What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5217117 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant to pay Simone Thomson and Evaan Thomson $5,000.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5217117?

Compensation: landlord failures (s 4…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5217117?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5217117?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13457684-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5217117 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant to pay Simone Thomson and Evaan Thomson $5,000.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5217117?

Compensation: landlord failures (s 4…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5217117?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5217117?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13457684-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Waimea Road, Nelson South, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5217117 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5217117 — net $5,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 April 2025	$7,500.00		Rent arrears to 27 April 2025
Exemplary damages: Rent in advance (s 23		$1,000.00	Rent in advance (s 23
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond (s 19		$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond (s 19
Exemplary damages: No written tenancy agreement (s 13		$500.00	No written tenancy agreement (s 13
Compensation: landlord failures (s 45(1)(a		$500.00	landlord failures (s 45(1)(a
Total award	$7,500.00	$2,500.00
Net award	$5,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,000.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5217117 — net $5,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 April 2025	$7,500.00		Rent arrears to 27 April 2025
Exemplary damages: Rent in advance (s 23		$1,000.00	Rent in advance (s 23
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond (s 19		$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond (s 19
Exemplary damages: No written tenancy agreement (s 13		$500.00	No written tenancy agreement (s 13
Compensation: landlord failures (s 45(1)(a		$500.00	landlord failures (s 45(1)(a
Total award	$7,500.00	$2,500.00
Net award	$5,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,000.00

Order

The tenant to pay Simone Thomson and Evaan Thomson $5,000.00 from the retained bond, calculated as shown in table below. No other monetary order is made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A court-appointed Thai interpreter assisted.
A previous hearing was adjourned on 9 February 2026 for the following reasons:
The landlord stated she had not received the later tenant document bundle. No follow up with the Registry took place as directed in the adjourning order. The Share function of the video conferencing facility was used to show everyone the relevant documents on-screen.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and retention of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT 216/94, 6 December 1995, Judge Thorburn made the following comments on the approach that s 85 requires the Tribunal, and the District Court on appeal, to take in residential tenancy disputes: The long title to the Act includes as part of the philosophy of the Act, expeditious determination of disputes. The Tribunal and the District Court must adopt an approach which protects that philosophy. Section 85 elaborates on the philosophy, requiring jurisdiction to be applied in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, and injuncts that disputes should be determined in accordance with general principles of law and substantial merits and justice but not so as to be bound to give effect to strict legal forms or technicalities. There must be an approach that reflects a broad intuitive sense of propriety in the circumstances of each case and recognises the overall impression and sense of fairness and equity. The broadness of this approach imports a recognition of earthy commonsense to resolution which could be marginalised if the Tribunal and courts slavishly applied technically correct legal niceties. Background
This was a fixed-term tenancy of 11 weeks. The tenant was relocating from Thailand with her younger son. Her older son had already been a school boarder in Nelson the previous year. Her intention was to enrol her younger son into school and the family of three live together for at least the academic year.
The premises is typically rented as short-term accommodation. The owners live in Australia now and use a local contact for letting activities such as cleaning. The advertisement is shown below: The landlord application
The landlord sought rent arrears of $7,500.00 and compensation of $166.75 for vacate cleaning. Additional claims of $1000.00 each for stress and harassment, and refusal to sign the tenancy agreement were made. Rent arrears
The landlord sought the rent arrears of $7,500.00 based on the rent due under a fixed-term tenancy after a claimed abandonment by the tenant.
The tenancy formed improperly with the landlord requiring all rent in advance, in addition to four weeks of bond and no written tenancy agreement. This meant $13,750.00 and a bond of $5000.00 was demanded and paid by the tenant some months before the commencement.
After involvement by a lawyer for the tenant and a property manager for the landlord, $7,500.00 of the rent in advance was returned to the tenant. This means the tenant paid rent from 10 February 2025 to 17 March 2025. The fixed-term period was to end 27 April 2025.
I am satisfied that $7,500.00 is rent in arrears for the fixed-term tenancy as contracted.

Was the tenancy abandoned?

The tenant claims to have advised the landlords in writing that she was exiting the tenancy. If so, that has not been provided. What appears is that the keys were returned on or around 28 February 2025 by no clarity of intent was provided.
The tenant’s experiences from commencement are addressed later. Suffice to record here that the tenant went to Community Law on 20 February 2025. Based on the tenant’s recounting, she believes the advice received was that this arrangement was a scam and she was told she should leave the premises, report the matter to police and alert the media. There is no written confirmation of any such advice. Any police advice appears to be that this was a civil dispute.
On 26 February 2025 the tenant engaged a lawyer to assist. The lawyer advised the landlord that same day he was acting for the tenant and all communication was to come via him, with no direct contact with the tenant. The message read (in part):
On 28 February 2025, the agent contacts the lawyer, asking him to confirm whether the tenant was intending to return to the property or had she abandoned it. The message confirms other issues would be addressed and ends with a request for confirmation of the keys being returned, or arrangements to uplift if the “tenant has vacated prematurely”.
The lawyer replied on 4 March 2025, confirming receipt of the rent returned but also advising he had been unable to contact the tenant and so had no further instructions “at this stage”. He advised that when he did, he would be in contact.
From that point things appear to have stalled. In the absence of any evidence of written notice from the tenant, we have her lawyer advising the landlord to not contact her, then the lawyer not receiving timely instructions after requests for clarity from the landlord regarding the tenant’s intentions. It is not obvious the lawyer, nor landlord, was aware the tenant had left for Auckland. The tenant stated she left on 28 February 2025 for Auckland.
In view of the tenant having returned the keys and the restriction on direct communication between the tenant and the landlord, I do not consider the requirements under section 61 of the RTA for abandonment have been satisfied. I do agree the tenant was in breach of their tenancy agreement, but the circumstances overall do not amount to abandonment.
The implications of being deemed abandoned or not pertains mainly to any duty of the landlord to mitigate the ensuing rent loss. The agent rightly advised the landlord they should not try and relet until the status of this tenancy was resolved. It remained vacant for the fixed-term period.

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 landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, requiring cleaning with an invoiced cost of $166.75 being incurred. The reason stated in the application was the need for “cleaners to clean up the mess left behind and launder the bed linen that had blood on them”.
There was no supporting evidence of any need or related cost and the claim is dismissed. Other compensation
The landlord sought $1000.00 compensation for the tenant’s refusal to sign the tenancy agreement and a further $1000.00 for the “stress and harassment of being blackmailed” by the tenant and her lawyer.
The tenant refusal to sign the belated tenancy agreement was after her concern regarding the legitimacy of the tenancy arose (rightfully or wrongfully). I consider any distress to the landlord is a direct consequence of the failure to provide a tenancy agreement in a timely manner as well as other initial failings as addressed below. I do not consider any grounds for compensation exist.
In relation to the claimed “blackmail”, I find no evidence of this.
Both compensation claims are dismissed. The tenant application
The tenant claimed significant losses that she wanted compensated by the landlord. The total sought fluctuated during the course of the proceedings. I have disregarded a later verbal submission on a total that exceeded the jurisdictional limit of this Tribunal ($100,000). I have relied on the previous table of expenses provided and adopted $44,000.00 as the compensation sought.
A number of unlawful acts were also claimed, with exemplary damages sought.
The tenant called one witness, Ms Moy Eng. She is a friend of the tenant who lives in Auckland. They met previously during international travel in 2023 and struck a friendship that endures. When the tenant encountered problems in Nelson, Ms Eng flew down to assist her. She visited the premises (although she stayed elsewhere) and accompanied the tenant on the visits to Community Law and the lawyer. Her evidence has been considered, if not directly referenced.
Ms Eng’s support in Nelson was welcomed by the tenant. It gave her both emotive and practical support. Eventually, tenant proximity to her become the next place in New Zealand the tenant moved to in an attempt to enrol her children in suitable schools in New Zealand. Suffice to note regarding that attempt is that it was unsuccessful. The tenant then returned to Thailand with her children.
By way of her witness evidence, she agreed the premises were not in reasonable condition. Part of her description related more to a feeling about the place that any specific physical failings beyond what the tenant had already raised and evidence with photos. It was useful to have her confirm that at neither legal meeting was the issue of ending the tenancy formally raised or proposed. The concern of the tenant feeling “scammed” was validated by Ms Eng but the source of the suggestion, in my mind, remains elusive after considering the respective recollections for the tenant and Ms Eng.
Regarding the $40,000 costs sought as compensation, it is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
For the range and sums of claims for compensation to succeed I would need be convinced any consequential loss as claimed flowed from a specific landlord failure or breach that was of such a nature and duration any such award was justified.
Such convincing has not occurred and no specific landlord compensation for the claimed losses is ordered. Should the tenancy agreement be cancelled (set aside)?
Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78A, if that section applies), make orders including: (g)where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part): (h)any other order that the High Court or the District Court may makeunder any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts:
This possible determination was considered on the basis of the claims by the tenant regarding deceptive advertising and landlord actions that created claimed concerns regarding the legitimacy of the tenancy. The main issue appears to be the four bedrooms as offered included a sleepout, meaning only three bedrooms were in the main dwelling. The tenant and her two sons were the intended residents.
The most significant issue appears to be the sleepout. There is no evidence to support the claim that the sleepout was either unlawful or unsafe. While, as addressed below, there were failures by the landlord I do not find any so significant to be considered grounds to set aside the agreement.

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted the failure to provide a written tenancy agreement at, or before, commencement. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The later attempt to formalise an agreement is acknowledged although the insistence on the tenant at that time to sign and return (and related threats if not) were disproportionate and had a further impact on the tenant.
The use of My Rent from the first contact with the tenant should have provided the landlord with access to a knowledge base of appropriate requirements.

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent?

The tenant claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. While the person known as Michaela was put forward as the agent (a professional property manager was engaged and acted in the role) the tenancy agreement as drafted is silent on any agency. The landlord address used in that agreement was a Christchurch address when it is clear the landlord resided in Australia.
The lack of a clearly authorised agent with sufficient detail is considered a factor in the later tenant concerns regarding the legitimacy of this tenancy arrangement.
That said, there was a local contact, albeit with minimal details and what might appear to be an expectation of required engagement by the local agent below what would be rightfully expected by an agent.
However, I do not consider any lack of detail here was an unlawful act. The subsequent confusion of the tenant might have been avoided or reduced with a properly written tenancy agreement. That consideration is reflected in the exemplary damages award vis-à-vis the lack of written tenancy agreement.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord require excessive rent in advance?

The tenant claims the landlord required more than two weeks rent in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts this. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The later return of the balance of rent by the landlord, once informed by the tenant’s counsel of the failure, is acknowledged and considered but again, the failure here is considered a contributory factor to the tenant later concerns and actions.

Were the premises to the required standard?

A reasonable state of cleanliness is not an absolute standard and does not require premises to be immaculate. “Reasonably clean” means to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable (Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT213/93, 8 February 1993). Whether or not a landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness involves an objective assessment and takes into account the age, and general condition of the property at the start of the tenancy (see s 45(1)(a)).
I have considered the respective evidence regarding the condition at commencement. It was unacceptable to leave full waste bins at entry. I also find there was some proven concerns of the tenant regarding cleanliness and outdoor items left in place but these were not egregious. What might be tolerated in a short-term rental by tenants booking “a bach” does not automatically translate to longer tenancies such as here.
The removal of the clothes dryer was unjustified. The advertising clearly showed one in place and the response of the landlord was wrong as I consider the tenant could rely on the availability as suggested in the advertising photo. The impact is not considered significant, especially given the time of the year, but it was a further series of smaller issues that somehow conflated into a bigger concern for the tenant regarding the tenancy legitimacy.
The claim regarding the non-consented status of the sleepout, nor any related safety concern, was not proven. The landlord has addressed both the consent exemption and the safety of the sleepout, providing post-hearing evidence of electrical code of compliance. This compliance was not totally obvious given some photographic evidence provided.
I consider there was some failure of the landlord to meet the requirements of s 45(a) RTA and that should result in an award of compensation. I have awarded $500.00 for this and considered the related impact on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment as well in settling on such an award.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA
The Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or been unaware, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen.
I have found three unlawful acts were committed by the landlord.
The demanded and receipt of all rent in advance was, in my opinion, a contribution to the tenant’s overreached conclusion that this arrangement was a scam, especially when combined with no written tenancy agreement. I have considered the later return of excessive rent when so demanded. I have determined the award of exemplary damages should reflect the impact and award $1000.00 here.
The failure of the landlord to lodge the $5000.00 of bond was equally concerning to the tenant. If lodged and appropriately advised to the parties by the Bond Centre, this likely would have further reduced any later concerns regarding the legitimacy of this tenancy. I have also considered no prior history of previous landlord failures and award $500.00, being at the lower end of the scale, as exemplary damages for this unlawful act by the landlord.
Lastly, the failure to provide a written tenancy agreement equally caused later angst for the tenant. The lack of written structure, as with other failures, appears to have fed a concern of fraud for the tenant. While that concern is considered inflated and without justification for any more serious determinations here, the absence of required tenancy documentation can be viewed as a contributing factor to the eventual dispute. Given this, an award of $500.00 is made. Other claims of the tenant
Compensation has been awarded as above for s 45(1)(a) RTA landlord failings.
The tenant sought much greater compensation for a wide range of costs incurred before, during and after the tenancy.
It seems clear the planned stay in Nelson did not work out as intended. The tenant incurred significant costs in coming and going, as well as extracting herself from other commitments such as her son’s international student school fees.
While the root cause for the tenant, and claimed liability, sits with the landlord, I do not find that has been established beyond any orders made already.
The challenges of embarking on this move to a foreign country would have been considerable. Issues as they arose at commencement were raised and some redress provided. Some disagreements continued. The tenant had a local (albeit from Auckland) supporter and sought legal advice from two legal sources, as well as police.
The Community Law engagement appears to have triggered more concerns than appear reasonable, given the evidenced engagement between the parties to that date and the tenant’s existing possession of the premises, issues on entry notwithstanding. There is no basis to justify the stated concern of the tenant that any “scammers” might arrive at the premises with some potential risk to the safety of the occupants.
The later formal engagement of counsel assisted with the return of the rent in advance and a better structure of the tenancy. It was clear from counsel that he would engage with the landlord and he did not want any direct communication between the landlord and tenant. The tenant’s later departure for Auckland and apparent lack of ongoing communication with counsel meant an impasse formed where the landlord could not clarify the tenant intentions regarding the fixed-term agreement and its continuation. This extended the period of rent liability for the tenant as I do not have any evidence of a prior notice such that I can consider any landlord failure to mitigate the increasing rent arrears by attempting to relet occurred. As a fully furnished premises, occupancy or departure would not be as apparent as in more typical tenancies.
I asked both the tenant and Ms Eng if ending the tenancy agreement by notice had been discussed with or by the Community Law staff or later counsel. The response was no.
I am left with a feeling that there may have other factors, beyond this tenancy, that influenced the plans and actions of the tenant. I acknowledge any such factors were not expressed by the tenant when I asked that.
There were failures by the landlord but, with the advice and support available to the tenant, these do not appear insurmountable, nor a reason to depart Nelson and this tenancy, incurring further costs on top of the not insignificant establishment costs for the tenant.
If the tenant concerns of a scam and related safety concerns regarding this tenancy were genuine, that is unfortunate with significant consequences. However, that is not a conclusion I can share after a neutral assessment, based on the evidence and submissions received.
I make no further orders for compensation. Filing fee
As each applicant has some success, I leave them to carry their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5217117 — Rent arrears at 7 Waimea Road, Nelson South, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5217117 — Rent arrears at 7 Waimea Road, Nelson South, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy abandoned?

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

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord require excessive rent in advance?

Were the premises to the required standard?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy abandoned?

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

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord require excessive rent in advance?

Were the premises to the required standard?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions