What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953874 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 4953874?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unlawful disposal of g…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,940.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12811911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953874 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 4953874?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unlawful disposal of g…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,940.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12811911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 116 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953874 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953874 — net $4,227.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 October 2024	$4,940.00		Rent arrears to 26 October 2024
Cleaning	$287.50		Cleaning
Insurance excess (x2): repairs to doors, walls and fridge	$1,000.00		Insurance excess (x2): repairs to doors, walls and fridge
Compensation: Unlawful disposal of goods		$2,000.00	s, I am only able to make an order for a nominal amount of compensation. I find $2,000.00 to be reasonable.
Total award	$6,227.50	$2,000.00
Net award	$4,227.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,227.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953874 — net $4,227.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 October 2024	$4,940.00		Rent arrears to 26 October 2024
Cleaning	$287.50		Cleaning
Insurance excess (x2): repairs to doors, walls and fridge	$1,000.00		Insurance excess (x2): repairs to doors, walls and fridge
Compensation: Unlawful disposal of goods		$2,000.00	s, I am only able to make an order for a nominal amount of compensation. I find $2,000.00 to be reasonable.
Total award	$6,227.50	$2,000.00
Net award	$4,227.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,227.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,227.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over two days on 22 September 2025 and 14 November 2025. The landlord was represented by [the landlord], and the tenant was represented by legal counsel, Asenaca Uluiviti.
This case has a long history. The first hearing occurred on 23 September 2024 and was adjourned. A second hearing occurred on 23 October 2024 and an order for termination and rent arrears totalling $10,339.00 was made. On 4 August 2025, a rehearing was granted on the basis that the tenant was in respite care at the time of the first hearing and unable to participate. The tenant filed a cross-application, and two further hearings were held on 22 September 2025 and 14 November 2025. The tenant has a long history of mental illness, and the landlord is in his 80’s and looks after his wife who has dementia. By all accounts, these proceedings have been difficult and stressful for both parties. I feel it is important to acknowledge this and the effort both parties put into this case.
On 22 January 2019, [the tenant] entered into a tenancy with [the landlord] in respect of the premises at 1/116 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland. In 2012, after the birth of a child, [the tenant] experienced post-partum psychosis. Since then, she has had to monitor her mental health. Towards the end of 2023 and throughout 2024, [the tenant] mental health declined, and she was admitted to Tiaho Mai twice for extended periods of time. It was during these hospital stays that rent arrears accrued. [The landlord] claims he is owed rent arrears. He also seeks compensation for cleaning and repairs. [The tenant] has filed a cross-application, alleging [the landlord] did not follow the proper process for disposing of her goods. She also claims [the landlord] breached her quiet enjoyment and increased the rent without giving proper notice. The issues I must determine are: a. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? b. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? c. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? d. Did the landlord follow the proper procedure when disposing of the tenant’s goods? e. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? f. Did the landlord comply with section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when imposing rent increases? Standard of proof
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records the tenant owes $11,850.00 in rent arrears. Of this, $550.00 relates to the period 11/02/2019 – 05/04/2020, $400.00 relates to the period 01/04/2021 – 30/03/202, and $10,900.00 relates to the period 02/04/2024 – 26/10/2024.
The majority of rent arrears accrued in 2024 when [the tenant’s] mental health significantly declined. Throughout 2024, [the tenant] was admitted to Tiaho Mai on more than one occasion. Her rent was paid by Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) however, these payments appear to have stopped. Unfortunately, [the tenant] did not have an enduring power of attorney at the time and no application was made to the Family Court to appoint a welfare guardian. This meant that rent arrears accrued during a time when she was not mentally competent to communicate her situation with the landlord.
I have sympathy for the situation the tenant found themselves in however, a tenant who is admitted to hospital, whether for a physical or mental illness, is still required to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Ms Uluiviti suggested that the landlord could have done more to mitigate their loss. I disagree. [The tenant] has been a tenant of the landlord’s for a long time. Whilst the landlord might have had a general understanding of [the tenant’s] mental health difficulties, they cannot reasonably be expected to have known when [the tenant] was acutely unwell or admitted to Tiaoho Mai. Even if the landlord did have this level of knowledge, there is little else they could have done, other than apply to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy. The landlord could not lawfully end the tenancy without an order from the Tribunal, because the tenant did not have an attorney or welfare guardian who could end the tenancy early by mutual agreement on the tenant’s behalf.
The landlord filed their application for termination with the Tribunal on 2 August 2024. Rent arrears were $4,550.00 (45 days) on this date. Given the fact that this tenancy was five years long, it was reasonable for the landlord to give the tenant some time to clear the arrears before applying to the Tribunal to end the tenancy. Once it became apparent that this was unlikely to occur, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. I am satisfied the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
The landlord filed a claim with their insurer to recover some of the rent arrears. The landlord gave evidence that their insurer only processed the claim once an order from the Tribunal had been made. This is usual practice for many insurers. After the Tribunal order dated 23 October 2024 was made, the landlord’s insurer approved the claim and paid the landlord $5,760.00 less an excess fee of $500.00. The insurance pay out must be deducted from the total rent arrears sought however, the tenant must pay the excess fee, because this is a cost the landlord incurred as a result of the tenant’s breach.
The landlord has also received a full refund of the bond of $1,650.00, which must also be deducted from the rent arrears.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $11,850.00 at the end of the tenancy on 26 October 2024. The tenant initially challenged the accuracy of the rent summary, but conceded it was correct at the hearing. The rent summary is comprehensive and detailed. It covers the entire tenancy, and I accept it as accurate.
The total rent arrears at the end of the tenancy are $11,850.00. If I deduct the insurance payout of $5,760.00, this leaves a balance of $6,090.00. I then need to add $500.00 for the insurance excess, which brings the total to $6,590.00. I 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e). then need to deduct the bond of $1,650.00, which leaves a total balance of $4,940.00.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,940.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove all of their goods, rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. 2
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 Analysis
The tenancy ended on 26 October 2024 by order of the Tribunal. [The tenant] was in respite care at Tiaoho Mai at the time and was therefore unable to pack up her belongings, rubbish or clean the premises. [The tenant] gave evidence that during her time in Tiaoho Mai, she returned the premises intermittently and cleaned them the best she could. This explains why the premises might not have been left in the cleanest state, however, it does not absolve [the tenant] from needing to comply with her obligations under the RTA.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These are not as numerous or detailed as the Tribunal usually likes however, they provide a general sense of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Shampoo and conditioner bottles were left in the shower, mould is on the ceiling in the bathroom and laundry powder is scattered on the floor in the laundry. These photographs support the landlord’s evidence that the premises were not cleaned before the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks compensation of $287.50 (including GST) for cleaning and submitted an invoice for this amount. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii). 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $287.50.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9
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). 10
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. 11 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage that occurred throughout the premises. The landlord filed a claim with their insurer, which was accepted. The landlord paid an excess of $3,500.00 and received a cash settlement of $10,564.62. The actual cost of repairs was $14,564.62. The landlord seeks compensation of $3,500.00 for the excess and $4,000.00 for the difference to complete the repairs.
The tenant claims the premises were burgled and any damage occurred during the burglary. Analysis 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The usual way the Tribunal determines whether damage has occurred during the tenancy is by comparing photographs of the premises taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The landlord did not submit any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord submitted some photographs taken at the end of the tenancy however, these are few and do not show a lot of the alleged damage. The quality of the photographic evidence presents a significant hurdle for the landlord in terms of proving this claim.
The landlord gave evidence the carpet was ripped and stained in the hallway and lounge however, no photographs of this damage were submitted. The tenant denies damaging the carpet. In the absence of any photographs of the carpet taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the carpet was damaged during the tenancy.
The photographs submitted by the landlord taken at the end of the tenancy show scribbles on a wall, damaged door handles and doors with big holes in them. There are also multiple holes in the walls. The tenant accepts all of this damage was not present at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims it occurred as a result of a burglary however, I am not convinced of this. The tenant submitted a copy of a Police Acknowledgement Form dated 27 June 2024. This proves the tenant reported an alleged burglary on this date, but it does not prove a burglary actually occurred.
The tenant gave evidence that they were acutely mentally unwell throughout 2024 and spent time living at the tenancy address and Tiaoho Mai. The tenant gave evidence they cannot remember much about what they did throughout 2024, because they were so mentally unwell. The tenant talked about making their way to Waiheke on one occasion and having no recollection of how they got there. The Police picked the tenant up after their family reported them missing. The tenant also gave evidence that they had no recollection of where they were at certain periods of time or how they got to certain places. The tenant gave evidence about waking up in the morning in the hospital and then being at Hunters Plaza at nighttime but having no idea how they got there.
The tenant’s evidence about their state of mind throughout 2024 means I have some doubts about the reliability of their statement that the premises were burgled. Noone has been charged or convicted and no other supporting evidence was submitted to support the claim a burglary occurred. The tenant was acutely mentally unwell at the time. There is a reasonable possibility that the walls and doors were damaged by the tenant and they cannot remember. I accept the tenant does not normally display behaviour that would result in this kind of damage however, their evidence was that they were displaying all sorts of behaviour that was not normal for them at the time.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the doors and walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. Considering the prevailing mental state of the tenant at the time, I find the damage to be careless. The tenant’s liability is therefore limited to the insurance excess of $500.00.
The landlord also claims the fridge, kitchen benchtop and curtains were damaged. No photographs of the kitchen benchtop or curtains were submitted and therefore, I find the landlord has not proven the benchtop or curtains were damaged.
The photograph of the fridge shows damage to the exterior of the door, as well as the trays inside. The landlord did not submit any photographs of the fridge taken at the beginning of the tenancy however, I accept the fridge was most likely not in this state at the beginning of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the fridge was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. I find the damage to be careless for the same reasons mentioned above. The tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess of $500.00.
The landlord has proven the tenant is responsible for damage sustained to the walls, doors and fridge, but not anywhere else. Because the damage was careless, the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess of $500.00 per claim. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,000.00. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord follow the proper procedure when disposing of the tenant’s goods? The law
The process for dealing with abandoned goods is described in sections 62, 62A, 62B, 62C and 62D RTA. To summaries, the landlord may immediately dispose of foodstuffs and perishable goods. In respect of any other goods, the landlord must first make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and agree upon a period within which the tenant will collect the goods. If the landlord cannot contact the tenant or if the tenant does not retrieve the goods within the agreed period, then the landlord has two options. They can either dispose of the goods in accordance with section 62A or secure the goods and apply to the Tribunal for an order for disposal.
Section 62A requires a landlord to undertake all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of the goods. If the goods have a value below the cost of storage, the landlord may immediately dispose of them in any way they think fit. If the goods have a value above the cost of storage, the landlord must store the goods for at least 35 days, after which they must take any personal documents to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt. The landlord may then sell the rest of the goods and apply to the Tribunal for an order specifying how much is owing to the landlord out of the proceeds of sale. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully disposed of all of their goods, including personal documents, such as the tenant’s passport and immigration papers. The tenant claims the landlord only let them into the premises for five minutes to retrieve their goods following the end of the tenancy and then disposed of everything. The tenant estimates the value of their goods to be $16,500.00.
The landlord gave evidence that they contacted the tenant’s children to collect whatever goods they thought should be salvaged. The tenant’s children were living with their father at the time who is the tenant’s ex-husband. The tenant’s ex-husband attended the premises with the children and some items were taken including clothing that belonged to the children, the tenant and the tenant’s bed.
The landlord gave evidence the tenant’s personal documents were kept in a box and the tenant later visited the premises and retrieved them. The landlord claims the tenant told them to get rid of everything else and the landlord gave the tenant ample time to retrieve what they wanted. Analysis
The landlord did not follow the proper procedure under the RTA for disposing of the tenant’s goods. The landlord claims they had permission to dispose of the goods from the tenant however, the tenant denies this was the case and no written evidence, such as, a signed authority from the tenant was submitted to support the landlord’s version of events.
The landlord did what they thought was best by contacting the tenant’s children to collect some of the tenant’s belongings however, this is not the process provided for in the RTA. The tenant was understandably upset to learn that their ex-husband had been involved in the process and felt like their privacy had been breached.
It is difficult to determine what happened in respect of the tenant’s personal documents. The landlord claims the tenant took them and the tenant claims they did not. In any case, the tenant has not proven that the estimated value of their goods was $16,500.00. The tenant gave evidence the goods included whiteware, valuables, jewellery and identification documents. They did not submit photographs of the premises with their goods in them. No receipts for the purchase of any items were submitted. No other evidence such as, adverts of the items the tenant claims were disposed of were submitted either.
In these circumstances, I am only able to make an order for a nominal amount of compensation. I find $2,000.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the fact that I am convinced that some of the items disposed of included large furniture items and whiteware, which most likely had some value. I have also considered the breach of privacy the tenant experienced by having their ex-husband involved with the removal of their goods and the inconvenience caused.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,000.00. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 RTA confirms that a tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord.” Section 38(2) states that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” Contravention of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered. 12
In Siblis v Croft and Byrt [2023] NZDC 26882, the District Court held that exemplary damages cannot be ordered for conduct that occurs after the tenancy has ended. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims their quiet enjoyment was breached by the landlord’s unlawful disposal of their goods. Further, the tenant claims the landlord pushed them when the tenant returned to the premises to retrieve their goods.
The landlord denies they ever pushed the tenant. Analysis
I have already dealt with the tenant’s claim relating to the unlawful disposal of their goods by the landlord. I decline to deal with it again under a different heading. This is not fair to the landlord and would result in them having to pay compensation for the same thing twice. When determining the level of 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. compensation ordered for the unlawful disposal of the tenant’s goods, I have considered the breach of privacy and inconvenience to the tenant.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord pushed them cannot succeed either, because the alleged conduct occurred after the tenancy ended. A tenant does not have a right to quiet enjoyment after the end of the tenancy. The situation is similar to that in Siblis v Croft and Byrt.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Did the landlord comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when imposing rent increases? The law
A landlord may increase the rent provided all of the following conditions are complied with: 13 a. The landlord must give the tenant notice in writing of the increase. b. The notice must specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. c. The day upon which the increased rent becomes payable must be no less than 60 days from the date the notice is given. d. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord increased the rent from $620.00 to $720.00 verbally and without giving 60 days’ notice.
The landlord claims they complied with the RTA when imposing the rent increase. Analysis
The landlord submitted a copy of a letter addressed to the tenant dated 16 December 2023. It states that the rent will increase to $720.00 per week on 20 February 2024.
The tenant claims they never received the letter however, the landlord submitted a copy of an email sent to the tenant on 17 December 2023 attaching the letter. 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 24.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord provided 60 days’ notice in writing to the tenant of the rent increase.
The tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been successful in defending the other party’s claims and advancing their own. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I also grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953874 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 116 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953874 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 116 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions