What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5222774 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 5222774?

Break Lease Fee: $891.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $506.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,437.50 awarded to tenant; Curtains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222774?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5222774 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 5222774?

Break Lease Fee: $891.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $506.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,437.50 awarded to tenant; Curtains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222774?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Belmont Avenue, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222774 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222774 — net $839.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break lease fee	$891.25		Break lease fee
Rubbish removal	$40.00		Rubbish removal
Curtains	$200.00		Curtains
Compensation – oven installation		$506.00	Compensation – oven installation
Compensation – removal of tree debris		$1,437.50	Compensation – removal of tree debris
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,131.25	$1,970.50
Net award		$839.25
Bond		$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$839.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Quinovic Property Management Limited As Agent For J Forde & C Wilcox must pay [The tenant/s] $839.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s]: $3,120.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. One tenant represented the other at today’s hearing. The property management company represented the owners.
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of the costs they incurred when having the oven installed and having fallen trees removed, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for the break lease fee, rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and replacement curtains, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek payment of or from the bond.
This Order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous Order dated 3 June 2025. The Tenants’ claim Oven installation cost
It was accepted evidence that the tenants paid $506.00 to have an oven, purchased by the owner of the property, installed.
The landlord says that they ought not to reimburse this cost to the tenants because at the time of installation the tenants agreed to pay for it, and because the tenants did not seek reimbursement of this cost until the landlord made claims for costs against the tenants at the end of the tenancy.
Whether or not the tenants sought this cost only after the landlord made claims against them, is immaterial. Tenants are entitled to make a claim, regardless of their motivation for doing so.
Further, even if the tenants did agree to pay the costs of installation, s11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that an agreement or arrangement entered into which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA shall be of no effect, unless the inconsistence is expressly permitted by the RTA or the Tribunal is satisfied that the inconsistency ought to be permitted, having regard to the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties and all other relevant circumstances.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The installation of an oven is clearly a landlord’s responsibility and s11 applies to any agreement, if there was one, that the tenants pay for this.
No evidence has been given that would persuade me that the inconsistency should be permitted and the landlord is therefore required to reimburse the cost of installing the oven to the tenants. Removal of tree debris
Again, there was no dispute that the tenants arranged to have large trees that had fallen during a storm, removed.
The landlord queried whether or not the invoice for removal was genuine and whether the tenants had in fact paid the invoice.
Further, the landlord stated that the tenants had agreed to pay the cost of removing the trees and so it is not the landlord’s responsibility to reimburse the tenants any costs associated with the removal.
Again, the landlord queried the timing of the tenants’ claim for reimbursement.
I am satisfied that the landlord ought to pay the cost of removing the tree debris.
I see no reason to query the invoice or whether it was paid. There was no evidence provided to show that the invoice was a fake and that the tenants had not paid it.
Further, the fact is that the tenants had the tree debris removed and by virtue of s11, as outlined above, the landlord is responsible for reimbursing this cost to the tenants. Filing fee reimbursement
The tenants were fully successful with their claim against the landlord and so the landlord is required to reimburse them the filing fee. The landlord’s claim Break lease fee
From the beginning, the tenants accepted that they were required to pay the break lease fee of $891.25. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord seeks $210.00 for cleaning, $240.00 for window cleaning and $119.90 for rubbish removal.
At the end of a tenancy, tenants are required to leave the premises reasonably clean. They are not required to leave it perfectly clean in readiness for the next tenant.
I am dismissing the claims for cleaning and window cleaning. While I accept that there were some photos that showed minor areas that were missed by the commercial cleaners contracted by the tenants to clean the property, and that the outside of the windows had not been cleaned, overall I consider the premises were left in a reasonably clean condition.
At today’s hearing the tenant accepted that they had left a minor amount of rubbish in the woodshed.
The photos of the outside of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy show that otherwise the outside was left in good condition. I am therefore not awarding the green waste dump fees to the landlord.
In coming to an award of $40.00 for rubbish removal I have taken into account half the cost of a green waste/dump fee and allowed approximately $28.00 for the labour of removing the rubbish left by the tenants.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
I accept the evidence showing that the damage to the curtains in the master bedroom occurred during this tenancy. The pre-entry inspection report shows that they were in good condition when the tenancy started and t evidence shows that there were pulls in the bottom of the curtains at the end of the tenancy.
This damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord claims the insurance excess they paid to have the curtains replaced. The actual cost of the replacement curtains was $1,400.00.
In considering how much the tenants ought to pay the landlords for the curtains, I must take depreciation onto account.
The landlord states that the curtains are three years old. There was no evidence provided to support this. If they were three years old when the tenancy finished that would mean that they were bought new 6 months prior to the tenancy starting.
Even if, as suggested, the curtains were three years old, curtains such as this in a tenanted situation are expected to last approximately three years. This is because the material is liable to pull, as it has done.
This means that these curtains have lasted their expected life time.
However, the curtains have a residual value, despite this, and I have assessed that value as being $200.00. The tenants are required to pay this amount. Filing fee reimbursement
Section 102(4)(b) provides that the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee if the applicant has been partly successful with their claim.
The landlord has been partly successful.
However I am using my discretion not to order reimbursement of the filing fee. I do so because throughout these hearings the tenant has accepted that which they have owed. Had the landlord better understood the law relating to the issues aired at the hearings, this matter would most likely have been settled without having to come to the Tribunal. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have applied for suppression of their names.
I am allowing suppression of the tenants’ names pursuant to s95A(3).
The landlord is not entitled to suppression pursuant to s95A(3) because they were not wholly or substantially successful with their claim.
I am not using my discretion to allow suppression of the landlord’s name pursuant to s95A(1) because I consider that had the landlord been realistic with their claim, and cognisant of their responsibilities under the RTA, this matter could have been dealt with by agreement, outside of the auspices of the Tribunal.
Indeed, I gave the parties an opportunity to do so during the adjournment period, after having set out the law and done some clear reality testing during the first hearing.
It was apparent from the beginning of today’s hearing that the landlord maintained their original position so that agreement had not been possible. C ter Haar 29 July 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222774 — net $839.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break lease fee	$891.25		Break lease fee
Rubbish removal	$40.00		Rubbish removal
Curtains	$200.00		Curtains
Compensation – oven installation		$506.00	Compensation – oven installation
Compensation – removal of tree debris		$1,437.50	Compensation – removal of tree debris
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,131.25	$1,970.50
Net award		$839.25
Bond		$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$839.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Quinovic Property Management Limited As Agent For J Forde & C Wilcox must pay [The tenant/s] $839.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s]: $3,120.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. One tenant represented the other at today’s hearing. The property management company represented the owners.
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of the costs they incurred when having the oven installed and having fallen trees removed, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for the break lease fee, rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and replacement curtains, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek payment of or from the bond.
This Order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous Order dated 3 June 2025. The Tenants’ claim Oven installation cost
It was accepted evidence that the tenants paid $506.00 to have an oven, purchased by the owner of the property, installed.
The landlord says that they ought not to reimburse this cost to the tenants because at the time of installation the tenants agreed to pay for it, and because the tenants did not seek reimbursement of this cost until the landlord made claims for costs against the tenants at the end of the tenancy.
Whether or not the tenants sought this cost only after the landlord made claims against them, is immaterial. Tenants are entitled to make a claim, regardless of their motivation for doing so.
Further, even if the tenants did agree to pay the costs of installation, s11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that an agreement or arrangement entered into which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA shall be of no effect, unless the inconsistence is expressly permitted by the RTA or the Tribunal is satisfied that the inconsistency ought to be permitted, having regard to the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties and all other relevant circumstances.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The installation of an oven is clearly a landlord’s responsibility and s11 applies to any agreement, if there was one, that the tenants pay for this.
No evidence has been given that would persuade me that the inconsistency should be permitted and the landlord is therefore required to reimburse the cost of installing the oven to the tenants. Removal of tree debris
Again, there was no dispute that the tenants arranged to have large trees that had fallen during a storm, removed.
The landlord queried whether or not the invoice for removal was genuine and whether the tenants had in fact paid the invoice.
Further, the landlord stated that the tenants had agreed to pay the cost of removing the trees and so it is not the landlord’s responsibility to reimburse the tenants any costs associated with the removal.
Again, the landlord queried the timing of the tenants’ claim for reimbursement.
I am satisfied that the landlord ought to pay the cost of removing the tree debris.
I see no reason to query the invoice or whether it was paid. There was no evidence provided to show that the invoice was a fake and that the tenants had not paid it.
Further, the fact is that the tenants had the tree debris removed and by virtue of s11, as outlined above, the landlord is responsible for reimbursing this cost to the tenants. Filing fee reimbursement
The tenants were fully successful with their claim against the landlord and so the landlord is required to reimburse them the filing fee. The landlord’s claim Break lease fee
From the beginning, the tenants accepted that they were required to pay the break lease fee of $891.25. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord seeks $210.00 for cleaning, $240.00 for window cleaning and $119.90 for rubbish removal.
At the end of a tenancy, tenants are required to leave the premises reasonably clean. They are not required to leave it perfectly clean in readiness for the next tenant.
I am dismissing the claims for cleaning and window cleaning. While I accept that there were some photos that showed minor areas that were missed by the commercial cleaners contracted by the tenants to clean the property, and that the outside of the windows had not been cleaned, overall I consider the premises were left in a reasonably clean condition.
At today’s hearing the tenant accepted that they had left a minor amount of rubbish in the woodshed.
The photos of the outside of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy show that otherwise the outside was left in good condition. I am therefore not awarding the green waste dump fees to the landlord.
In coming to an award of $40.00 for rubbish removal I have taken into account half the cost of a green waste/dump fee and allowed approximately $28.00 for the labour of removing the rubbish left by the tenants.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
I accept the evidence showing that the damage to the curtains in the master bedroom occurred during this tenancy. The pre-entry inspection report shows that they were in good condition when the tenancy started and t evidence shows that there were pulls in the bottom of the curtains at the end of the tenancy.
This damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord claims the insurance excess they paid to have the curtains replaced. The actual cost of the replacement curtains was $1,400.00.
In considering how much the tenants ought to pay the landlords for the curtains, I must take depreciation onto account.
The landlord states that the curtains are three years old. There was no evidence provided to support this. If they were three years old when the tenancy finished that would mean that they were bought new 6 months prior to the tenancy starting.
Even if, as suggested, the curtains were three years old, curtains such as this in a tenanted situation are expected to last approximately three years. This is because the material is liable to pull, as it has done.
This means that these curtains have lasted their expected life time.
However, the curtains have a residual value, despite this, and I have assessed that value as being $200.00. The tenants are required to pay this amount. Filing fee reimbursement
Section 102(4)(b) provides that the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee if the applicant has been partly successful with their claim.
The landlord has been partly successful.
However I am using my discretion not to order reimbursement of the filing fee. I do so because throughout these hearings the tenant has accepted that which they have owed. Had the landlord better understood the law relating to the issues aired at the hearings, this matter would most likely have been settled without having to come to the Tribunal. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have applied for suppression of their names.
I am allowing suppression of the tenants’ names pursuant to s95A(3).
The landlord is not entitled to suppression pursuant to s95A(3) because they were not wholly or substantially successful with their claim.
I am not using my discretion to allow suppression of the landlord’s name pursuant to s95A(1) because I consider that had the landlord been realistic with their claim, and cognisant of their responsibilities under the RTA, this matter could have been dealt with by agreement, outside of the auspices of the Tribunal.
Indeed, I gave the parties an opportunity to do so during the adjournment period, after having set out the law and done some clear reality testing during the first hearing.
It was apparent from the beginning of today’s hearing that the landlord maintained their original position so that agreement had not been possible. C ter Haar 29 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222774 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Belmont Avenue, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222774 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Belmont Avenue, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions