Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5211651 — Rent arrears
Decided 21 Jul 2025 · Published 21 Jul 2025 · Application 5211651
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Candra Barron’s application for a rehearing is dismissed for no appearance.
- The name of [The landlord/s] and identifying detail are to be suppressed.
- Candra Barron must pay [The landlord/s] $4245.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. 1
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing. 1 This order now replaces the order I made in 5143589 on 19.2.25
- There was a prior hearing of this matter on 19 February 2025. On that date I made an order for termination, release of the bond and rent arrears.
- The tenant applied for a rehearing out of time and that application was set down before me today. There was no appearance by the tenant, who had not appeared at the earlier hearing and so I have dismissed her application for a rehearing. The landlord’s claims
- The landlord has filed a second claim, hence there are two matter numbers referred to above.
- Since the prior order, the tenant has vacated the premises anyway (on 20 March 2025) and the bond has been released to the landlord. The bond therefore reduced the rent.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears up to the date the tenant vacated the tenancy, less the bond, being the sum of $2,318. The landlord also applies for a further 4 weeks rent to allow for the time it took to clean the property, remove rubbish and repair damage.
- I am prepared to allow a further two weeks rent, but not four weeks rent as claimed. I consider this to be a reasonable time for work to be done. The amount ordered for additional rent is therefore $1100. I accept there was some amount of work to do to get the property ready for a new tenant, including being cleaned and the rubbish removed.
- Before I go on to consider the balance of the claims, I will explain the burden of proof.
- The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations as to the burden of proof. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
- Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
- The landlord claims: Description of damage or required cleaningCost ($) Keys$152.25 rubbish$150.00 damages - carpet stains$350.00 handyman labour charges to repair damages$450.00 4 weeks rent loss from 21/03/2025 to 20/04/2025 to repair damages$2200.00 Petrol$101.46 oven$499.00 Bunnings$316.05 Total 13A$4218.76
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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
- The landlord has provided a limited amount of documentation and evidence here. There are no photos provided showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy and a limited range of photographs at the end.
- I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that the premises were left unclean. I also accept that there was a lot of rubbish left behind.
- The landlord has however provided few invoices for the amounts claimed, which are rounded up amounts.
- He says this was because he paid cash for a large part of work.
- I accept from the photographs that some cleaning and rubbish removal is required and I will allow a total of $600 for that work, based on similar cases the tribunal sees. This includes all the carpet cleaning as well.
- The tenant did not return the keys. The sum ordered above is a reasonable amount.
- I find that petrol cannot be claimed in this case. This is a cost that should be absorbed by a landlord.
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.
- 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 landlord claims that the oven door was broken from the oven.
- No report from any electrician was provided to corroborate this and the landlord wants to claim the cost of a new oven, The old oven was only a few years old according to the landlord but no documents were provided corroborating that.
- The landlord claims the cost of a broken door handle but I am not satisfied that this was anything other than wear and tear.
- The landlord also claims the cost of removing marks and various holes in the walls. Once again, the amounts to do the work are rounded up because they were paid in cash.
- The landlord has claimed invoices from Bunnings for paint and other items used in these repairs.
- The evidence is not satisfactory in my view. I find that the landlord has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities any of this additional alleged damage.
- Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- I also allow the request for name suppression given he has largely been successful