What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5169251 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 5169251?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Mattress Removal: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,484.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5169251 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 5169251?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Mattress Removal: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,484.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 43 Grange Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5169251 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169251 — net $1,580.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 December 2024	$1,484.10	Rent arrears to 31 December 2024
Mattress removal	$69.00	Mattress removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,580.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,580.10

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Wei Guo to pay [The landlord/s] $1,580.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.10 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $19.90 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Wei Guo immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties 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.

RENT ARREARS

The tenancy began on 3 January 2024 and was a fixed-term tenancy until 31 December 2024.
On 3 December 2024, the tenant contacted the landlord requesting to assign the tenancy as an emergency had occurred and the tenant needed to return home overseas. The tenant did not expand upon what the emergency was. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to assign the tenancy if a suitable replacement tenant could be found.
The tenant vacated the premises on 15 December 2024 and paid rent up to 11 December 2024.
The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 31 December 2024. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $1,484.10 up to this date.
The tenant submits that they should only have to pay rent arrears up to 15 December 2024, which is the date they vacated the premises. The tenant submits that there were prospective tenants who wanted to take over the tenancy and the landlord unreasonably refused to accept these tenants. In doing so, the tenant submits that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
The landlord accepts that there were tenants who were interested in the property but submits that none of them were suitable. For example, one prospective tenant was pregnant. The landlord gave evidence that the property was not suitable for this tenant, as it is situated in an area that primarily comprises student accommodation. The landlord gave evidence that the prospective tenant enquired about the noise in the area and the landlord advised that the property is situated close to Hyde St, which is notorious for its annual street party. The landlord claims that that once this was disclosed, the prospective tenant stated that they did not wish to go ahead with the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that a new tenancy began on 25 January 2025. Analysis
This was a fixed-term tenancy and the tenant is liable to pay rent up to the end of the fixed-term or until a new tenant took over the tenancy, whichever occurred first.
The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to assign the tenancy if a suitable tenant could be found. I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding the prospective pregnant tenant. Even if this tenant had wanted to proceed with the tenancy, I agree with the landlord’s submission that they were not a suitable candidate for the property. Even though the property is a fully self-contained studio, it is situated in the heart of what is mostly student accommodation and is close to Hyde St, which is notorious for its frequent student flat parties.
The tenant gave the landlord very short notice that they wanted to assign their tenancy. The notice was given at the end of the year when it is more difficult to find new tenants due to the holiday period.
In all the circumstances, I do not find that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears up to the end of the fixed-term is granted in full for $1,484.10. CLEANING & RUBBISH REMOVAL
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premise reasonably clean and tidy and left a mattress which they had to dispose of.
The landlord had the property professionally cleaned and mattress removed.
The tenant gave evidence that they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant accepts that they left their mattress behind, but claims they were unaware they needed to remove it. The tenant gave evidence that they have not rented a property in New Zealand before and are not familiar with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant states that if the landlord had let them know that they needed to remove their mattress, they would have done so. Analysis
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. They have not proven that the tenant left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy on the balance of probabilities and this claim is dismissed.
I grant the landlord’s claim for compensation of $60.00 plus GST ($69.00 total) to remove the tenant’s mattress. The tenant was required to remove this at the end of the tenancy and the fact that they did not know this was the case is no defence to the landlord’s claim to recover the disposal costs.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the removal of the mattress for $69.00 (including GST) and their claim for compensation for this amount is granted. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169251 — net $1,580.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 December 2024	$1,484.10	Rent arrears to 31 December 2024
Mattress removal	$69.00	Mattress removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,580.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,580.10

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Wei Guo to pay [The landlord/s] $1,580.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.10 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $19.90 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Wei Guo immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties 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.

RENT ARREARS

The tenancy began on 3 January 2024 and was a fixed-term tenancy until 31 December 2024.
On 3 December 2024, the tenant contacted the landlord requesting to assign the tenancy as an emergency had occurred and the tenant needed to return home overseas. The tenant did not expand upon what the emergency was. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to assign the tenancy if a suitable replacement tenant could be found.
The tenant vacated the premises on 15 December 2024 and paid rent up to 11 December 2024.
The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 31 December 2024. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $1,484.10 up to this date.
The tenant submits that they should only have to pay rent arrears up to 15 December 2024, which is the date they vacated the premises. The tenant submits that there were prospective tenants who wanted to take over the tenancy and the landlord unreasonably refused to accept these tenants. In doing so, the tenant submits that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
The landlord accepts that there were tenants who were interested in the property but submits that none of them were suitable. For example, one prospective tenant was pregnant. The landlord gave evidence that the property was not suitable for this tenant, as it is situated in an area that primarily comprises student accommodation. The landlord gave evidence that the prospective tenant enquired about the noise in the area and the landlord advised that the property is situated close to Hyde St, which is notorious for its annual street party. The landlord claims that that once this was disclosed, the prospective tenant stated that they did not wish to go ahead with the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that a new tenancy began on 25 January 2025. Analysis
This was a fixed-term tenancy and the tenant is liable to pay rent up to the end of the fixed-term or until a new tenant took over the tenancy, whichever occurred first.
The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to assign the tenancy if a suitable tenant could be found. I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding the prospective pregnant tenant. Even if this tenant had wanted to proceed with the tenancy, I agree with the landlord’s submission that they were not a suitable candidate for the property. Even though the property is a fully self-contained studio, it is situated in the heart of what is mostly student accommodation and is close to Hyde St, which is notorious for its frequent student flat parties.
The tenant gave the landlord very short notice that they wanted to assign their tenancy. The notice was given at the end of the year when it is more difficult to find new tenants due to the holiday period.
In all the circumstances, I do not find that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears up to the end of the fixed-term is granted in full for $1,484.10. CLEANING & RUBBISH REMOVAL
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premise reasonably clean and tidy and left a mattress which they had to dispose of.
The landlord had the property professionally cleaned and mattress removed.
The tenant gave evidence that they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant accepts that they left their mattress behind, but claims they were unaware they needed to remove it. The tenant gave evidence that they have not rented a property in New Zealand before and are not familiar with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant states that if the landlord had let them know that they needed to remove their mattress, they would have done so. Analysis
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. They have not proven that the tenant left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy on the balance of probabilities and this claim is dismissed.
I grant the landlord’s claim for compensation of $60.00 plus GST ($69.00 total) to remove the tenant’s mattress. The tenant was required to remove this at the end of the tenancy and the fact that they did not know this was the case is no defence to the landlord’s claim to recover the disposal costs.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the removal of the mattress for $69.00 (including GST) and their claim for compensation for this amount is granted. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169251 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6, 43 Grange Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169251 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6, 43 Grange Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions