What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153374 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 5153374?

Break Lease Fee: $649.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $112.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $437.29 awarded to landlord; Carport: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153374?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12131210-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153374 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 5153374?

Break Lease Fee: $649.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $112.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $437.29 awarded to landlord; Carport: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153374?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12131210-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153374 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153374 — net $1,514.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$437.29	Rent arrears
Break lease fee	$649.75	Break lease fee
Repairs: Carport	$287.50	Repairs: Carport
__________________________________________________________________________________ 51533742 Carpet Cleaning	$112.50	__________________________________________________________________________________ 51533742 Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,514.04
Bond	$2,069.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,514.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Roseline Rajneeta Prasad Shandil to pay [The landlord/s] $1,514.04 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,069.84 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,514.04 Roseline Rajneeta Prasad Shandil: $555.80

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 17 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
A party must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. The term “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 more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this matter falls upon the landlord to prove its claims. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
This matter was partially resolved by way of mediation. In a mediators order dated 13 March 2025, the parties agreed to release $530.16 from the bond to the landlord. The sum included $464.29 for rent from 8 January 2025 to 12 January 2025 and $65.87 for water rates.
The mediated order records that the remaining issues for consideration by the Tribunal were rent arrears, carpet cleaning and damages to the carport and break lease fees.

How much is owed for rent ?

This was a fixed term tenancy through until 9 May 2025. A fixed term tenancy may only be ended prior to the expiry of the term by consent of both parties or by order of the Tribunal.
Difficult personal circumstances had arisen for the tenant and the tenant gave notice to the landlord of her wish to terminate the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord agreed that the tenancy could end early, but that it would only end once the landlord was able to find a replacement tenant.
The landlord said that new tenants were found and that the new tenancy commenced on 17 January 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary and sought rent arrears through to that date.
The tenant said that she moved out of the premises on the 3 January 2025. The tenant said that her neighbour had contacted her and told her that someone was moving into the property on 12 January 2025. The mediated order included a payment by the tenant for the period from 8 January 2025 to 12 January 2025, when the tenant says that the new tenancy commenced.
The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement for the new tenants. The agreement records that the new tenancy commenced on 17 January 2025.
In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The landlord has provided a rent summary which records that the rent owing by the tenant at the end of the tenancy was $901.58. The sum of $464.29 is to be deducted (as required by the mediated order), which leaves a balance of rent owing by the tenant of $437.29. Break lease fees
Section 44A RTA provides that where a landlord consents to an early termination of a tenancy, the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of debt termination. The landlord must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. The landlord has provided an itemised account to the tenant for advertising costs, viewing and administrative fees in the sum of $649.75. The amount claimed is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay that sum.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlords policy of insurance carries an excess of $750.00 on each and every claim.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. The carpet was stained. The landlord provided photos taken both before and after a contractor employed by the tenant had attempted to remove the stain. The “after” photo shows that the stain is less obvious, but there is still a visible stain on the carpet. The landlord provided a quote for further stain removal of $112.50. The tenant accepted that some staining still remained. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenanted premises included a carport. The landlord provided a photo of the carport showing a small area of damage. The landlord said that the damage was possibly as a result of the carport being hit by a car. The landlord provided a quote for repairs of the carport the sum of $287.50. The tenant said there she did not know how the damage had occurred. She said that it may have occurred prior to her moving into the premises. She said that other neighbouring tenants had parked their car in the carport. No evidence in support of this proposition was provided by the tenant. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fear wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proven.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153374 — net $1,514.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$437.29	Rent arrears
Break lease fee	$649.75	Break lease fee
Repairs: Carport	$287.50	Repairs: Carport
__________________________________________________________________________________ 51533742 Carpet Cleaning	$112.50	__________________________________________________________________________________ 51533742 Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,514.04
Bond	$2,069.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,514.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Roseline Rajneeta Prasad Shandil to pay [The landlord/s] $1,514.04 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,069.84 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,514.04 Roseline Rajneeta Prasad Shandil: $555.80

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 17 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
A party must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. The term “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 more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this matter falls upon the landlord to prove its claims. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
This matter was partially resolved by way of mediation. In a mediators order dated 13 March 2025, the parties agreed to release $530.16 from the bond to the landlord. The sum included $464.29 for rent from 8 January 2025 to 12 January 2025 and $65.87 for water rates.
The mediated order records that the remaining issues for consideration by the Tribunal were rent arrears, carpet cleaning and damages to the carport and break lease fees.

How much is owed for rent ?

This was a fixed term tenancy through until 9 May 2025. A fixed term tenancy may only be ended prior to the expiry of the term by consent of both parties or by order of the Tribunal.
Difficult personal circumstances had arisen for the tenant and the tenant gave notice to the landlord of her wish to terminate the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord agreed that the tenancy could end early, but that it would only end once the landlord was able to find a replacement tenant.
The landlord said that new tenants were found and that the new tenancy commenced on 17 January 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary and sought rent arrears through to that date.
The tenant said that she moved out of the premises on the 3 January 2025. The tenant said that her neighbour had contacted her and told her that someone was moving into the property on 12 January 2025. The mediated order included a payment by the tenant for the period from 8 January 2025 to 12 January 2025, when the tenant says that the new tenancy commenced.
The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement for the new tenants. The agreement records that the new tenancy commenced on 17 January 2025.
In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The landlord has provided a rent summary which records that the rent owing by the tenant at the end of the tenancy was $901.58. The sum of $464.29 is to be deducted (as required by the mediated order), which leaves a balance of rent owing by the tenant of $437.29. Break lease fees
Section 44A RTA provides that where a landlord consents to an early termination of a tenancy, the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of debt termination. The landlord must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. The landlord has provided an itemised account to the tenant for advertising costs, viewing and administrative fees in the sum of $649.75. The amount claimed is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay that sum.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlords policy of insurance carries an excess of $750.00 on each and every claim.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. The carpet was stained. The landlord provided photos taken both before and after a contractor employed by the tenant had attempted to remove the stain. The “after” photo shows that the stain is less obvious, but there is still a visible stain on the carpet. The landlord provided a quote for further stain removal of $112.50. The tenant accepted that some staining still remained. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenanted premises included a carport. The landlord provided a photo of the carport showing a small area of damage. The landlord said that the damage was possibly as a result of the carport being hit by a car. The landlord provided a quote for repairs of the carport the sum of $287.50. The tenant said there she did not know how the damage had occurred. She said that it may have occurred prior to her moving into the premises. She said that other neighbouring tenants had parked their car in the carport. No evidence in support of this proposition was provided by the tenant. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fear wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proven.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153374 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153374 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

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

How much is owed for rent ?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions