What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5152734 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 5152734?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Moving Goods To Storage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,454.28 awarded to landlord; - Walls: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Storage To 24/2/25: $225.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430321-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5152734 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 5152734?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Moving Goods To Storage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,454.28 awarded to landlord; - Walls: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Storage To 24/2/25: $225.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430321-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5152734 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152734 — net $5,876.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/1/25	$3,454.28	Rent arrears to 23/1/25
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: - garage	$140.00	Cleaning: - garage
Repairs: - walls	$1,100.00	Repairs: - walls
Moving goods to storage	$230.00	Moving goods to storage
Storage to 24/2/25	$225.00	Storage to 24/2/25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,876.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,876.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.
The order date 3 December 2024 is confirmed.
Mary Heta must pay [The landlord/s] $5,876.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below -
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 December 2024 under application 4994489, 4997728.
[The landlord/s] must take any personal documents belonging to the tenant, that have been left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord shall dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $5,876.28.
[The landlord/s] must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.
The order for disposal of goods is suspended until 24 February 2024 to allow the tenant one last opportunity to collect her belongings from the storage shed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord attended by video conference and the tenant attended by phone, with her brother, Keith Barrett representing her, with consent of the landlord. 1

REHEARING APPLICATION

On 3 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 5 December 2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing.
The grounds for the rehearing were that the eviction would be a breach with regards to Tu Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 and the tenant sought an injunction on the basis of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”. 2
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A 1 Section 93 (2)(a) of the RTA. 2 Section 105 (1) of the RTA. rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan 3 , Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 4 : “Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
The tenant disputes the Tribunal order on the basis of customary rights. This appears to be a submission that the decision has incorrectly applied the law. This is not a ground for a rehearing. 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50 4 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen
The tenant provided no other grounds that may be procedural in nature to support her application for a rehearing.
While I recognise the tenant will be unhappy with the outcome of the original hearing, that is the outcome.
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and a rehearing is declined.
As I determined this matter at the hearing, I confirmed I would hear the landlord’s application. LANDLORD’S APPLICATION
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, orders with respect to disposal of goods and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Rent arrears - How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $3,454.28 (to 23 January 2025). Previous order
On 3 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The total rent arrears owed is the amount ordered in this order.

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. 5
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant had to be evicted and no cleaning was undertaken. The tenant says she did not have time to undertake the cleaning, however I consider she was aware that the tenancy was to terminate and she did not attend to the cleaning and rubbish removal as she is obligated to do. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a 5 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. reasonably tidy condition. The cleaning undertaken was to a level it was able to be relet, which is beyond the reasonably clean and tidy standard. I record that the garage required separate cleaning as it was used for storage of goods left after the tenancy ended for a short period of time.
I make an order for a. General cleaning - $460.00 b. Carpet cleaning - $240.00. c. Garage cleaning - $140.00
The amounts ordered are proved with photographs and invoices.

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. 6
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). 7
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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 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 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Two walls were stained and dented. The tenant accepted the damage may have been caused by her tamariki. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage likely to be caused through carelessness.
The amounts ordered are proved by photographs and an invoice. The amount ordered for the wall repairs is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess of $1,100 as this is careless not intentional damage.
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. The amount ordered is for repair only. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is unable to agree with the tenant on a period for the tenant to collect the goods. The tenant says she has been unable to afford to collect the goods.
It is therefore not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Some of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. At the hearing both parties were unable to provide any estimated value for the goods. If there is anything which has a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling the landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. 12
This order is suspended until 24 February 2024 to allow the tenant one last opportunity to collect her belongings from the storage shed.
I make an order for the costs of relocating the goods to the storage unit of $230.00 and the storage unit $225 (being the storage costs from 3 February 2025 to 24 February 2025. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. 12 See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 13 The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 14
The landlord sought suppression and as she has been successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152734 — net $5,876.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/1/25	$3,454.28	Rent arrears to 23/1/25
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: - garage	$140.00	Cleaning: - garage
Repairs: - walls	$1,100.00	Repairs: - walls
Moving goods to storage	$230.00	Moving goods to storage
Storage to 24/2/25	$225.00	Storage to 24/2/25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,876.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,876.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.
The order date 3 December 2024 is confirmed.
Mary Heta must pay [The landlord/s] $5,876.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below -
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 December 2024 under application 4994489, 4997728.
[The landlord/s] must take any personal documents belonging to the tenant, that have been left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord shall dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $5,876.28.
[The landlord/s] must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.
The order for disposal of goods is suspended until 24 February 2024 to allow the tenant one last opportunity to collect her belongings from the storage shed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord attended by video conference and the tenant attended by phone, with her brother, Keith Barrett representing her, with consent of the landlord. 1

REHEARING APPLICATION

On 3 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 5 December 2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing.
The grounds for the rehearing were that the eviction would be a breach with regards to Tu Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 and the tenant sought an injunction on the basis of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”. 2
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A 1 Section 93 (2)(a) of the RTA. 2 Section 105 (1) of the RTA. rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan 3 , Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 4 : “Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
The tenant disputes the Tribunal order on the basis of customary rights. This appears to be a submission that the decision has incorrectly applied the law. This is not a ground for a rehearing. 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50 4 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen
The tenant provided no other grounds that may be procedural in nature to support her application for a rehearing.
While I recognise the tenant will be unhappy with the outcome of the original hearing, that is the outcome.
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and a rehearing is declined.
As I determined this matter at the hearing, I confirmed I would hear the landlord’s application. LANDLORD’S APPLICATION
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, orders with respect to disposal of goods and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Rent arrears - How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $3,454.28 (to 23 January 2025). Previous order
On 3 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The total rent arrears owed is the amount ordered in this order.

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. 5
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant had to be evicted and no cleaning was undertaken. The tenant says she did not have time to undertake the cleaning, however I consider she was aware that the tenancy was to terminate and she did not attend to the cleaning and rubbish removal as she is obligated to do. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a 5 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. reasonably tidy condition. The cleaning undertaken was to a level it was able to be relet, which is beyond the reasonably clean and tidy standard. I record that the garage required separate cleaning as it was used for storage of goods left after the tenancy ended for a short period of time.
I make an order for a. General cleaning - $460.00 b. Carpet cleaning - $240.00. c. Garage cleaning - $140.00
The amounts ordered are proved with photographs and invoices.

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. 6
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). 7
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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 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 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Two walls were stained and dented. The tenant accepted the damage may have been caused by her tamariki. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage likely to be caused through carelessness.
The amounts ordered are proved by photographs and an invoice. The amount ordered for the wall repairs is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess of $1,100 as this is careless not intentional damage.
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. The amount ordered is for repair only. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is unable to agree with the tenant on a period for the tenant to collect the goods. The tenant says she has been unable to afford to collect the goods.
It is therefore not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Some of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. At the hearing both parties were unable to provide any estimated value for the goods. If there is anything which has a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling the landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. 12
This order is suspended until 24 February 2024 to allow the tenant one last opportunity to collect her belongings from the storage shed.
I make an order for the costs of relocating the goods to the storage unit of $230.00 and the storage unit $225 (being the storage costs from 3 February 2025 to 24 February 2025. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. 12 See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 13 The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 14
The landlord sought suppression and as she has been successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152734 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152734 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

REHEARING APPLICATION

Rent arrears - How much does the tenant owe?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

REHEARING APPLICATION

Rent arrears - How much does the tenant owe?

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

Frequently asked questions