What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243453 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 5243453?

Advertising: $331.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Furniture As Agreed: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $14,284.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12423356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243453 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 5243453?

Advertising: $331.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Furniture As Agreed: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $14,284.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12423356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243453 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243453 — net $17,120.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 March 2025	$14,284.12	Rent arrears to 16 March 2025
Advertising	$331.20	Advertising
Repairs: Insurance excess: concrete	$500.00	Repairs: Insurance excess: concrete
Lawns and Garden work: Landscaping -garden around home	$227.70	Lawns and Garden work: Landscaping -garden around home
Carpet Cleaning: workshop carpet	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning: workshop carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Furniture as agreed	$1,400.00	Furniture as agreed
Net award	$17,120.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,120.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shiwal Sajnesh Ram, Sajnesh Ram, Sanjeev Ram and Veenita Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $17,120.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the mandarin trees is not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction and therefore is struck out.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the workshop floor is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing.
The tenants and the landlord entered into a 3-year fixed term tenancy commencing on the 14 May 2024 for a large executive level home and workshop in a rural location.
The rent for the premises was $9,316.66 per month.
The tenants say that at the end of last year their business suffered a financial downturn and they found it hard to pay rent on time.
The landlord and the tenants agreed that the tenants could leave the fixed term tenancy early and the tenants moved out on the 3 February 2025.
The landlord seeks rent until a new tenancy began together with costs for repair of damage that the landlord says that the tenants caused. Claims that were accepted.
The tenant accepts liability for rent until the new tenants were found.
The tenant also accepts liability for the cost of furniture that they agreed to buy from the landlord.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger setting out the amount of rent that is owed to the 16 March 2024 = $14,284.12. I am satisfied that the rent ledger is correct and therefore award the landlord that amount for rent owing.
I award by agreement the amount that the tenant’s owe the landlord for the furniture. Issues for the Tribunal to determine.
The questions for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Is the tenant liable for damage to the concrete driveway? If so, what is the remedy? b. Is the tenant liable for damage to the workshop floor? If so, what is the remedy? c. Is the tenant liable for damage to the carpet in the living areas of the workshop? If so, what is the remedy? d. Is the tenant liable for the damage to the garden? If so, what is the remedy? e. Is the tenant liable for damage to the mandarin trees in the commercial orchard? If so, what is the remedy? f. Is the tenant liable for the costs of the [online] advertisement? g. Is the tenant liable for the filing fee? h. Should the landlord be granted name suppression as requested? The law relating to damage.
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. 1
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use.
If a tenant has made alterations or minor changes to the property, then they are required at the end of the tenancy to reinstate the property to the same condition it was in before the changes were made. Is the tenant liable for damage to the concrete driveway? If so what is the remedy?
There is a long, concreted driveway leading up to the front door way of the home. At the top of the driveway there is another concrete drive which runs perpendicular to the driveway to the home. The driveway to the home has become cracked and broken on the side. The landlord says that this is likely caused by the tenants’ trucks, which were parked at the end of the perpendicular drive, backing into the driveway whilst doing a three point turn.
The tenants dispute that their trucks caused the damage, they say that they are careful, and the trucks are not so large that they need to drive over the edge of the concrete.
I am satisfied that it is likely that the tenants caused the damage to the driveway because the landlord produced a photograph of the driveway from October 2024 and the damage was not present but it was present at the end of the tenancy in February 2025. I consider it more than likely that as the tenants used this part of the driveway as a turning bay, that it was the weight of their trucks that caused the damage.
The landlord has obtained insurance cover to cover the costs of the repairs and seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $500.00. As I have determined 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. the tenants careless caused the damage then the tenants are liable for the insurance excess, and I award that amount. Is the tenant liable for damage to the workshop floor? If so, what is the remedy?
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy that the workshop floor had oil stains and spray paint overspray on the floor. The landlord says this is careless damage. The landlord has not had the floor repaired but seeks compensation for the damage to the floor.
I find that the tenant is not liable for the damage to the workshop floor for the following reasons: a. The workshop floor is designed to be used as a workshop where vehicles are stored or worked on. I consider that oil stains on the floor are as a result of the ordinary use of the workshop. The tenants say that the oil stains came from a car that was parked there, they did not know it had a small leak until they saw the stains. b. The tenants say that when they worked on the cars/trucks, they took steps to ensure that there was no damage, staining or overspray. They showed me pictures of the polythene that they hung to ensure overspray was captured and they said that when they worked on the trucks they laid cardboard on the floor. c. I consider the overspray to be minor, and not to have diminished the function of the workshop. d. The tenants water blasted the workshop floor and used a chemical removal agent to try and remove the stains at the end of the tenancy. The stains were lightened but not removed. e. The staining on the workshop floor is usual for concrete in a workshop/garage. f. The landlord has not repaired the floor. Is the tenant liable for damage to the carpet in the living areas of the workshop? If so, what is the remedy?
The tenants accept that they caused damage to the carpet by causing oil/ diesel stains on the carpet. This has most likely occurred by someone coming into the living area with oil or diesel on their shoes.
I consider that this is careless damage. As the living areas of the workshop are close to the workshop I consider that care should have been taken to ensure that oil or diesel was not transferred onto the carpet by someone walking in with it on their shoes. This could have been prevented by the removal of shoes at the door.
The tenants say that they had the carpet cleaned but that the stains did not come out.
The landlord wants to have the carpet cleaned again, he seeks the price of doing so, in the quote given the cost of remedying the carpet and the workshop floor are put together. I consider that the cost of treatment of the stains on the carpet is likely to be almost all the cost quoted and therefore award the landlord $350.00. Is the tenant liable for the damage to the garden? If so, what is the remedy?
The landlord seeks remediation costs for two areas of garden which he says the tenants damaged. The first is to an area out the back where the tenants removed plants and put metal in the garden. The second is to a burn area by the workshop.
The tenants accept that they removed plants from a garden out the back and metalled the area so that they could put in a swing and slide set for their child.
The tenants say that at the end of the tenancy they removed the metal and put in some topsoil.
I find that the tenants are liable for the costs of remediating the garden. The tenant accepted that they intentionally removed the plants in the garden and put in metal to allow them to put a play area in for their child. As the tenant’s made these changes without the landlord’s consent, then they were obliged to put the garden back to the same state that they rented it in. The photographs provided by the landlord show that the garden has largely been left bare and needs planting to reinstate it. I award the landlord the amount claimed of $227.70.
I also record that having heard from both parties that I do not consider that the landlord ever agreed to the changes being made.
The landlord provided pictures of a burnt patch by the workshop. I make no award for this area as I do not consider that the landlord has suffered any loss or if so that loss is nominal. Is the tenant liable for damage to the mandarin trees in the commercial orchard? If so, what is the remedy?
The landlord has a commercial mandarin orchard adjacent to the tenancy premises. The tenants had sheep in their property which they kept in an enclosed area with makeshift fencing. On occasion the sheep would get out of the fenced area and into the landlord’s mandarin orchard.
The landlord says that the tenant’s sheep have caused 4-5 mandarin trees to die or become poorly, and that the landlord has had to replace those trees.
The tribunal only has jurisdiction over damage caused to the tenancy premises, not over damage that occurs outside the tenancy premises. Therefore, as the tribunal has no jurisdiction over this dispute I cannot determine it. The landlord would need to raise this dispute in the Disputes Tribunal. Is the tenant liable for the costs of advertising for a new tenant.
I am satisfied that when the tenant was released form the tenancy by the landlord that they ere liable for the reasonable costs of the landlord in finding a new tenant. I consider that the [online] advertisement placed in February, to be a reasonable cost incurred in replacing the tenant and therefore the tenant is liable. Filing fee and name suppression.
As the landlord has bene mostly successful in his claims, I grant the landlord the filing fee and name suppression as requested in the tenancy application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243453 — net $17,120.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 March 2025	$14,284.12	Rent arrears to 16 March 2025
Advertising	$331.20	Advertising
Repairs: Insurance excess: concrete	$500.00	Repairs: Insurance excess: concrete
Lawns and Garden work: Landscaping -garden around home	$227.70	Lawns and Garden work: Landscaping -garden around home
Carpet Cleaning: workshop carpet	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning: workshop carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Furniture as agreed	$1,400.00	Furniture as agreed
Net award	$17,120.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,120.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shiwal Sajnesh Ram, Sajnesh Ram, Sanjeev Ram and Veenita Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $17,120.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the mandarin trees is not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction and therefore is struck out.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the workshop floor is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing.
The tenants and the landlord entered into a 3-year fixed term tenancy commencing on the 14 May 2024 for a large executive level home and workshop in a rural location.
The rent for the premises was $9,316.66 per month.
The tenants say that at the end of last year their business suffered a financial downturn and they found it hard to pay rent on time.
The landlord and the tenants agreed that the tenants could leave the fixed term tenancy early and the tenants moved out on the 3 February 2025.
The landlord seeks rent until a new tenancy began together with costs for repair of damage that the landlord says that the tenants caused. Claims that were accepted.
The tenant accepts liability for rent until the new tenants were found.
The tenant also accepts liability for the cost of furniture that they agreed to buy from the landlord.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger setting out the amount of rent that is owed to the 16 March 2024 = $14,284.12. I am satisfied that the rent ledger is correct and therefore award the landlord that amount for rent owing.
I award by agreement the amount that the tenant’s owe the landlord for the furniture. Issues for the Tribunal to determine.
The questions for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Is the tenant liable for damage to the concrete driveway? If so, what is the remedy? b. Is the tenant liable for damage to the workshop floor? If so, what is the remedy? c. Is the tenant liable for damage to the carpet in the living areas of the workshop? If so, what is the remedy? d. Is the tenant liable for the damage to the garden? If so, what is the remedy? e. Is the tenant liable for damage to the mandarin trees in the commercial orchard? If so, what is the remedy? f. Is the tenant liable for the costs of the [online] advertisement? g. Is the tenant liable for the filing fee? h. Should the landlord be granted name suppression as requested? The law relating to damage.
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. 1
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use.
If a tenant has made alterations or minor changes to the property, then they are required at the end of the tenancy to reinstate the property to the same condition it was in before the changes were made. Is the tenant liable for damage to the concrete driveway? If so what is the remedy?
There is a long, concreted driveway leading up to the front door way of the home. At the top of the driveway there is another concrete drive which runs perpendicular to the driveway to the home. The driveway to the home has become cracked and broken on the side. The landlord says that this is likely caused by the tenants’ trucks, which were parked at the end of the perpendicular drive, backing into the driveway whilst doing a three point turn.
The tenants dispute that their trucks caused the damage, they say that they are careful, and the trucks are not so large that they need to drive over the edge of the concrete.
I am satisfied that it is likely that the tenants caused the damage to the driveway because the landlord produced a photograph of the driveway from October 2024 and the damage was not present but it was present at the end of the tenancy in February 2025. I consider it more than likely that as the tenants used this part of the driveway as a turning bay, that it was the weight of their trucks that caused the damage.
The landlord has obtained insurance cover to cover the costs of the repairs and seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $500.00. As I have determined 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. the tenants careless caused the damage then the tenants are liable for the insurance excess, and I award that amount. Is the tenant liable for damage to the workshop floor? If so, what is the remedy?
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy that the workshop floor had oil stains and spray paint overspray on the floor. The landlord says this is careless damage. The landlord has not had the floor repaired but seeks compensation for the damage to the floor.
I find that the tenant is not liable for the damage to the workshop floor for the following reasons: a. The workshop floor is designed to be used as a workshop where vehicles are stored or worked on. I consider that oil stains on the floor are as a result of the ordinary use of the workshop. The tenants say that the oil stains came from a car that was parked there, they did not know it had a small leak until they saw the stains. b. The tenants say that when they worked on the cars/trucks, they took steps to ensure that there was no damage, staining or overspray. They showed me pictures of the polythene that they hung to ensure overspray was captured and they said that when they worked on the trucks they laid cardboard on the floor. c. I consider the overspray to be minor, and not to have diminished the function of the workshop. d. The tenants water blasted the workshop floor and used a chemical removal agent to try and remove the stains at the end of the tenancy. The stains were lightened but not removed. e. The staining on the workshop floor is usual for concrete in a workshop/garage. f. The landlord has not repaired the floor. Is the tenant liable for damage to the carpet in the living areas of the workshop? If so, what is the remedy?
The tenants accept that they caused damage to the carpet by causing oil/ diesel stains on the carpet. This has most likely occurred by someone coming into the living area with oil or diesel on their shoes.
I consider that this is careless damage. As the living areas of the workshop are close to the workshop I consider that care should have been taken to ensure that oil or diesel was not transferred onto the carpet by someone walking in with it on their shoes. This could have been prevented by the removal of shoes at the door.
The tenants say that they had the carpet cleaned but that the stains did not come out.
The landlord wants to have the carpet cleaned again, he seeks the price of doing so, in the quote given the cost of remedying the carpet and the workshop floor are put together. I consider that the cost of treatment of the stains on the carpet is likely to be almost all the cost quoted and therefore award the landlord $350.00. Is the tenant liable for the damage to the garden? If so, what is the remedy?
The landlord seeks remediation costs for two areas of garden which he says the tenants damaged. The first is to an area out the back where the tenants removed plants and put metal in the garden. The second is to a burn area by the workshop.
The tenants accept that they removed plants from a garden out the back and metalled the area so that they could put in a swing and slide set for their child.
The tenants say that at the end of the tenancy they removed the metal and put in some topsoil.
I find that the tenants are liable for the costs of remediating the garden. The tenant accepted that they intentionally removed the plants in the garden and put in metal to allow them to put a play area in for their child. As the tenant’s made these changes without the landlord’s consent, then they were obliged to put the garden back to the same state that they rented it in. The photographs provided by the landlord show that the garden has largely been left bare and needs planting to reinstate it. I award the landlord the amount claimed of $227.70.
I also record that having heard from both parties that I do not consider that the landlord ever agreed to the changes being made.
The landlord provided pictures of a burnt patch by the workshop. I make no award for this area as I do not consider that the landlord has suffered any loss or if so that loss is nominal. Is the tenant liable for damage to the mandarin trees in the commercial orchard? If so, what is the remedy?
The landlord has a commercial mandarin orchard adjacent to the tenancy premises. The tenants had sheep in their property which they kept in an enclosed area with makeshift fencing. On occasion the sheep would get out of the fenced area and into the landlord’s mandarin orchard.
The landlord says that the tenant’s sheep have caused 4-5 mandarin trees to die or become poorly, and that the landlord has had to replace those trees.
The tribunal only has jurisdiction over damage caused to the tenancy premises, not over damage that occurs outside the tenancy premises. Therefore, as the tribunal has no jurisdiction over this dispute I cannot determine it. The landlord would need to raise this dispute in the Disputes Tribunal. Is the tenant liable for the costs of advertising for a new tenant.
I am satisfied that when the tenant was released form the tenancy by the landlord that they ere liable for the reasonable costs of the landlord in finding a new tenant. I consider that the [online] advertisement placed in February, to be a reasonable cost incurred in replacing the tenant and therefore the tenant is liable. Filing fee and name suppression.
As the landlord has bene mostly successful in his claims, I grant the landlord the filing fee and name suppression as requested in the tenancy application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243453 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243453 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions