What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5188031 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 5188031?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,361.73 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $46.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188031?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12254921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5188031 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 5188031?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,361.73 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $46.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188031?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12254921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5188031 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188031 — net $1,722.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 06/02/25	$1,361.73	Rent arrears to 06/02/25
Rubbish removal	$287.50	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$46.71	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,722.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,722.94

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188031 — net $1,722.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 06/02/25	$1,361.73	Rent arrears to 06/02/25
Rubbish removal	$287.50	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$46.71	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,722.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,722.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,722.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] moved into at [Tenancy address suppressed] (the premises) in December 2023. The parties had entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement until 1 March 2025. However, in late October or early November 2024, the tenant says she felt unsafe in the premises and requested she be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord did not initially agree, but eventually did agree to the tenancy ending on 6 February 2025.
After the tenancy ended, the tenant agreed to the bond being released to the landlord. The bond was applied to the last water bill and covered some of the rent owing at that time. However, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal as the landlord says there is additional rent owed, and the landlord also seeks compensation for damage they say the tenant caused, and for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The tenant denies owing rent and says she is not liable for the amounts claimed in damage and cleaning and rubbish removal. The tenant filed a counterclaim seeking $35,000 in compensation as she says the landlord should have released her from the tenancy when she requested it in late 2024.
At the hearing, the landlord stated some claims were no longer pursued by the landlord. The claims no longer pursued are: a. “Two weeks lost rent”; b. Insurance excess for damaged flooring: $500; c. Stained bench top: $100.
I dismiss those claims not pursued by the landlord.
The remaining issues for me to determine are: a. Does the tenant owe the landlord rent? b. Did the tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy? c. Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean? d. Did the tenant fail to remove all rubbish? e. Is the tenant responsible for the cost of pest control (cockroaches) at the end of the tenancy? f. Is the tenant responsible for the cost of replacing all curtains in the premises? g. Did the landlord breach any of their obligations under the tenancy agreement and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) by refusing to end the fixed-term tenancy earlier? Tribunal’s approach to the issues
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.
I apply this approach for each issue, discussed separately below.

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent?

The Act clearly states that no fixed-term tenancy shall be terminated unless the expiry of the term of the tenancy passes, or any of sections 55(1)(a), 55AA, 56(1), 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B of the Act apply, and notice is given in accordance with the applicable section. The only other alternative way that a fixed-term tenancy may be ended is by mutual agreement of the parties.
The landlord says the owner did not agree to the fixed-term tenancy ending before 6 February 2025, therefore the tenant is liable for rent until that date.
The landlord produced a rent summary that records that as at 6 February 2025, the tenant owed $3,550 in rent arrears. The summary records that on 27 February 2025, the landlord credited the tenant with $2,365.41, being a portion of the bond applied to rent arrears. 1 As a result, the landlord says the tenant owes rent of $1,361.73. 1 The total bond refunded to the landlord was $2480. The landlord said $114.59 of the bond was applied to the last water bill. The remaining $2,365.41 was applied to rent arrears.
The tenant confirmed the landlord did not agree to the fixed-term tenancy ending earlier, but says the landlord should have, and that is why she fell into rent arrears. The tenant says she lived in the property until 25 January 2025 when she moved out.
I am satisfied the tenant owed rent until 6 February 2025 because that is the date that the landlord agreed to the fixed-term tenancy coming to an end. The tenant’s position – that they should have been released from the fixed-term tenancy earlier – is discussed in more detail below under the last issue. While I have sympathy for the tenant’s position in terms of her concerns for her safety, there is no legal requirement that a landlord release a tenant under a fixed-term tenancy other than those explicitly set out in the Act, or by mutual agreement.
I make an award for the rent arrears as sought.

Did the tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act.
The landlord says the tenant did not return all keys, and those she did return did not work. The landlord produced an invoice dated 7 February 2025 for the cutting and fitting of five new keys – for the ranchslider in the lounge, back door, bedroom door and two garage doors.
The tenant says at the start of the tenancy she was provided with a set of keys but only one key worked – being one for the ranchslider in the lounge. The tenant says the other keys supplied did not work for the other doors. The tenant says she left the keys she was provided on the powerbox at the property on 25 January 2025 (the day she moved out).
The landlord did not record the number of keys provided at the start of the tenancy in the tenancy agreement, nor was I directed to any record of the keys given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in the entry inspection report.
Without such evidence, I am not satisfied it is more likely than not that the landlord provided working keys for all of the keys the landlord says had to be replaced. The landlord has failed to prove their claim and I therefore dismiss the claim for reimbursement for new keys.

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord says the floors and walls of the property were not cleaned and referred to the exit inspection conducted on 30 January 2025. The landlord produced an invoice for $575 for cleaning dated 12 February 2025.
During the hearing, the landlord conceded the tenant should not be liable for the full cost of a professional clean and amended the claim to seek reimbursement of half the total cost, being $287.50.
The landlord says a new tenancy commenced on 7 or 8 February 2025. The landlord was unsure when the cleaning was carried out but says it was completed between 6 – 12 February 2025.
The tenant says when she moved out on 25 January 2025, the house was left clean. The tenant handed up photographs she said were taken on that date.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean because the photographs taken on 30 January 2025 show dirt left on the floors in several rooms.
However, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the cost incurred to clean the premises was as a result of the state the tenant left it in. That is because the landlord chose to commence a new tenancy on 7 or 8 February and can not say whether the premises was cleaned prior to new tenants moving in, or whether the cleaning may have included dirt and debris from the new tenants.
As the landlord has not proved their claim, I dismiss the claim for reimbursement of cleaning costs.

Did the tenant fail to remove all rubbish?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord says the tenant left rubbish in the garage and shed that was removed by a contractor. The landlord produced an invoice dated 12 February 2025 for $287.50 for rubbish removal. The landlord referred to photos taken on 30 January 2025 showing items left on the property.
The tenant accepts she left the items in the shed and garage.
Given the tenant accepts she left items at the premises, I find the landlord’s claim proved and make an order for reimbursement for rubbish removal. Is the tenant responsible for the cost of pest control (cockroaches) at the end of the tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord says the tenant left the premises with a cockroach infestation. The landlord says the entry report does not record any issues with a cockroach infestation at the start of the tenancy, therefore, the infestation at the end of the tenancy must be a result of the tenant’s action (or inaction).
The landlord seeks compensation of $425 for pest control, and produced invoices from [pest control company] dated 11 February 2025 and 20 February 2025. The landlord says two treatments were necessary to get rid of the cockroaches.
The tenant says the cockroaches were present from the beginning of the tenancy and she tried many things to get rid of them but was not successful.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant caused the cockroach infestation. Cockroaches can be attracted to food sources, but also moisture, particularly where there are warm and damp conditions. Cockroaches can find shelter in tight, dark spaces like wall cavities, behind appliances, and in cupboards.
There was not sufficient evidence to indicate the cockroach infestation at the premises was as a result of the tenant’s actions (or inaction). 2 It was entirely possible that the infestation was present before the tenant moved in.
As the landlord has not proved their claim, I dismiss the claim for reimbursement for pest control.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of replacing all curtains in 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 of the Act.
The landlord says all of the curtains in the property were brand new at the start of the tenancy, and referred to notes made to that effect in the entry inspection dated 30 November 2023. The landlord says all curtains needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy, and referred to photographs taken on 30 January 2025 during the exit inspection which show curtains in the lounge had dark marks that appear to be mould or mildew.
The landlord also produced a receipt dated 26 February 2025 for new curtains purchased by the new tenants. The total amount spent was $378. Although the claim filed sought compensation of $755 for the curtains, [The landlord/s] 2 The pest control contractor did not provide a view on the likely cause of the cockroach infestation. conceded at the hearing that the landlord seeks $378 for the cost of replacing the curtains.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved the curtains in the lounge were damaged during the tenancy because the photo taken on 30 January 2025 clearly shows that. I am however not satisfied that the landlord has proved all curtains in the house were damaged in the same way as I was not referred to photographs of other curtains in other rooms showing damage.
The damage proven is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I reject the tenant’s submission that the landlord “should have just sprayed a bit of janola.” The obligation is on the tenant to leave the premises, and chattels, clean and undamaged.
The landlord’s evidence is that 14 replacement eyelet curtains were purchased for $378. Therefore, the cost of replacing the two lounge curtains was $46.71.
I make an award for that amount. Did the landlord breach any of their obligations under the tenancy agreement and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by refusing to end the fixed-term tenancy earlier?
The tenant says that in late October or early November 2024 she requested the landlord agree to releasing her from the fixed-term tenancy early. Under the tenancy agreement, the tenancy was set to continue until 1 March 2025. The tenant sought an early release because she says she was being terrorised by drug addicts who were coming onto the premises without her permission.
As stated above, the Act clearly states that a fixed-term tenancy can be terminated if specific circumstances described in the Act apply, 3 and notice is given in accordance with the applicable section. The only other alternative method to end a fixed-term tenancy is by mutual agreement of the parties.
The tenant referred to Police reports she made regarding others coming onto her property, including a report on 19 November 2024 and another on 5 December 2024. The tenant did not produce evidence of her requests to the landlord to end the tenancy around that time, however it was not disputed by the landlord that such requests were made in late 2024. The landlord says the owner initially did not agree to the tenancy coming to an early end before the Christmas and New Year period, but eventually the owner agreed it could end one month early, on 6 February 2025.
A fixed-term tenancy is a rental agreement with a specific start and end date to provide certainty for both landlord and tenant. The landlord was not obligated to 3 See sections 55(1)(a), 55AA, 56(1), 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B of the Act. release the tenant from the fixed-term tenancy agreement before the end of the fixed-term tenancy.
As the tenant has not proved the landlord breached their obligations under the tenancy agreement, or under the Act, the tenant’s claim seeking compensation of $35,000 is dismissed. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the Tribunal suppress either party’s names?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal may also, 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. See s 95A(4) of the Act.
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was substantially successful, the landlord is entitled to suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The tenant also applied for suppression of their name. As their counterclaim was not successful, the tenant is not automatically entitled to name suppression. I have therefore considered whether to grant the tenant name suppression having regard to the interests of the parties and the public.
The tenant produced evidence that she suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder relating to events which occurred in her early childhood. The evidence included a recent letter from her General Practitioner expressing concern for the tenant’s mental health.
Although the tenant has not succeeded in the counterclaim, I accept that the events which occurred at the premises near the end of the tenancy involving others coming onto the property were not of her direct doing and caused her significant stress. In such circumstances, and considering I was not made aware of any public interest in the outcome of this specific matter, I make an order to suppress the tenant’s names and her identifying particulars.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5188031 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5188031 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent?

Did the tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the tenant fail to remove all rubbish?

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of replacing all curtains in the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent?

Did the tenant fail to return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the tenant fail to remove all rubbish?

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of replacing all curtains in the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions