in her ‘offer’ (her application for the tenancy) that [redacted] (the previous property manager) accepted. It is also clear that [previous property manager] behaved in a way that was consistent with this term having been accepted. d. [Property Management Company] took over property management on the same contractual terms. There was no re-negotiation with [The tenant/s]. e. This surrender by the landlord of the right to inspect part of the premises is binding on the landlord.
Therefore, if [The tenant/s] had not made the decision to end the tenancy before her application was heard in the Tribunal, I would have made an order confirming that this is part of the tenancy agreement.
Different considerations apply to a compensation claim.
The fact that [Property Management Company] took a position on this issue that was ultimately (in my view) incorrect, does not mean that in taking that position they have acted improperly towards [The tenant/s]. Landlords and tenants can disagree about things. They may, for example, disagree about whether the premises are “reasonably clean and tidy” or about whether a long term guest is a visitor or a resident.
I am satisfied that [Property Management Company] took a position about inspections in good faith. There was a legitimate concern about the effect on the landlord’s insurance cover. [Property Management Company] did not ‘force’ any inspection of [The tenant/s]’ sons room. They filed their own application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking clarification of the issue. 1 Their application set out their understanding of the law but acknowledged that situation was complex and that it needed to be “handled carefully”.
I understand the reasons why [The tenant/s] chose to end the tenancy. Her priority, of course, was her son’s well-being. I also acknowledge that the disagreement about inspections was the source of the stress that resulted in her decision to leave.
However I do not agree that this amounts to the landlord ‘forcing’ [The tenant/s] out the tenancy. Good faith disagreements can happen, and they are stressful for all involved. Disagreements between landlords and tenants can be resolved by the Tenancy Tribunal.
Therefore I find that the landlord taking a position about the inspections did not amount to a breach of any legal duty owed by the landlord to the tenant. I am also satisfied [Property Management Company] did not conduct themselves inappropriately.
[The tenant/s] also spoke about a specific incident involving a contractor. [The tenant/s] said that she was giving notice of the contractor arriving, but he arrived on the wrong day. [The tenant/s] said that when she told the contractor this, he was aggressive and insistent that because he was there, he needed to get on with the job. [The tenant/s] said that when the contractor was inside the house he made comments to her son, and to her about her son, that were rude and inappropriate. 1 Application 4916216. This application was subsequently withdrawn by the landlord.
Mr Brandt read out a statement that he received from the contractor about that day. The contractor acknowledged that he made a mistake and arrived on the wrong day. He said that [The tenant/s] freely offered to let him inside the house. He denied that he was aggressive or insistent. His recollection of what was said when was in the house differs from [The tenant/s]’.
I have no independent evidence available to me about what happened.
[The tenant/s] have the burden of proof. My finding is that there is not enough evidence to prove, to the standard of ‘more likely than not’ that the contractor behaved or spoke in inappropriate way. Landlord application Rent and water rates
[The tenant/s] did not dispute the claim for rent.
[The tenant/s] questioned the claim for water rates. There were two sizeable water leaks at the premises in the last year of the tenancy, which made it very difficult to calculate water rates.
Mr Brandt clarified that the claim for water rates totalling $943.49 covered the entire period from August 2023 until the end of the tenancy.
The first leak impacted the [Council] invoice for the August 2023 – February 2024 period. Mr Brandt requested a remission of that invoice by the [Council] because of the leak. The [Council] revised that invoice to $542.21.
The second leak impacted the next [Council] invoice, for the period February – August 2024. Mr Brandt did not go through the [Council] remission process for that invoice because the process takes some time. Mr Brandt re-assessed the water invoice himself, applying an average daily use based on [The tenant/s]’ early invoices, and calculating through to the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are only legally liable to pay for water that they consume. Unfortunately, when there are water leaks it is impossible to calculate the tenant’s actual consumption. The best that can be done is an assessment based on previous averages, taking into account variations (for example, if the tenant brings in another flatmate or if a flatmate leaves).
Mr Brandt has done his best to assess the probable water consumption and has worked to a low average figure in his calculation. I am satisfied that the water use calculation based on the revised [Council] invoice and Mr Brandt’s assessment is fair and reasonable. Cleaning, rubbish, lawns
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim seeks $848 for general cleaning, $207.69 for rubbish removal (flexi-bin purchase and disposal), and $445.13 for lawns / garden work.
People can have legitimately different views about what amounts to ‘reasonably clean and tidy’. Because of that, the evidence that is most helpful for the Tribunal in determining cleaning claims is photographs or video.
Mr Brandt provided some photographs of the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects, but they do not entirely justify the claim for $848 for cleaning. I will award $640.00, based on 16 hours at $40/hr.
The claim for rubbish removal is proven, and is fair and reasonable.
Mr Brandt was not able to provide photographs of the lawns or gardens at the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] provided an invoice showing that lawns and garden work was carried out in early September 2024. The landlord has the burden of proof. The claim for lawns and garden work is not proven. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
The landlord was largely successful in their application, and I will award the landlord the filing fee.
The bond was released to the landlord is being held by them. It can be applied to the amounts owed to the landlord (per the calculation above). Mr Brandt also advised that there is a credit of $200.00 to take into account.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. The Tribunal may award name suppression upon application to any party who has been “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 2 The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression upon application to any party, “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”.
[The tenant/s] were not substantially successful in the proceedings.
I will grant name suppression under the discretion available to the Tribunal, on the grounds that the orders contain medical information about [The tenant/s]’ son. 2 Section 95A(1) RTA
Per the calculation above, [The tenant/s] is to pay the landlord $700.18.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4914493 — net $700.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,228.56		Rent arrears
Water rates	$943.49		Water rates
Rubbish removal: Flexibin purchase and disposal	$207.69		The claim for rubbish removal is proven, and is fair and reasonable.
Cleaning and rubbish removal (labour	$640.00		26. Mr Brandt has done his best to assess the probable water consumption and has worked to a low average figure in his calculation.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit		$200.00	Credit
Bond released to landlord		$2,140.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$3,040.18	$2,340.00
Net award	$700.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$700.18

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Northland Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Kent & Joanna McIntyre, trustees of the MB2 Trust) $700.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 16 January 2025 sets out the background to the applications.
The second hearing took place by phone on 17 April 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Brandt represented the landlord. Tenant application
In the adjournment order I commented that it was unclear whether [The tenant/s] were seeking compensation in her application. The principal purpose of [The tenant/s]’ application was clarification of the landlord’s inspection rights, and amendment of the tenancy agreement to reflect her understanding of the ‘standing arrangement’ in respect of inspection of her son’s bedroom and bathroom. Clarification and amendment became moot once the tenancy ended.
After the last hearing, [The tenant/s] provided a written submission clarifying that she is seeking compensation of “at least $5000 to address the significant impact on my health and living situation resulting from being forced to vacate the property”. I am grateful to [The tenant/s] for that clarification.
I acknowledge that the circumstances around the end of the tenancy caused significant stress and financial cost for [The tenant/s], and that her health has also suffered.
However, there is more to a successful legal claim than just proving a loss. The claimant must also show that the other party breached a legal duty, and that the loss resulted from that breach of a legal duty.
It is important to understand that the relevant duty under consideration here is a legal one, and not a moral or a ‘good business practice’ consideration. The legal duties of landlords and tenants are set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The RTA also established the Tenancy Tribunal, and gave the Tribunal its powers.
I discussed the legal issues around inspections in the adjournment order. In summary: a. Landlords have a legal right to inspect all of the premises. b. Landlords can, by agreement, surrender or reduce their legal rights. Tenants cannot. c. The written tenancy agreement does not restrict the landlord’s right to inspect all of the premises. However, it is clear that [The tenant/s] included this term in her ‘offer’ (her application for the tenancy) that [redacted] (the previous property manager) accepted. It is also clear that [previous property manager] behaved in a way that was consistent with this term having been accepted. d. [Property Management Company] took over property management on the same contractual terms. There was no re-negotiation with [The tenant/s]. e. This surrender by the landlord of the right to inspect part of the premises is binding on the landlord.
Therefore, if [The tenant/s] had not made the decision to end the tenancy before her application was heard in the Tribunal, I would have made an order confirming that this is part of the tenancy agreement.
Different considerations apply to a compensation claim.
The fact that [Property Management Company] took a position on this issue that was ultimately (in my view) incorrect, does not mean that in taking that position they have acted improperly towards [The tenant/s]. Landlords and tenants can disagree about things. They may, for example, disagree about whether the premises are “reasonably clean and tidy” or about whether a long term guest is a visitor or a resident.
I am satisfied that [Property Management Company] took a position about inspections in good faith. There was a legitimate concern about the effect on the landlord’s insurance cover. [Property Management Company] did not ‘force’ any inspection of [The tenant/s]’ sons room. They filed their own application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking clarification of the issue. 1 Their application set out their understanding of the law but acknowledged that situation was complex and that it needed to be “handled carefully”.
I understand the reasons why [The tenant/s] chose to end the tenancy. Her priority, of course, was her son’s well-being. I also acknowledge that the disagreement about inspections was the source of the stress that resulted in her decision to leave.
However I do not agree that this amounts to the landlord ‘forcing’ [The tenant/s] out the tenancy. Good faith disagreements can happen, and they are stressful for all involved. Disagreements between landlords and tenants can be resolved by the Tenancy Tribunal.
Therefore I find that the landlord taking a position about the inspections did not amount to a breach of any legal duty owed by the landlord to the tenant. I am also satisfied [Property Management Company] did not conduct themselves inappropriately.
[The tenant/s] also spoke about a specific incident involving a contractor. [The tenant/s] said that she was giving notice of the contractor arriving, but he arrived on the wrong day. [The tenant/s] said that when she told the contractor this, he was aggressive and insistent that because he was there, he needed to get on with the job. [The tenant/s] said that when the contractor was inside the house he made comments to her son, and to her about her son, that were rude and inappropriate. 1 Application 4916216. This application was subsequently withdrawn by the landlord.
Mr Brandt read out a statement that he received from the contractor about that day. The contractor acknowledged that he made a mistake and arrived on the wrong day. He said that [The tenant/s] freely offered to let him inside the house. He denied that he was aggressive or insistent. His recollection of what was said when was in the house differs from [The tenant/s]’.
I have no independent evidence available to me about what happened.
[The tenant/s] have the burden of proof. My finding is that there is not enough evidence to prove, to the standard of ‘more likely than not’ that the contractor behaved or spoke in inappropriate way. Landlord application Rent and water rates
[The tenant/s] did not dispute the claim for rent.
[The tenant/s] questioned the claim for water rates. There were two sizeable water leaks at the premises in the last year of the tenancy, which made it very difficult to calculate water rates.
Mr Brandt clarified that the claim for water rates totalling $943.49 covered the entire period from August 2023 until the end of the tenancy.
The first leak impacted the [Council] invoice for the August 2023 – February 2024 period. Mr Brandt requested a remission of that invoice by the [Council] because of the leak. The [Council] revised that invoice to $542.21.
The second leak impacted the next [Council] invoice, for the period February – August 2024. Mr Brandt did not go through the [Council] remission process for that invoice because the process takes some time. Mr Brandt re-assessed the water invoice himself, applying an average daily use based on [The tenant/s]’ early invoices, and calculating through to the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are only legally liable to pay for water that they consume. Unfortunately, when there are water leaks it is impossible to calculate the tenant’s actual consumption. The best that can be done is an assessment based on previous averages, taking into account variations (for example, if the tenant brings in another flatmate or if a flatmate leaves).
Mr Brandt has done his best to assess the probable water consumption and has worked to a low average figure in his calculation. I am satisfied that the water use calculation based on the revised [Council] invoice and Mr Brandt’s assessment is fair and reasonable. Cleaning, rubbish, lawns
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim seeks $848 for general cleaning, $207.69 for rubbish removal (flexi-bin purchase and disposal), and $445.13 for lawns / garden work.
People can have legitimately different views about what amounts to ‘reasonably clean and tidy’. Because of that, the evidence that is most helpful for the Tribunal in determining cleaning claims is photographs or video.
Mr Brandt provided some photographs of the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects, but they do not entirely justify the claim for $848 for cleaning. I will award $640.00, based on 16 hours at $40/hr.
The claim for rubbish removal is proven, and is fair and reasonable.
Mr Brandt was not able to provide photographs of the lawns or gardens at the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] provided an invoice showing that lawns and garden work was carried out in early September 2024. The landlord has the burden of proof. The claim for lawns and garden work is not proven. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
The landlord was largely successful in their application, and I will award the landlord the filing fee.
The bond was released to the landlord is being held by them. It can be applied to the amounts owed to the landlord (per the calculation above). Mr Brandt also advised that there is a credit of $200.00 to take into account.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. The Tribunal may award name suppression upon application to any party who has been “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 2 The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression upon application to any party, “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”.
[The tenant/s] were not substantially successful in the proceedings.
I will grant name suppression under the discretion available to the Tribunal, on the grounds that the orders contain medical information about [The tenant/s]’ son. 2 Section 95A(1) RTA
Per the calculation above, [The tenant/s] is to pay the landlord $700.18.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4914493 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4914493 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions