What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153471 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 5153471?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,254.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $6,795.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153471?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11857989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153471 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 5153471?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,254.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $6,795.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153471?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11857989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153471 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153471 — net $9,776.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 December 2024	$3,254.29	Rent arrears to 26 December 2024
Rubbish removal: skip hire plus labour	$6,795.00	Rubbish removal: skip hire plus labour
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs toilet and bathroom sink	$500.00	Repairs toilet and bathroom sink
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,776.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,776.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tracey Smith must pay [The landlord/s] $9,776.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 01 August 2025. On 24 February 2020, the landlord engaged [The property management company] as their agent. On 03 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. In the application the landlord states that the tenancy ended on 26 December 2024.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent arrears.
[The property manager/s] states that on 05 November 2024, another property manager conducted a property inspection, during which the tenant was present. [The property manager/s] states that on 13 November 2024, a 14-day notice was issued for alleged breaches relating to the condition of the property.
During the inspection, the tenant raised an issue with the elements on the stove. The landlord arranged for an electrician to replace the stove. [The property manager/s] states the electrician attempted to contact the tenant on 26 and 27 November 2024, to arrange a suitable time but without success.
On 29 November 2024, the landlord entered the property and formed the view that the tenant had vacated. No notice had been given by the tenant. The landlord has produced photographs taken on that date, showing a considerable amount of rubbish inside and outside the house. The interior is in disarray, and it is difficult to determine whether the property is still occupied, although the condition of the kitchen and sink would appear to suggest it was not.
The rent summary shows that the rent had been paid up to 22 November 2024. During the hearing [The property manager/s] referred to the property as being abandoned. However, there is no application for termination and possession for abandonment.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is based on the tenant ending the tenancy without giving the required notice. They are seeking rent in lieu of the 28 days’ notice required by the tenant, starting 29 November 2024. A new tenancy commenced on 14 February 2025.
In this case I am satisfied that the tenant breached the terms of the agreement and provisions of the Act. On 29 November 2024, the landlord had reasonable grounds to conclude that the tenant had vacated without giving notice. The claim for rent in lieu of notice is reasonable, and accordingly, I award the amount sought.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to meet their obligations to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $7,445.00 for rubbish removal ($4,845.00 for skip hire and disposal fees, and $2,600.00 labour), $300.00 for lawn maintenance, and $400.00 for cleaning. The landlord is also claiming $355.00 to re key the locks, and $155.00 to replace light bulbs.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
[The property manager/s] states the property is approximately 50 years old. However, based on the photographs the property appears considerably older, possibly dating back to the 1940’s. It has had minor modifications, but none appear recent. The property has two master bedrooms with ensuites, three additional bedrooms, a lounge, a dining room, a kitchen, laundry, and a main bathroom. [The property manager/s] states that tenant resided at the property with four other family members.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property on 29 November 2024 along with others taken after the rubbish has been removed. There was a considerable amount of rubbish both inside and around the house. The landlord removed thirteen skip bins of rubbish and has produced a photograph of each bin full. In this case, I award the full amount claimed for skip hire but reduce the labour cost per bin from $200.00 to $150.00, which I consider reasonable. The total amount awarded for rubbish removal is $6,795.00.
The amount of rubbish lying around the property would have made it impossible for the tenant to properly maintain the grounds. I award the landlord the $300.00 claimed for lawn and garden maintenance.
There is no pre tenancy inspection report or of photographs showing the state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy. However, based on the photographs from 29 November 2024 and afterwards, it is evident that cleaning had not been completed. I am satisfied, more likely than not, that the property was not left in at least the same state of cleanliness it would have been at the commencement. The amount claimed is modest in the circumstances and is awarded.
The landlord states that the tenant failed to return the keys, and to account for light bulbs, which are chattels. However, there is no evidence of the keys provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy, nor any evidence of the light bulbs as chattels. There is insufficient evidence to support these claims, and they are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage that is more than fair wear and tear, and is seeking: -$1,437.50 to repair damage with walls, doors, and the floor throughout the property, -$2,116.00 to replace a toilet bowl and a bathroom hand basin, -$1,800.00 to replace curtains either missing or soiled beyond cleaning, -$112.88 for electricity used by the contractor conducting repairs.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Damage to walls, doors, and floor.
To find a tenant liable for damage, the landlord must establish that it more likely than not has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The best evidence is typically photographs and inspection reports that enable the Tribunal to objectively assess the condition of the property before and after the tenancy.
In this case, there is no pre tenancy inspection report nor any photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs taken on 29 November 2024 show minor damage in the form of small holes, nicks, dents, scrapes throughout the property. Some of the damage has been partially repaired. The photographs also show fair wear and tear relative to the property’s age.
There is insufficient to establish that the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The claim for damage to walls, doors, and the floor is dismissed. Damage to toilet bowl and bathroom vanity.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the toilet bowl with a large piece missing from under the rim and a bathroom hand basin which has a large hole in it. The damage appears irreparable and has rendered the fixtures unusable.
Unlike the damage to walls, doors, and floor, based on the evidence, I am satisfied that more likely than not the damage to the toilet and hand basin has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
However, in my opinion betterment is a significant factor. Toilets and hand basins are typically high use fixtures, and there is no evidence of recent refurbishment before the commencement of the tenancy. In this case I therefore reduce the claim for betterment and award the landlord $500.00 toward the cost of replacing the toilet and hand basin. Curtains
The landlord has produced photographs showing the backs of curtains throughout the property. The curtains appear to be soiled, and some are damaged. Curtains in rental properties typically have a life span of around eight years. There is no evidence as the age of these curtains, but they appear considerably older than this. There is also no evidence of the condition of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to establish the claim, and it is dismissed. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and seeks name suppression. Name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153471 — net $9,776.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 December 2024	$3,254.29	Rent arrears to 26 December 2024
Rubbish removal: skip hire plus labour	$6,795.00	Rubbish removal: skip hire plus labour
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs toilet and bathroom sink	$500.00	Repairs toilet and bathroom sink
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,776.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,776.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tracey Smith must pay [The landlord/s] $9,776.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 01 August 2025. On 24 February 2020, the landlord engaged [The property management company] as their agent. On 03 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. In the application the landlord states that the tenancy ended on 26 December 2024.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent arrears.
[The property manager/s] states that on 05 November 2024, another property manager conducted a property inspection, during which the tenant was present. [The property manager/s] states that on 13 November 2024, a 14-day notice was issued for alleged breaches relating to the condition of the property.
During the inspection, the tenant raised an issue with the elements on the stove. The landlord arranged for an electrician to replace the stove. [The property manager/s] states the electrician attempted to contact the tenant on 26 and 27 November 2024, to arrange a suitable time but without success.
On 29 November 2024, the landlord entered the property and formed the view that the tenant had vacated. No notice had been given by the tenant. The landlord has produced photographs taken on that date, showing a considerable amount of rubbish inside and outside the house. The interior is in disarray, and it is difficult to determine whether the property is still occupied, although the condition of the kitchen and sink would appear to suggest it was not.
The rent summary shows that the rent had been paid up to 22 November 2024. During the hearing [The property manager/s] referred to the property as being abandoned. However, there is no application for termination and possession for abandonment.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is based on the tenant ending the tenancy without giving the required notice. They are seeking rent in lieu of the 28 days’ notice required by the tenant, starting 29 November 2024. A new tenancy commenced on 14 February 2025.
In this case I am satisfied that the tenant breached the terms of the agreement and provisions of the Act. On 29 November 2024, the landlord had reasonable grounds to conclude that the tenant had vacated without giving notice. The claim for rent in lieu of notice is reasonable, and accordingly, I award the amount sought.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to meet their obligations to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $7,445.00 for rubbish removal ($4,845.00 for skip hire and disposal fees, and $2,600.00 labour), $300.00 for lawn maintenance, and $400.00 for cleaning. The landlord is also claiming $355.00 to re key the locks, and $155.00 to replace light bulbs.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
[The property manager/s] states the property is approximately 50 years old. However, based on the photographs the property appears considerably older, possibly dating back to the 1940’s. It has had minor modifications, but none appear recent. The property has two master bedrooms with ensuites, three additional bedrooms, a lounge, a dining room, a kitchen, laundry, and a main bathroom. [The property manager/s] states that tenant resided at the property with four other family members.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property on 29 November 2024 along with others taken after the rubbish has been removed. There was a considerable amount of rubbish both inside and around the house. The landlord removed thirteen skip bins of rubbish and has produced a photograph of each bin full. In this case, I award the full amount claimed for skip hire but reduce the labour cost per bin from $200.00 to $150.00, which I consider reasonable. The total amount awarded for rubbish removal is $6,795.00.
The amount of rubbish lying around the property would have made it impossible for the tenant to properly maintain the grounds. I award the landlord the $300.00 claimed for lawn and garden maintenance.
There is no pre tenancy inspection report or of photographs showing the state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy. However, based on the photographs from 29 November 2024 and afterwards, it is evident that cleaning had not been completed. I am satisfied, more likely than not, that the property was not left in at least the same state of cleanliness it would have been at the commencement. The amount claimed is modest in the circumstances and is awarded.
The landlord states that the tenant failed to return the keys, and to account for light bulbs, which are chattels. However, there is no evidence of the keys provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy, nor any evidence of the light bulbs as chattels. There is insufficient evidence to support these claims, and they are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage that is more than fair wear and tear, and is seeking: -$1,437.50 to repair damage with walls, doors, and the floor throughout the property, -$2,116.00 to replace a toilet bowl and a bathroom hand basin, -$1,800.00 to replace curtains either missing or soiled beyond cleaning, -$112.88 for electricity used by the contractor conducting repairs.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Damage to walls, doors, and floor.
To find a tenant liable for damage, the landlord must establish that it more likely than not has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The best evidence is typically photographs and inspection reports that enable the Tribunal to objectively assess the condition of the property before and after the tenancy.
In this case, there is no pre tenancy inspection report nor any photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs taken on 29 November 2024 show minor damage in the form of small holes, nicks, dents, scrapes throughout the property. Some of the damage has been partially repaired. The photographs also show fair wear and tear relative to the property’s age.
There is insufficient to establish that the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The claim for damage to walls, doors, and the floor is dismissed. Damage to toilet bowl and bathroom vanity.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the toilet bowl with a large piece missing from under the rim and a bathroom hand basin which has a large hole in it. The damage appears irreparable and has rendered the fixtures unusable.
Unlike the damage to walls, doors, and floor, based on the evidence, I am satisfied that more likely than not the damage to the toilet and hand basin has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
However, in my opinion betterment is a significant factor. Toilets and hand basins are typically high use fixtures, and there is no evidence of recent refurbishment before the commencement of the tenancy. In this case I therefore reduce the claim for betterment and award the landlord $500.00 toward the cost of replacing the toilet and hand basin. Curtains
The landlord has produced photographs showing the backs of curtains throughout the property. The curtains appear to be soiled, and some are damaged. Curtains in rental properties typically have a life span of around eight years. There is no evidence as the age of these curtains, but they appear considerably older than this. There is also no evidence of the condition of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to establish the claim, and it is dismissed. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and seeks name suppression. Name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153471 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153471 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions