What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239391 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 5239391?

Bench: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Carpets: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Cover: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Wall: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Windows And Frames: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,044.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239391?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13850236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239391 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 5239391?

Bench: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Carpets: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Cover: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Wall: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Windows And Frames: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,044.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239391?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13850236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5239391 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239391 — net $3,141.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 July 2025	$2,044.28	Rent arrears to 8 July 2025
Bench	$550.00	Bench
Front door	$550.00	Front door
Outside windows and frames	$550.00	Outside windows and frames
Garage door	$550.00	Garage door
Laundry wall	$550.00	Laundry wall
Carpets	$550.00	Carpets
Heat pump cover	$550.00	Heat pump cover
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,141.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,141.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,221.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ claim for breach of section 23(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (requiring rent more than two weeks in advance) is dismissed.
The tenants remaining claims under application numbers 5237892 and 5463577 are withdrawn at the request of the tenants.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. [Ms M] represented the property management company.
The tenants, Mr and Ms McFall, filed two applications (application numbers 5237892 filed on 15 April 2025, and 5463577 filed on 8 March 2026) claiming compensation and exemplary damages for several breaches by the landlords. Included in Mr and Ms McFall’s first application was a request for a declaration that the notice issued on 7 April 2025 by the landlords to end their tenancy is invalid.
On 28 April 2025, the landlords filed a cross application seeking a possession order based on the 7 April notice. They also applied for rent arrears and compensation for damage to the premises following the end of the tenancy.
The 2025 applications first came before me on 11 June 2025 and in an order dated that same day, I found the 7 April notice to be valid and enforceable and granted the landlords possession. The tenants’ and the landlords’ remaining claims were adjourned.
The applications came back before me today. At today’s hearing Mr and Ms McFall confirmed that they were withdrawing all claims except the claim for breach of the obligation on a landlord to not require rent more than two weeks in advance. Are the landlords in breach of the obligations to not require more than two weeks in advance?
Section 23(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must not require the payment of rent more than two weeks in advance. To do so is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500 may be payable: section 23(4) of the Act.
Mr and Ms McFall’s tenancy began on 29 November 2019. The original agreement, signed by both Mr and Ms McFall, records that rent is $695 per week and rent is payable weekly in advance. However, it was not in dispute that from 6 January 2020, Mr McFall and Ms McFall began paying the rent monthly. From the rent summary provided in evidence, Mr and Ms McFall paid monthly up until 3 May 2021 and then paid weekly. They then again reverted to monthly payments from 3 June 2022. From October 2023 payments became inconsistent, and some payments were made monthly, some fortnightly, and some weekly. In May 2025 Mr and Ms McFall began to consistently pay weekly until they stopped paying rent altogether from 10 June 2025.
The landlords deny that they required Mr and Ms McFall to pay rent monthly. They say that it was Mr and Ms McFall who asked to pay monthly because this fit in with payments Mr McFall was receiving from his business.
I am not satisfied that Mr and Ms McFall have provided sufficient evidence to establish that the landlords required them to pay monthly. Mr McFall relies on correspondence regarding rent arrears in mid-2024, including 14 day notices issued for the arrears, in support of his claim that the landlord was requiring more than two weeks in advance. However, these emails and notices do not support that the landlords were requiring Mr and Ms McFall to pay monthly. On the contrary they indicate that the landlords would prefer it if they paid weekly as required in the tenancy agreement but they will accept payments monthly if that was what Mr and Ms McFall chose. For example, in an email dated 24 July 2024 to Mr and Ms McFall, the property manager wrote: “...your tenancy agreement is $795pwk, and under the terms of the RTA 1986, you must pay $795pwk in advance to meet the terms of the agreement... Please get the rent paid as soon as possible, and you need to communicate with me and let me know if you are paying rent weekly which is best, or monthly. Your tenancy agreement is $795 weekly, I suggest for simplicity you stick to this arrangement so you do not get in arrears further.”
I therefore find that the landlords did not require Mr and Ms McFall to pay rent more than two weeks in advance. Paying rent monthly in advance was a choice made by Mr and Ms McFall. The claim is therefore dismissed.

How much rent is owing?

The landlords provided a rent summary which establishes the amount of rent owing as at the end of the tenancy on 8 July 2025. Mr and Ms McFall did not dispute the amount of rent claimed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlords claim the cost to remedy the following damage: • Damage to kitchen bench top (burn mark) • Scratches by dog to lacquered wooden front door • Dog scratching to windows and aluminium joinery • Carpets damaged by stains and animal urine smell • Dog damage to garage walls and door • Moisture damage to laundry wall • Damaged heat pump cover
Mr and Ms McFall accept the claim for damage to the bench, damage to the front door, and damage to the windows and aluminium joinery. The landlords have insurance for this damage and are claiming the policy excess payable ($550.00) for each area of damage. I am satisfied that the cost to repair the damage well exceeds the amount of the policy excess, even after taking into account depreciation and betterment.
The landlords claim that the carpets in the premises required replacement due to stains and a strong smell of animal urine which could not be removed by cleaning. They rely on a report from Extreme Carpet Cleaning in support.
Mr and Ms McFall claim that the carpets were dirty at the tenancy commencement and smelt from the previous tenant’s dog. The landlords deny this. They say that the premises were clean, and the carpets had been commercially cleaned before Mr and Ms McFall moved in. The tenants accept that they did not have the carpets cleaned during or at the end of the tenancy.
No pre tenancy inspection report was provided in evidence. However, a property inspection conducted on 5 January 2020, just over a month after the tenancy commenced, does not record any issues with the carpets and concludes that the premises “look great” and “smell great”.
I find that it is more likely than not that the damage to the carpets by stains and pet urine occurred during the tenancy, the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. I therefore find them liable for the damage.
The landlords claim the policy excess payable to have the carpets replaced ($550.00) and I consider this reasonable to compensate them for the damage even after taking into account depreciation or betterment (the carpets cost over $14,000 to replace and they were approximately 11 years old).
Mr and Ms McFall accept that their dog damaged the door between the garage and the house but deny their dog damaged the garage walls saying that walls were in poor condition at the tenancy commencement.
I find it more likely than not that the dog (the dog was apparently kept in the garage) also damaged the walls by scratching. The dog had a propensity to scratch (as mentioned the tenants accept it damaged, by scratching, the front door, garage door and windows), and the photograph of the damage beside the damaged garage door is consistent with the damage to the door.
The cost to remedy the damage was approximately $5,000 but again the landlords are only claiming the policy excess of $550.00.
The landlords claim the cost, $3,000 (but limited to the policy excess of $550.00) to remedy damage to the laundry wall. They say that the tenants left a tap dripping against the wall and they had an unvented dryer against the wall which caused or contributed to the damage. Ms McFall said that the wall was soft at the tenancy commencement but accepts their dryer venting against the wall may have contributed to the damage. The landlords deny any knowledge of any damage to the wall at the tenancy commencement.
I find it more likely than not that the damage to the wall occurred during the tenancy, most likely from the dryer venting moist hot air against it. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
There was no dispute that the hinges for the heat pump cover were broken during the tenancy. Ms McFall claims that the cover was probably broken by a contractor who came to repair it during the tenancy. She said that she noticed it broken sometime after he had been, and he was having difficulty getting the cover back on. She claims that she told the property manager about the problem, but the property manager denies this.
I consider it unlikely that the contractor broke the cover as claimed by Ms McFall without the landlords being made aware of the problem. I also have some doubt whether Ms McFall did notify the property manager or the landlord of the damage. The tenants communicated frequently with the property manager by email, and it would seem likely that they would have advised the property manager in writing of the issue at the time to ensure that they would not be held responsible for the damage, and to enable the landlords to take the matter up with the contractor.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the damage. A new cover was unable to be sourced so the heat pump unit was replaced by the landlords’ insurer at a cost of $2,600. The landlords claim the excess of $550. The heat pump was approximately seven years old and heat pumps are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring replacement. Thus, even after taking into account depreciation or betterment I consider the amount claimed ($550) reasonable to compensate the landlords for the damage.
The landlords have been fully successful in their claims and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been wholly successful and the limited exceptions in section 95A do not apply. I therefore order that their names and identifying details be suppressed.
Mr and Ms McFall have been wholly unsuccessful in their applications and in their defence to the landlords’ application. Their application for suppression is therefore denied.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239391 — net $3,141.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 July 2025	$2,044.28	Rent arrears to 8 July 2025
Bench	$550.00	Bench
Front door	$550.00	Front door
Outside windows and frames	$550.00	Outside windows and frames
Garage door	$550.00	Garage door
Laundry wall	$550.00	Laundry wall
Carpets	$550.00	Carpets
Heat pump cover	$550.00	Heat pump cover
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,141.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,141.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,221.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ claim for breach of section 23(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (requiring rent more than two weeks in advance) is dismissed.
The tenants remaining claims under application numbers 5237892 and 5463577 are withdrawn at the request of the tenants.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. [Ms M] represented the property management company.
The tenants, Mr and Ms McFall, filed two applications (application numbers 5237892 filed on 15 April 2025, and 5463577 filed on 8 March 2026) claiming compensation and exemplary damages for several breaches by the landlords. Included in Mr and Ms McFall’s first application was a request for a declaration that the notice issued on 7 April 2025 by the landlords to end their tenancy is invalid.
On 28 April 2025, the landlords filed a cross application seeking a possession order based on the 7 April notice. They also applied for rent arrears and compensation for damage to the premises following the end of the tenancy.
The 2025 applications first came before me on 11 June 2025 and in an order dated that same day, I found the 7 April notice to be valid and enforceable and granted the landlords possession. The tenants’ and the landlords’ remaining claims were adjourned.
The applications came back before me today. At today’s hearing Mr and Ms McFall confirmed that they were withdrawing all claims except the claim for breach of the obligation on a landlord to not require rent more than two weeks in advance. Are the landlords in breach of the obligations to not require more than two weeks in advance?
Section 23(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must not require the payment of rent more than two weeks in advance. To do so is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500 may be payable: section 23(4) of the Act.
Mr and Ms McFall’s tenancy began on 29 November 2019. The original agreement, signed by both Mr and Ms McFall, records that rent is $695 per week and rent is payable weekly in advance. However, it was not in dispute that from 6 January 2020, Mr McFall and Ms McFall began paying the rent monthly. From the rent summary provided in evidence, Mr and Ms McFall paid monthly up until 3 May 2021 and then paid weekly. They then again reverted to monthly payments from 3 June 2022. From October 2023 payments became inconsistent, and some payments were made monthly, some fortnightly, and some weekly. In May 2025 Mr and Ms McFall began to consistently pay weekly until they stopped paying rent altogether from 10 June 2025.
The landlords deny that they required Mr and Ms McFall to pay rent monthly. They say that it was Mr and Ms McFall who asked to pay monthly because this fit in with payments Mr McFall was receiving from his business.
I am not satisfied that Mr and Ms McFall have provided sufficient evidence to establish that the landlords required them to pay monthly. Mr McFall relies on correspondence regarding rent arrears in mid-2024, including 14 day notices issued for the arrears, in support of his claim that the landlord was requiring more than two weeks in advance. However, these emails and notices do not support that the landlords were requiring Mr and Ms McFall to pay monthly. On the contrary they indicate that the landlords would prefer it if they paid weekly as required in the tenancy agreement but they will accept payments monthly if that was what Mr and Ms McFall chose. For example, in an email dated 24 July 2024 to Mr and Ms McFall, the property manager wrote: “...your tenancy agreement is $795pwk, and under the terms of the RTA 1986, you must pay $795pwk in advance to meet the terms of the agreement... Please get the rent paid as soon as possible, and you need to communicate with me and let me know if you are paying rent weekly which is best, or monthly. Your tenancy agreement is $795 weekly, I suggest for simplicity you stick to this arrangement so you do not get in arrears further.”
I therefore find that the landlords did not require Mr and Ms McFall to pay rent more than two weeks in advance. Paying rent monthly in advance was a choice made by Mr and Ms McFall. The claim is therefore dismissed.

How much rent is owing?

The landlords provided a rent summary which establishes the amount of rent owing as at the end of the tenancy on 8 July 2025. Mr and Ms McFall did not dispute the amount of rent claimed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlords claim the cost to remedy the following damage: • Damage to kitchen bench top (burn mark) • Scratches by dog to lacquered wooden front door • Dog scratching to windows and aluminium joinery • Carpets damaged by stains and animal urine smell • Dog damage to garage walls and door • Moisture damage to laundry wall • Damaged heat pump cover
Mr and Ms McFall accept the claim for damage to the bench, damage to the front door, and damage to the windows and aluminium joinery. The landlords have insurance for this damage and are claiming the policy excess payable ($550.00) for each area of damage. I am satisfied that the cost to repair the damage well exceeds the amount of the policy excess, even after taking into account depreciation and betterment.
The landlords claim that the carpets in the premises required replacement due to stains and a strong smell of animal urine which could not be removed by cleaning. They rely on a report from Extreme Carpet Cleaning in support.
Mr and Ms McFall claim that the carpets were dirty at the tenancy commencement and smelt from the previous tenant’s dog. The landlords deny this. They say that the premises were clean, and the carpets had been commercially cleaned before Mr and Ms McFall moved in. The tenants accept that they did not have the carpets cleaned during or at the end of the tenancy.
No pre tenancy inspection report was provided in evidence. However, a property inspection conducted on 5 January 2020, just over a month after the tenancy commenced, does not record any issues with the carpets and concludes that the premises “look great” and “smell great”.
I find that it is more likely than not that the damage to the carpets by stains and pet urine occurred during the tenancy, the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. I therefore find them liable for the damage.
The landlords claim the policy excess payable to have the carpets replaced ($550.00) and I consider this reasonable to compensate them for the damage even after taking into account depreciation or betterment (the carpets cost over $14,000 to replace and they were approximately 11 years old).
Mr and Ms McFall accept that their dog damaged the door between the garage and the house but deny their dog damaged the garage walls saying that walls were in poor condition at the tenancy commencement.
I find it more likely than not that the dog (the dog was apparently kept in the garage) also damaged the walls by scratching. The dog had a propensity to scratch (as mentioned the tenants accept it damaged, by scratching, the front door, garage door and windows), and the photograph of the damage beside the damaged garage door is consistent with the damage to the door.
The cost to remedy the damage was approximately $5,000 but again the landlords are only claiming the policy excess of $550.00.
The landlords claim the cost, $3,000 (but limited to the policy excess of $550.00) to remedy damage to the laundry wall. They say that the tenants left a tap dripping against the wall and they had an unvented dryer against the wall which caused or contributed to the damage. Ms McFall said that the wall was soft at the tenancy commencement but accepts their dryer venting against the wall may have contributed to the damage. The landlords deny any knowledge of any damage to the wall at the tenancy commencement.
I find it more likely than not that the damage to the wall occurred during the tenancy, most likely from the dryer venting moist hot air against it. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
There was no dispute that the hinges for the heat pump cover were broken during the tenancy. Ms McFall claims that the cover was probably broken by a contractor who came to repair it during the tenancy. She said that she noticed it broken sometime after he had been, and he was having difficulty getting the cover back on. She claims that she told the property manager about the problem, but the property manager denies this.
I consider it unlikely that the contractor broke the cover as claimed by Ms McFall without the landlords being made aware of the problem. I also have some doubt whether Ms McFall did notify the property manager or the landlord of the damage. The tenants communicated frequently with the property manager by email, and it would seem likely that they would have advised the property manager in writing of the issue at the time to ensure that they would not be held responsible for the damage, and to enable the landlords to take the matter up with the contractor.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the damage. A new cover was unable to be sourced so the heat pump unit was replaced by the landlords’ insurer at a cost of $2,600. The landlords claim the excess of $550. The heat pump was approximately seven years old and heat pumps are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring replacement. Thus, even after taking into account depreciation or betterment I consider the amount claimed ($550) reasonable to compensate the landlords for the damage.
The landlords have been fully successful in their claims and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been wholly successful and the limited exceptions in section 95A do not apply. I therefore order that their names and identifying details be suppressed.
Mr and Ms McFall have been wholly unsuccessful in their applications and in their defence to the landlords’ application. Their application for suppression is therefore denied.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239391 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239391 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions