What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220457 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 5220457?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Owners Time: $1,995.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,530.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $317.78 awarded to landlord; Residual Waste: $339.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Bag: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $511.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220457?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464660-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220457 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 5220457?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Owners Time: $1,995.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,530.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $317.78 awarded to landlord; Residual Waste: $339.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Bag: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $511.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220457?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464660-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220457 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220457 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220457 — net $6,600.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish bag	$180.00	Rubbish bag
Rubbish removal	$511.75	Rubbish removal
Residual waste	$339.00	Residual waste
Garage door repair	$2,530.00	Garage door repair
Repainting	$317.78	Repainting
Pest control	$300.00	Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Owners time	$1,995.00	Owners time
Window repair	$200.00	Window repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,600.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,600.53

Claims and awards for application 5220457 — net $6,600.53 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish bag

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish bag

Rubbish removal

Amount: $511.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Residual waste

Amount: $339.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Residual waste

Garage door repair

Amount: $2,530.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garage door repair

Repainting

Amount: $317.78
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repainting

Pest control

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Danielle Thatcher must pay [The landlord/s] $6,600.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish bag$180.00 Rubbish removal$511.75 Residual waste$339.00 Garage door repair$2,530.00 Repainting$317.78 Pest control$300.00 Carpet Cleaning$200.00 Owners time$1,995.00 Window repair$200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$6,600.53 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,600.53

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord. The tenant seeks compensation for pumping out a septic tank. The landlord seeks orders in relation to damage, cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy.
At the first hearing (which was adjourned), the landlord and Ms Thatcher attended. However at the second hearing today, only the landlord attended.
I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

There are two tenancy agreements available.
One tenancy agreement records the landlord as [The landlord/s] by way of an agent, [The property management company]. The tenant is [redacted] The tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy from 24 June 2022, until 23 June 2027. That tenancy agreement is undated and unsigned.
The second tenancy agreement records the same landlord, but a different tenant, Danielle Katrina Thatcher. That was also a fixed-term tenancy, commencing on 22 June 2022, running to 23 June 2027. Otherwise this tenancy agreement is also undated and unsigned.
There had been an earlier Tribunal hearing, where Ms Thatcher was the respondent, and Ms Thatcher was ordered to pay $12,920 to the landlord. The adjudicator, Mr Young, did not record that there were any issues with who the tenant was, that will be relevant shortly. That application is 5073849.
The tenancy came to an end following notice from Ms Thatcher. The landlord’s position is that when the premises were vacated, there was widespread damage, and compensation is claimed for that.
Ms Thatcher has filed her own application against the landlord. Tenancy Tribunal order 27 May 2025
These applications first came to the Tribunal on 27 May 2025, being applications from Ms Thatcher and the landlord.
I have set out the background and issues comprehensively in that order, but in summary the preliminary issue was whether Ms Thatcher was in fact the tenant. Ms Thatcher’s position is that she had never agreed to be a tenant, but that someone else had provided her details to the landlord. The landlord’s position is that someone (but the landlord could not remember who) had requested the change of tenant to avoid the premises being raided, and Ms Thatcher’s details were provided. In response, Ms Thatcher says that her employer had that information, meaning Ms Kahoea had access to that information, and fraudulently gave it to the landlord.
The Tribunal ordered that the application be amended to include Matilda Rawinia Kahotea as the second respondent. The hearing was then adjourned to today, so that I could hear from both tenants as to who the correct tenant was.
The hearing was reconvened in the North Shore today on 25 September 2025. As above, there was no appearance by either tenant at the hearing. I have no reason to believe that the hearing notice was not served on Ms Thatcher, given she had been served for the original hearing and attended from that. Ms Kahoea emailed the Tribunal yesterday disputing that she was the tenant, so it is evident Ms Kahoea has been served.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing on 27 May 2025, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rubbish bag $180.00 b. General waste $511.75 c. Residual waste collection $339.00 d. Garage door repair $2,530.00 e. Paint $317.78 f. Pest control $300.00 g. Carpet cleaning $200.00 h. Owners time $1,995.00 i. Glass j. Filing fee k. Combine earlier order with this current order.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Ms Thatcher confirmed at the May hearing that her only claim was for the emptying of a septic tank where she is claiming $667.50.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

LANDLORDS CLAIM

Who is the tenant?

The preliminary matter to determine is as set out in the Tribunal’s May order – who are the tenants?
On the basis of the evidence available, I accept that the original tenant was likely to be Ms Kahoea. At some stage Ms Thatcher became the tenant.
In my assessment, the determinative evidence of that, is the earlier rent arrears hearing before Mr Young, that was in February 2025. I consider the decision that was issued by Adjudicator Young is important, because it does not reflect a case where Ms Thatcher, who was the respondent and present at the hearing, objected to her being the respondent tenant. Mr Young records the following in his order, being the full reasoning:
Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application for termination of the tenancy was withdrawn as the tenant has given notice to terminate the tenancy in the period since this application was filed. That notice has been accepted by the landlord. The Tribunal records that the tenancy ended on 20 February 2025.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 20 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $12,920.00.
The tenant said in evidence that she no longer lived at the premises and that she had asked the landlord if she could leave in August 2023.
The tenant is recorded in the tenancy agreement as the tenant. The tenancy agreement is a fixed term agreement through until 23 June 2027. There was no obligation on the landlord to release the tenant from her obligations under the tenancy agreement and the landlord did not do so.
The tenant said that she no longer lives at the premises and has not done so for some time. She says that other people live there. The tenant remains contractually obliged to pay rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement through until the end of the tenancy. If the tenant sublets the premises to others, she remains liable for any unpaid rent.
As [The property management company] As Agent For [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.
Mr Young went on to make the order that Ms Thatcher pay the claimed rent arrears.
I consider that is important evidence, supporting that Ms Thatcher is the tenant for these reasons: a. Nowhere in the decision, is there any suggestion that Ms Thatcher had opposed any suggestion she was the tenant; rather what the adjudicator has recorded, is entirely in line with what would have occurred if she was a tenant, such as giving notice. b. I have also reviewed the file for Mr Young’s hearing, and again there is no suggestion in the file, that Thatcher has suggested she is not the tenant, such as emails to the Tribunal or other statements suggesting she was wrongly being pursued. c. The Tribunal’s order was just under $9,000 after bond was deducted, a substantial amount that Ms Thatcher was ordered to pay. There is no evidence of Ms Thatcher seeking a rehearing or an appeal, which would be expected if she believed there was such an incorrect outcome.
Ms Thatcher has filed her own application against the landlord, on the basis of being a tenant. That relates to draining the septic tank, but again if she was not the tenant, it would not make sense that she would file such a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal.
On the evidence available, I find that Ms Thatcher is the tenant at the end of the tenancy and will be liable for the respective orders. Landlords claims
I will now consider the landlord’s claims. In doing so, I will aggregate those claims were sensible, such as to consider all rubbish related claims together. Claim 1 - Rubbish
The landlord’s position is that there was extensive rubbish left on the premises when the tenant departed. The landlord seeks an order for: a. Rubbish bag$180.00 b. General waste$511.75 c. Residual waste collection $339.00
The landlord states that there was extensive rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. This included a range of furniture, a fridge with rotting food and a mattress. The landlord originally got a skip bin, and when that was full, they started to fill flexi bags. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord, which I accept to show the property at the end of the tenancy. There was extensive rubbish left in the premises, and large items, which would be commensurate with the level of compensation claimed for the rubbish removal. The tenant has not returned the premises to the landlord in a reasonably tidy state, she has not removed the rubbish, so is liable for those costs.
I find this claim has been established, and it is ordered in full. Claim 2 - Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that the premises were unclean when returned to the landlord. The following costs are claimed: a. Pest control$300.00 b. Carpet cleaning$200.00 c. Owners time1,995.00
The landlord states that the owner did the cleaning and rubbish removal themselves, and they were working on the property for over two weeks, cleaning and removing the rubbish. The grounds were very overgrown. The pest control related to fleas in the premises, and given the state of the carpet with fleas, carpet cleaning was required. Analysis
Again the photographs provided show a property that was very dirty at the end of the tenancy, to that extent the tenant has not returned the premises reasonably clean. I accept there was a flea infestation, so the tenant must be liable for the pest control cost. The claim for the owner’s time seems reasonable given the extent of work that would have been needed to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Damage
The landlord’s position is that the premises were damaged when returned, and compensation for that is claimed. The landlord seeks orders for: a. Garage door repair$2,530.00 b. Paint$317.78 c. Glass repair
The landlord states that the whole garage door was missing and needed to be reinstalled. The garage door contractor said the tenants had taken the door off. The landlord recalls the tenants saying that they needed to put something in the garage that was too high, so they removed the garage door.
The painting relates to the repairs to the walls which needed to be repaired. During the tenancy, the tenants painted the walls a dark colour, and so the premises were repainted back to a neutral colour. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am satisfied this claim has been established. The photographs show that the garage door had been removed and was in sections on the property. I have no reason to conclude that the tenant did not undertake that removal, so the tenant must be liable for those costs.
I also accept that the inside of the premises had been repainted in a dark grey colour, and the landlord was therefore entitled to have the premises returned to a neutral colour. The tenant will be liable for that repainting work.
The evidence is that the tenants broke a window at the premises. Unfortunately, the landlord was unable to identify what the cost of the window replacement was. I accept that the window was broken, and will therefore make a nominal order of $200 toward the glass replacement, no doubt that would be less than what a glazier would charge, but in the absence of evidence of the actual loss, I would not make a higher order. Claim 4 – Combine with earlier order
The landlord seeks an order combining this new claim with the earlier Tribunal order from 26 February 2025, being the order from Mr Young under application 5073849.
At the hearing today, the landlord confirmed that the original order has already been the subject of an application for enforcement, and because of that, I declined to combine both orders. That simply means that the landlord will need to apply to enforce this current order separately.

TENANTS CLAIM

Ms Thatcher’s sole claim is for emptying a septic tank to the sum of $667.50.
In response to this claim, the landlord says that the tenants did not raise any issues with the septic tank, so the landlord opposes this claim. Analysis
The usual situation is that when a party does not attend a hearing, the claims are dismissed. In the tenancy jurisdiction, the Tribunal could make an order in the absence of an applicant, but only if there was sufficient evidence to prove the claim. But in this case, there is insufficient evidence showing that the landlord is liable for any septic tank costs, so this claim is dismissed. Bond
At the hearing, we discussed the release of the bond. I indicated to the landlord that I would check on whether there was a bond; however, I see that the Tribunal released the bond to the landlord already, in the rent arrears order on 26 February 2025. There was $4,000.00 of bond released, which offset the rent owed by Ms Thatcher.
Accordingly, there is no remaining bond that the Tribunal can order to be paid to the landlord.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the respondent has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220457 — net $6,600.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish bag	$180.00	Rubbish bag
Rubbish removal	$511.75	Rubbish removal
Residual waste	$339.00	Residual waste
Garage door repair	$2,530.00	Garage door repair
Repainting	$317.78	Repainting
Pest control	$300.00	Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Owners time	$1,995.00	Owners time
Window repair	$200.00	Window repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,600.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,600.53

Claims and awards for application 5220457 — net $6,600.53 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish bag

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish bag

Rubbish removal

Amount: $511.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Residual waste

Amount: $339.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Residual waste

Garage door repair

Amount: $2,530.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garage door repair

Repainting

Amount: $317.78
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repainting

Pest control

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Danielle Thatcher must pay [The landlord/s] $6,600.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish bag$180.00 Rubbish removal$511.75 Residual waste$339.00 Garage door repair$2,530.00 Repainting$317.78 Pest control$300.00 Carpet Cleaning$200.00 Owners time$1,995.00 Window repair$200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$6,600.53 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,600.53

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord. The tenant seeks compensation for pumping out a septic tank. The landlord seeks orders in relation to damage, cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy.
At the first hearing (which was adjourned), the landlord and Ms Thatcher attended. However at the second hearing today, only the landlord attended.
I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

There are two tenancy agreements available.
One tenancy agreement records the landlord as [The landlord/s] by way of an agent, [The property management company]. The tenant is [redacted] The tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy from 24 June 2022, until 23 June 2027. That tenancy agreement is undated and unsigned.
The second tenancy agreement records the same landlord, but a different tenant, Danielle Katrina Thatcher. That was also a fixed-term tenancy, commencing on 22 June 2022, running to 23 June 2027. Otherwise this tenancy agreement is also undated and unsigned.
There had been an earlier Tribunal hearing, where Ms Thatcher was the respondent, and Ms Thatcher was ordered to pay $12,920 to the landlord. The adjudicator, Mr Young, did not record that there were any issues with who the tenant was, that will be relevant shortly. That application is 5073849.
The tenancy came to an end following notice from Ms Thatcher. The landlord’s position is that when the premises were vacated, there was widespread damage, and compensation is claimed for that.
Ms Thatcher has filed her own application against the landlord. Tenancy Tribunal order 27 May 2025
These applications first came to the Tribunal on 27 May 2025, being applications from Ms Thatcher and the landlord.
I have set out the background and issues comprehensively in that order, but in summary the preliminary issue was whether Ms Thatcher was in fact the tenant. Ms Thatcher’s position is that she had never agreed to be a tenant, but that someone else had provided her details to the landlord. The landlord’s position is that someone (but the landlord could not remember who) had requested the change of tenant to avoid the premises being raided, and Ms Thatcher’s details were provided. In response, Ms Thatcher says that her employer had that information, meaning Ms Kahoea had access to that information, and fraudulently gave it to the landlord.
The Tribunal ordered that the application be amended to include Matilda Rawinia Kahotea as the second respondent. The hearing was then adjourned to today, so that I could hear from both tenants as to who the correct tenant was.
The hearing was reconvened in the North Shore today on 25 September 2025. As above, there was no appearance by either tenant at the hearing. I have no reason to believe that the hearing notice was not served on Ms Thatcher, given she had been served for the original hearing and attended from that. Ms Kahoea emailed the Tribunal yesterday disputing that she was the tenant, so it is evident Ms Kahoea has been served.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing on 27 May 2025, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rubbish bag $180.00 b. General waste $511.75 c. Residual waste collection $339.00 d. Garage door repair $2,530.00 e. Paint $317.78 f. Pest control $300.00 g. Carpet cleaning $200.00 h. Owners time $1,995.00 i. Glass j. Filing fee k. Combine earlier order with this current order.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Ms Thatcher confirmed at the May hearing that her only claim was for the emptying of a septic tank where she is claiming $667.50.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

LANDLORDS CLAIM

Who is the tenant?

The preliminary matter to determine is as set out in the Tribunal’s May order – who are the tenants?
On the basis of the evidence available, I accept that the original tenant was likely to be Ms Kahoea. At some stage Ms Thatcher became the tenant.
In my assessment, the determinative evidence of that, is the earlier rent arrears hearing before Mr Young, that was in February 2025. I consider the decision that was issued by Adjudicator Young is important, because it does not reflect a case where Ms Thatcher, who was the respondent and present at the hearing, objected to her being the respondent tenant. Mr Young records the following in his order, being the full reasoning:
Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application for termination of the tenancy was withdrawn as the tenant has given notice to terminate the tenancy in the period since this application was filed. That notice has been accepted by the landlord. The Tribunal records that the tenancy ended on 20 February 2025.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 20 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $12,920.00.
The tenant said in evidence that she no longer lived at the premises and that she had asked the landlord if she could leave in August 2023.
The tenant is recorded in the tenancy agreement as the tenant. The tenancy agreement is a fixed term agreement through until 23 June 2027. There was no obligation on the landlord to release the tenant from her obligations under the tenancy agreement and the landlord did not do so.
The tenant said that she no longer lives at the premises and has not done so for some time. She says that other people live there. The tenant remains contractually obliged to pay rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement through until the end of the tenancy. If the tenant sublets the premises to others, she remains liable for any unpaid rent.
As [The property management company] As Agent For [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.
Mr Young went on to make the order that Ms Thatcher pay the claimed rent arrears.
I consider that is important evidence, supporting that Ms Thatcher is the tenant for these reasons: a. Nowhere in the decision, is there any suggestion that Ms Thatcher had opposed any suggestion she was the tenant; rather what the adjudicator has recorded, is entirely in line with what would have occurred if she was a tenant, such as giving notice. b. I have also reviewed the file for Mr Young’s hearing, and again there is no suggestion in the file, that Thatcher has suggested she is not the tenant, such as emails to the Tribunal or other statements suggesting she was wrongly being pursued. c. The Tribunal’s order was just under $9,000 after bond was deducted, a substantial amount that Ms Thatcher was ordered to pay. There is no evidence of Ms Thatcher seeking a rehearing or an appeal, which would be expected if she believed there was such an incorrect outcome.
Ms Thatcher has filed her own application against the landlord, on the basis of being a tenant. That relates to draining the septic tank, but again if she was not the tenant, it would not make sense that she would file such a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal.
On the evidence available, I find that Ms Thatcher is the tenant at the end of the tenancy and will be liable for the respective orders. Landlords claims
I will now consider the landlord’s claims. In doing so, I will aggregate those claims were sensible, such as to consider all rubbish related claims together. Claim 1 - Rubbish
The landlord’s position is that there was extensive rubbish left on the premises when the tenant departed. The landlord seeks an order for: a. Rubbish bag$180.00 b. General waste$511.75 c. Residual waste collection $339.00
The landlord states that there was extensive rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. This included a range of furniture, a fridge with rotting food and a mattress. The landlord originally got a skip bin, and when that was full, they started to fill flexi bags. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord, which I accept to show the property at the end of the tenancy. There was extensive rubbish left in the premises, and large items, which would be commensurate with the level of compensation claimed for the rubbish removal. The tenant has not returned the premises to the landlord in a reasonably tidy state, she has not removed the rubbish, so is liable for those costs.
I find this claim has been established, and it is ordered in full. Claim 2 - Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that the premises were unclean when returned to the landlord. The following costs are claimed: a. Pest control$300.00 b. Carpet cleaning$200.00 c. Owners time1,995.00
The landlord states that the owner did the cleaning and rubbish removal themselves, and they were working on the property for over two weeks, cleaning and removing the rubbish. The grounds were very overgrown. The pest control related to fleas in the premises, and given the state of the carpet with fleas, carpet cleaning was required. Analysis
Again the photographs provided show a property that was very dirty at the end of the tenancy, to that extent the tenant has not returned the premises reasonably clean. I accept there was a flea infestation, so the tenant must be liable for the pest control cost. The claim for the owner’s time seems reasonable given the extent of work that would have been needed to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Damage
The landlord’s position is that the premises were damaged when returned, and compensation for that is claimed. The landlord seeks orders for: a. Garage door repair$2,530.00 b. Paint$317.78 c. Glass repair
The landlord states that the whole garage door was missing and needed to be reinstalled. The garage door contractor said the tenants had taken the door off. The landlord recalls the tenants saying that they needed to put something in the garage that was too high, so they removed the garage door.
The painting relates to the repairs to the walls which needed to be repaired. During the tenancy, the tenants painted the walls a dark colour, and so the premises were repainted back to a neutral colour. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am satisfied this claim has been established. The photographs show that the garage door had been removed and was in sections on the property. I have no reason to conclude that the tenant did not undertake that removal, so the tenant must be liable for those costs.
I also accept that the inside of the premises had been repainted in a dark grey colour, and the landlord was therefore entitled to have the premises returned to a neutral colour. The tenant will be liable for that repainting work.
The evidence is that the tenants broke a window at the premises. Unfortunately, the landlord was unable to identify what the cost of the window replacement was. I accept that the window was broken, and will therefore make a nominal order of $200 toward the glass replacement, no doubt that would be less than what a glazier would charge, but in the absence of evidence of the actual loss, I would not make a higher order. Claim 4 – Combine with earlier order
The landlord seeks an order combining this new claim with the earlier Tribunal order from 26 February 2025, being the order from Mr Young under application 5073849.
At the hearing today, the landlord confirmed that the original order has already been the subject of an application for enforcement, and because of that, I declined to combine both orders. That simply means that the landlord will need to apply to enforce this current order separately.

TENANTS CLAIM

Ms Thatcher’s sole claim is for emptying a septic tank to the sum of $667.50.
In response to this claim, the landlord says that the tenants did not raise any issues with the septic tank, so the landlord opposes this claim. Analysis
The usual situation is that when a party does not attend a hearing, the claims are dismissed. In the tenancy jurisdiction, the Tribunal could make an order in the absence of an applicant, but only if there was sufficient evidence to prove the claim. But in this case, there is insufficient evidence showing that the landlord is liable for any septic tank costs, so this claim is dismissed. Bond
At the hearing, we discussed the release of the bond. I indicated to the landlord that I would check on whether there was a bond; however, I see that the Tribunal released the bond to the landlord already, in the rent arrears order on 26 February 2025. There was $4,000.00 of bond released, which offset the rent owed by Ms Thatcher.
Accordingly, there is no remaining bond that the Tribunal can order to be paid to the landlord.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the respondent has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220457 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220457 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIM

Who is the tenant?

How much is owed for rent ?

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIM

Who is the tenant?

How much is owed for rent ?

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions