What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5236271 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 5236271?

Cleaning: $388.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $54.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Chattels: $197.17 awarded to landlord; Power Reconnection: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $302.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $465.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,172.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12756151-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5236271 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 5236271?

Cleaning: $388.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $54.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Chattels: $197.17 awarded to landlord; Power Reconnection: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $302.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $465.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,172.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12756151-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

299B High Street South, Carterton, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5236271 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5236271 — net $9,553.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,172.14	Rent arrears
Filing fees (x2	$54.00	Filing fees (x2
Lock/key replacement	$302.90	Lock/key replacement
Power reconnection	$25.00	Power reconnection
Missing chattels	$197.17	Missing chattels
Cleaning	$388.70	Cleaning
Blind replacement	$465.00	Blind replacement
Rubbish removal	$166.50	Rubbish removal
Garden hose replacement	$131.90	Garden hose replacement
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Benchtop replacement	$500.00	Benchtop replacement
Laundry sink replacement	$150.00	Laundry sink replacement
Floor repairs	$500.00	Floor repairs
Net award	$9,553.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,553.31

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord's name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,553.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears $6,172.14 Filing fees (x2)$54.00 Lock/key replacement$302.90 Power reconnection$25.00 Missing chattels$197.17 Cleaning$388.70 Blind replacement$465.00 Rubbish removal$166.50 Garden hose replacement$131.90 Window repairs$500.00 Benchtop replacement$500.00 Laundry sink replacement$150.00 Floor repairs$500.00 Total award$9,553.31 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$9,553.31

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant s have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 22 April 2023, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 21 April 2024, then it became a periodic tenancy.
The tenants have abandoned the premises. The Tribunal has previously made an order finding that the tenancy has been abandoned, and terminating the tenancy as of 22 May 2025.
The landlord now returns to the Tribunal for post tenancy compensation.

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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the landlord’s claims in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenants were in arrears at the end of the tenancy. The tenants are liable for rent for 21 days following the date the tenancy was found abandoned, which the previous adjudicator fixed at 29 April 2025. Therefore the tenant is liable for rent to 20 May 2024. The landlord has provided a rent ledger. The rent arrears of 20 May 2024 is $6,172.14. That is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Filing fee
The landlord claims for two sets of filing fees, one for the abandonment application and then this current claim. This is ordered in full, being $54.00. Claim 3 – Lock and key replacement
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. The landlord states the keys were not returned. Therefore the tenant will be liable for full cost of the lock and key replacement. The landlord claims $302.90 being the cost from King & Henry Locksmiths. This is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Power reconnection
The landlord states that the power was disconnected when the premises were returned. The landlord seeks the power reconnection charge which is $25.00. This is ordered in full, the power needed to be connected at the end of the tenancy, as the tenancy was rented to the tenants. Claim 5 – Chattels missing
The landlord states that the fire blanket, fire extinguisher and smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. A number of bulbs were missing. The costs for the landlord was $197.17 for these items to be replaced.
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. This claim is established and ordered in full Claim 6 - Cleaning
The landlord states that the premises were not returned reasonably clean. The landlord seeks the cost from Ka-Pai Cleaners. The landlord has claimed $388.70 for the cleaning cost.
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.
In this case the photographs provided confirm that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, this claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 7 – Blind replacement
The landlord seeks compensation for blind replacement. The blinds were damaged such as being bent, and were damaged from pets (cat hair that could not be removed from the cleaners.
The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of the blinds, being $465.00. I am satisfied that the blinds were damaged during the tenancy, the tenant is liable for this cost. Claim 8 – Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks costs for removal of rubbish left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord needed to undertake five runs to the tip with the rubbish on the premises. The cost incurred for this totalled $166.50. The landlord notes that he is only claiming costs for tip fees.
I am satisfied the tenants have not returned the premises reasonably clean and tidy, this claim is established, and it is ordered in full. Claim 9 – Garden hose
At the end of the tenancy the garden hose was missing, as were the fittings. The replacement cost for the items was $131.90. As above, the tenant needs to return all chattels, so is liable for the replacement cost when they are missing. Claim 10 – Damage to premises
The landlord claims for a range of damage: a. Broken ranch slider glass. The glass was cracked. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $500.00 for this. b. Broken kitchen benchtop. The bench was broken, and the benchtop has expanded from water ingress. The damage occurred during the tenancy, but no notice of this damage and need for repair was made by the tenants, causing the later damage from swelling. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $500.00 for this c. Laundry sink. The landlord states that the integrated tap has been damaged, causing the metal sink to bend. The sink needs to be replaced as a whole, according to the insurance assessor. The landlord is claiming $150 for a second-hand sink. d. Floor damage. The floors have been damaged that is established in the photographs provided by the landlord. They are polished wooden floors. The floors have been gouged and need to be refinished. Again the landlord claims for damage to the extent of the excess.
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 that the above damage must be ordered to the amounts claimed. I find that none of the damage has been established as fair wear and tear. It likely occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
In relation to the kitchen bench top, the law requires the tenant to advise of damage and repairs needed during the tenancy. If they do not advise the landlord of the necessary work, then the tenant becomes liable for any additional damage that occurs. While the tenant would not have been liable for the original benchtop damage, because water entered the benchtop over the course of time, which has necessitated the benchtop being replaced, then the tenant becomes liable for that additional damage. Claim 11 - Shovels
The landlord states that shovels needed to be purchased so that work could be undertaken in order to remedy a garden bed damaged by the tenant. The landlord claims $50.00 for these items purchased second-hand. This was a cost incurred by the landlord to remedy a breach, which was to fix a damaged garden bed. The landlord has not claimed for time or materials. I consider it would be fair to reimburse the landlord for the second-hand shovels required for the work.

CONCLUSION

The tenant will need to pay the amount ordered to the landlord. If the tenant fails to do so, then the landlord can have the debt enforced. Further information can be found here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/forms/

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, and because the landlord has been entirely successful in the claim, landlord name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5236271 — net $9,553.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,172.14	Rent arrears
Filing fees (x2	$54.00	Filing fees (x2
Lock/key replacement	$302.90	Lock/key replacement
Power reconnection	$25.00	Power reconnection
Missing chattels	$197.17	Missing chattels
Cleaning	$388.70	Cleaning
Blind replacement	$465.00	Blind replacement
Rubbish removal	$166.50	Rubbish removal
Garden hose replacement	$131.90	Garden hose replacement
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Benchtop replacement	$500.00	Benchtop replacement
Laundry sink replacement	$150.00	Laundry sink replacement
Floor repairs	$500.00	Floor repairs
Net award	$9,553.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,553.31

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord's name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,553.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears $6,172.14 Filing fees (x2)$54.00 Lock/key replacement$302.90 Power reconnection$25.00 Missing chattels$197.17 Cleaning$388.70 Blind replacement$465.00 Rubbish removal$166.50 Garden hose replacement$131.90 Window repairs$500.00 Benchtop replacement$500.00 Laundry sink replacement$150.00 Floor repairs$500.00 Total award$9,553.31 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$9,553.31

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant s have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 22 April 2023, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 21 April 2024, then it became a periodic tenancy.
The tenants have abandoned the premises. The Tribunal has previously made an order finding that the tenancy has been abandoned, and terminating the tenancy as of 22 May 2025.
The landlord now returns to the Tribunal for post tenancy compensation.

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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the landlord’s claims in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenants were in arrears at the end of the tenancy. The tenants are liable for rent for 21 days following the date the tenancy was found abandoned, which the previous adjudicator fixed at 29 April 2025. Therefore the tenant is liable for rent to 20 May 2024. The landlord has provided a rent ledger. The rent arrears of 20 May 2024 is $6,172.14. That is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Filing fee
The landlord claims for two sets of filing fees, one for the abandonment application and then this current claim. This is ordered in full, being $54.00. Claim 3 – Lock and key replacement
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. The landlord states the keys were not returned. Therefore the tenant will be liable for full cost of the lock and key replacement. The landlord claims $302.90 being the cost from King & Henry Locksmiths. This is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Power reconnection
The landlord states that the power was disconnected when the premises were returned. The landlord seeks the power reconnection charge which is $25.00. This is ordered in full, the power needed to be connected at the end of the tenancy, as the tenancy was rented to the tenants. Claim 5 – Chattels missing
The landlord states that the fire blanket, fire extinguisher and smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. A number of bulbs were missing. The costs for the landlord was $197.17 for these items to be replaced.
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. This claim is established and ordered in full Claim 6 - Cleaning
The landlord states that the premises were not returned reasonably clean. The landlord seeks the cost from Ka-Pai Cleaners. The landlord has claimed $388.70 for the cleaning cost.
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.
In this case the photographs provided confirm that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, this claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 7 – Blind replacement
The landlord seeks compensation for blind replacement. The blinds were damaged such as being bent, and were damaged from pets (cat hair that could not be removed from the cleaners.
The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of the blinds, being $465.00. I am satisfied that the blinds were damaged during the tenancy, the tenant is liable for this cost. Claim 8 – Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks costs for removal of rubbish left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord needed to undertake five runs to the tip with the rubbish on the premises. The cost incurred for this totalled $166.50. The landlord notes that he is only claiming costs for tip fees.
I am satisfied the tenants have not returned the premises reasonably clean and tidy, this claim is established, and it is ordered in full. Claim 9 – Garden hose
At the end of the tenancy the garden hose was missing, as were the fittings. The replacement cost for the items was $131.90. As above, the tenant needs to return all chattels, so is liable for the replacement cost when they are missing. Claim 10 – Damage to premises
The landlord claims for a range of damage: a. Broken ranch slider glass. The glass was cracked. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $500.00 for this. b. Broken kitchen benchtop. The bench was broken, and the benchtop has expanded from water ingress. The damage occurred during the tenancy, but no notice of this damage and need for repair was made by the tenants, causing the later damage from swelling. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $500.00 for this c. Laundry sink. The landlord states that the integrated tap has been damaged, causing the metal sink to bend. The sink needs to be replaced as a whole, according to the insurance assessor. The landlord is claiming $150 for a second-hand sink. d. Floor damage. The floors have been damaged that is established in the photographs provided by the landlord. They are polished wooden floors. The floors have been gouged and need to be refinished. Again the landlord claims for damage to the extent of the excess.
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 that the above damage must be ordered to the amounts claimed. I find that none of the damage has been established as fair wear and tear. It likely occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
In relation to the kitchen bench top, the law requires the tenant to advise of damage and repairs needed during the tenancy. If they do not advise the landlord of the necessary work, then the tenant becomes liable for any additional damage that occurs. While the tenant would not have been liable for the original benchtop damage, because water entered the benchtop over the course of time, which has necessitated the benchtop being replaced, then the tenant becomes liable for that additional damage. Claim 11 - Shovels
The landlord states that shovels needed to be purchased so that work could be undertaken in order to remedy a garden bed damaged by the tenant. The landlord claims $50.00 for these items purchased second-hand. This was a cost incurred by the landlord to remedy a breach, which was to fix a damaged garden bed. The landlord has not claimed for time or materials. I consider it would be fair to reimburse the landlord for the second-hand shovels required for the work.

CONCLUSION

The tenant will need to pay the amount ordered to the landlord. If the tenant fails to do so, then the landlord can have the debt enforced. Further information can be found here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/forms/

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, and because the landlord has been entirely successful in the claim, landlord name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236271 — Rent arrears at 299B High Street South, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236271 — Rent arrears at 299B High Street South, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions