How much money was awarded in case 5258324?

Chine Or The Cost Of Changing The Lo…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258324?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5258324?

Chine Or The Cost Of Changing The Lo…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258324?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258324 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258324 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant] is not liable for the cost of inspecting the washing machine or the

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258324. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
chine or the cost of changing the locks. 2. Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Anna van der Voort) is to pay	$27.00		chine or the cost of changing the locks. 2. Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Anna van der Voort) is to pay

[The tenant] is not liable for the cost of inspecting the washing machine or the cost of changing the locks.

Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Anna van der Voort) is to pay [the tenant] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Reasons

The tenancy began in July 2024. It is a current tenancy. [The tenant] is the sole tenant.

[The tenant] filed this application on 8 May 2025. At that time her concerns were that: a. The washing machine was not working property. It did not clean her clothes properly and the washing machine smelled bad. She let Ray White Kaitaia know about the problem. A contractor inspected the washing machine and said that it was due to her using the washing machine wrongly. Ray White Kaitaia wanted her to pay for the cost of the contractor. b. In early March someone entered the house when she was away. There was no sign of a break in. It seems that the intruder got in using a key. She let Ray White Kaitaia know. Ray White Kaitaia arranged for a change of locks and new keys, but they said that she is liable for this cost.

The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 29 July 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Loane and Ms Morland represented the landlord.

At the hearing, [the tenant] said that the landlord had replaced the washing machine a couple of weeks ago.

Ms Loane confirmed that when they inspected the washing machine again, they saw that there was a fault code, and the washing machine was malfunctioning. They are no longer seeking any costs from the tenant for the contractor’s attendance.

In terms of the change of locks, [the tenant] says that she does not know who entered the house. She said that she was given two keys at the start of the tenancy, and she has both keys on the same key ring. She has not lost her keys at any time, or made copies, or given a key to anyone else.

Ms Morland and Ms Loane said that the landlord held [the tenant] liable for the cost of changing the locks because [the tenant] was uncooperative with providing information to them. She did not provide a police report for several weeks. She did not confirm that she still had the two keys that were given to her at the start of the tenancy.

[The tenant] acknowledges that she was somewhat uncooperative because she felt that her relationship with Ray White Kaitaia had broken down.

At the hearing Ms Loane suggest that the change of locks cost be shared evenly between landlord and tenant.

In my view it was reasonable for the landlord to require [the tenant] to provide information so that they could ascertain whether the break in was the result of the tenant being careless with her keys. It was reasonable for the landlord to hold the tenant liable for the cost of changing the locks until that information was forthcoming. It was frustrating for the landlord that [the tenant] did not provide the information promptly.

However, having heard from [the tenant], I am satisfied that she did not lose her keys or give a key to anyone else. The most logical conclusion is that a former tenant may have kept or handed out a key. The primary obligation in terms of providing adequate locks and keys lies with the landlord. 1 1 Section 46, Residential Tenancies Act 1986

My finding is that the cost of replacing the locks falls to the landlord. [The tenant] has not been careless with her keys and there is no legal basis to require her to contribute to the cost.

[The tenant]’s claim for non-liability is successful. I must also award [the tenant] the filing fee of $27.00. 2 Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 3

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258324. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
chine or the cost of changing the locks. 2. Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Anna van der Voort) is to pay	$27.00		chine or the cost of changing the locks. 2. Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Anna van der Voort) is to pay

Order

[The tenant] is not liable for the cost of inspecting the washing machine or the cost of changing the locks.
Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd (as agent for Anna van der Voort) is to pay [the tenant] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Reasons

The tenancy began in July 2024. It is a current tenancy. [The tenant] is the sole tenant.
[The tenant] filed this application on 8 May 2025. At that time her concerns were that: a. The washing machine was not working property. It did not clean her clothes properly and the washing machine smelled bad. She let Ray White Kaitaia know about the problem. A contractor inspected the washing machine and said that it was due to her using the washing machine wrongly. Ray White Kaitaia wanted her to pay for the cost of the contractor. b. In early March someone entered the house when she was away. There was no sign of a break in. It seems that the intruder got in using a key. She let Ray White Kaitaia know. Ray White Kaitaia arranged for a change of locks and new keys, but they said that she is liable for this cost.
The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 29 July 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Loane and Ms Morland represented the landlord.
At the hearing, [the tenant] said that the landlord had replaced the washing machine a couple of weeks ago.
Ms Loane confirmed that when they inspected the washing machine again, they saw that there was a fault code, and the washing machine was malfunctioning. They are no longer seeking any costs from the tenant for the contractor’s attendance.
In terms of the change of locks, [the tenant] says that she does not know who entered the house. She said that she was given two keys at the start of the tenancy, and she has both keys on the same key ring. She has not lost her keys at any time, or made copies, or given a key to anyone else.
Ms Morland and Ms Loane said that the landlord held [the tenant] liable for the cost of changing the locks because [the tenant] was uncooperative with providing information to them. She did not provide a police report for several weeks. She did not confirm that she still had the two keys that were given to her at the start of the tenancy.
[The tenant] acknowledges that she was somewhat uncooperative because she felt that her relationship with Ray White Kaitaia had broken down.
At the hearing Ms Loane suggest that the change of locks cost be shared evenly between landlord and tenant.
In my view it was reasonable for the landlord to require [the tenant] to provide information so that they could ascertain whether the break in was the result of the tenant being careless with her keys. It was reasonable for the landlord to hold the tenant liable for the cost of changing the locks until that information was forthcoming. It was frustrating for the landlord that [the tenant] did not provide the information promptly.
However, having heard from [the tenant], I am satisfied that she did not lose her keys or give a key to anyone else. The most logical conclusion is that a former tenant may have kept or handed out a key. The primary obligation in terms of providing adequate locks and keys lies with the landlord. 1 1 Section 46, Residential Tenancies Act 1986
My finding is that the cost of replacing the locks falls to the landlord. [The tenant] has not been careless with her keys and there is no legal basis to require her to contribute to the cost.
[The tenant]’s claim for non-liability is successful. I must also award [the tenant] the filing fee of $27.00. 2 Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 3

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258324 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258324 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions