What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5217116 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 5217116?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Glass Panels In Front Door: $543.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $367.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $813.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5217116?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5217116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12174128-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5217116 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 5217116?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Glass Panels In Front Door: $543.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $367.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $813.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5217116?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5217116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12174128-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5217116 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5217116 — net $6,647.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 12 March 2025 – 26 March 2025	$1,500.00	Rent arrears 12 March 2025 – 26 March 2025
General cleaning	$1,200.00	General cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal skip hire	$813.70	Rubbish removal skip hire
Rubbish removal labour	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal labour
Repairs: glass panels in front door	$543.78	Repairs: glass panels in front door
Repairs: shower repairs	$367.50	Repairs: shower repairs
Lawns	$500.00	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,647.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,647.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tracy Hope Sefton must pay [The landlord/s] $6,147.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
On 07 March 2025, the Tribunal ordered rent arrears to 11 March 2025 and confirmed a final termination date of 27 April 2025. This was conditional on the tenant continuing to pay weekly rent. The Tribunal also ordered the release of the bond. The balance owing by the tenant was $1,467.00, which was to be paid on 28 April 2025. The order stated that if the tenant failed to pay weekly rent, the tenancy would be terminated immediately.
The tenant made one rent payment on 12 March 2025. No further payments were made. On 19 March 2025, the tenant advised the landlord that they would vacate the property on 26 March 2025. The landlord attended the property on 27 March 2025 and confirmed that the tenant had vacated. On 28 March 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage.
Initially, the landlord claimed rent arrears from 12 March 2025 to 27 April 2025. However, the Tribunal has explained that, as the tenant breached the terms of the conditional order, they are only liable for rent until the date they vacated the property on 26 March 2025, and not 27 April 2025. The landlord has produced an updated rent summary. The Tribunal awards the rent arrears from 12 March 2025 to 26 March 2025 of $1,500.00. This is in addition to the amounts already ordered by the Tribunal on 07 March 2025.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The landlord also claims that the tenant failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition.
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 Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The property comprises four bedrooms, a sleepout, two bathrooms, lounge / dining room area, kitchen, laundry, and garage.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy. Having considered the photographs and heard from the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. The photographs show a significant amount of rubbish left by the tenant. It appears that no cleaning was undertaken. The landlord states that the tenant kept a dog or dogs at the property, which were allowed to urinate and defecate throughout the house. The photographs show evidence of animals at the property. This was also confirmed in the previous hearing at which the tenant appeared.
The landlord states that they obtained quotes for general cleaning and rubbish removal which exceeded $2,000.00 and $3,400.00, respectively. As they could not afford these quotes, they engaged three neighbours to help complete the work. The landlord is claiming $813.70 skip bin hire, $1,880.00 for labour to fill the bins, $1410.00 for general cleaning, and $195.50 for carpet cleaning.
Having considered the evidence, I find the following amounts reasonable, and I award the skip bin hire as claimed, labour of $1,500.00 to fill the skips, $1,200.00 for general cleaning, and $195.50 for carpet cleaning.
The lawns at the rear of the property were left overgrown. The landlord also states that the tenant’s dogs dug large holes in the lawn which required filling. The landlord is claiming $1,200.00 to mow the lawn and fill the holes. Once again, the work was completed by the neighbours. The only photographs of the holes are taken from a distance and after they have been filled. Having considered the evidence, I find the following amounts reasonable, and award $250.00 to mow the lawns and $250.00 to fill the holes.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming $543.78 to repair glass panels in the front door, and $367.50 to repair damage to the shower.
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. 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 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Decision damage
The landlord has produced photographs showing the back door and bathroom at the commencement of the tenancy. Several glass panels in the door are missing, and the area covered by cardboard. In the bathroom, the shower door is broken, the shower head and the plug insert are missing. I am satisfied the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord has produced invoices. The amounts claimed are reasonable and awarded. Only the damaged areas were repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. Another claim
The landlord resides in another city and is claiming costs associated with travelling to and from the property after the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award damages is contained in section 77(2)(n) of the Act.
As stated in McKay v Moore (No 1) DC Napier MA1205/90, 24 October 1990, the Tribunal should ensure that, as far as money can do so, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. The case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 established a common law rule that the one who breaches the contract is only liable for loss of a kind which arises naturally from the breach, or was a loss reasonably contemplated by both parties at the time the contract was entered.
In my view, these are not losses reasonably within the contemplation of both parties at the commencement of the tenancy, and the claim is therefore declined. Costs
Because [The applicant/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 in these proceedings, seeks and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5217116 — net $6,647.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 12 March 2025 – 26 March 2025	$1,500.00	Rent arrears 12 March 2025 – 26 March 2025
General cleaning	$1,200.00	General cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal skip hire	$813.70	Rubbish removal skip hire
Rubbish removal labour	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal labour
Repairs: glass panels in front door	$543.78	Repairs: glass panels in front door
Repairs: shower repairs	$367.50	Repairs: shower repairs
Lawns	$500.00	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,647.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,647.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tracy Hope Sefton must pay [The landlord/s] $6,147.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
On 07 March 2025, the Tribunal ordered rent arrears to 11 March 2025 and confirmed a final termination date of 27 April 2025. This was conditional on the tenant continuing to pay weekly rent. The Tribunal also ordered the release of the bond. The balance owing by the tenant was $1,467.00, which was to be paid on 28 April 2025. The order stated that if the tenant failed to pay weekly rent, the tenancy would be terminated immediately.
The tenant made one rent payment on 12 March 2025. No further payments were made. On 19 March 2025, the tenant advised the landlord that they would vacate the property on 26 March 2025. The landlord attended the property on 27 March 2025 and confirmed that the tenant had vacated. On 28 March 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage.
Initially, the landlord claimed rent arrears from 12 March 2025 to 27 April 2025. However, the Tribunal has explained that, as the tenant breached the terms of the conditional order, they are only liable for rent until the date they vacated the property on 26 March 2025, and not 27 April 2025. The landlord has produced an updated rent summary. The Tribunal awards the rent arrears from 12 March 2025 to 26 March 2025 of $1,500.00. This is in addition to the amounts already ordered by the Tribunal on 07 March 2025.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The landlord also claims that the tenant failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition.
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 Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The property comprises four bedrooms, a sleepout, two bathrooms, lounge / dining room area, kitchen, laundry, and garage.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy. Having considered the photographs and heard from the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. The photographs show a significant amount of rubbish left by the tenant. It appears that no cleaning was undertaken. The landlord states that the tenant kept a dog or dogs at the property, which were allowed to urinate and defecate throughout the house. The photographs show evidence of animals at the property. This was also confirmed in the previous hearing at which the tenant appeared.
The landlord states that they obtained quotes for general cleaning and rubbish removal which exceeded $2,000.00 and $3,400.00, respectively. As they could not afford these quotes, they engaged three neighbours to help complete the work. The landlord is claiming $813.70 skip bin hire, $1,880.00 for labour to fill the bins, $1410.00 for general cleaning, and $195.50 for carpet cleaning.
Having considered the evidence, I find the following amounts reasonable, and I award the skip bin hire as claimed, labour of $1,500.00 to fill the skips, $1,200.00 for general cleaning, and $195.50 for carpet cleaning.
The lawns at the rear of the property were left overgrown. The landlord also states that the tenant’s dogs dug large holes in the lawn which required filling. The landlord is claiming $1,200.00 to mow the lawn and fill the holes. Once again, the work was completed by the neighbours. The only photographs of the holes are taken from a distance and after they have been filled. Having considered the evidence, I find the following amounts reasonable, and award $250.00 to mow the lawns and $250.00 to fill the holes.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming $543.78 to repair glass panels in the front door, and $367.50 to repair damage to the shower.
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. 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 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Decision damage
The landlord has produced photographs showing the back door and bathroom at the commencement of the tenancy. Several glass panels in the door are missing, and the area covered by cardboard. In the bathroom, the shower door is broken, the shower head and the plug insert are missing. I am satisfied the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord has produced invoices. The amounts claimed are reasonable and awarded. Only the damaged areas were repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. Another claim
The landlord resides in another city and is claiming costs associated with travelling to and from the property after the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award damages is contained in section 77(2)(n) of the Act.
As stated in McKay v Moore (No 1) DC Napier MA1205/90, 24 October 1990, the Tribunal should ensure that, as far as money can do so, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. The case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 established a common law rule that the one who breaches the contract is only liable for loss of a kind which arises naturally from the breach, or was a loss reasonably contemplated by both parties at the time the contract was entered.
In my view, these are not losses reasonably within the contemplation of both parties at the commencement of the tenancy, and the claim is therefore declined. Costs
Because [The applicant/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 in these proceedings, seeks and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5217116 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5217116 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions