What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265963 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 5265963?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $111.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $65.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $439.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265963?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12821346-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265963 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 5265963?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $111.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $65.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $439.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265963?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12821346-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265963 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265963 — net $450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$439.85	Rubbish removal
Lawn mowing	$111.45	Lawn mowing
Repairs; wall hole	$65.70	Repairs; wall hole
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$450.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$450.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $450.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $194.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.
Al other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application disputing the landlord’s claims, seeking a refund of the bond as well as claiming exemplary damages for breaches on receipt of bond.
The tenancy commenced on 22 January 2014. Tenant’s claims

When did the tenancy end?

There is a dispute about when the tenancy is said to have ended.
The tenant advises that there was an agreement that the tenancy would end on 30 December 2024, however she was afforded more time by the landlord to clear everything out and finish cleaning (as nothing would happen during the holiday period anyway). The tenant says that she ceased physically residing at the property on 31 December 2024.
The landlord considers that the tenancy ended on 10 January 2025 after the keys were returned and the additional works were done by the tenant.
The landlord has accordingly charged rent until 10 January 2025, and this was paid. The tenant considers that she has overpaid rent by 11 days (31 December 2023 to 10 January 2024 and amounting to $308.00) and that this should be refunded to her (“period of additional access”).
The tenant refers to section 31(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on apportionment of rent to support her claim.
Section 50 the RTA states that for a tenancy to end, the tenant must give up vacant possession of the property. This is reinforced by section 60 of the RTA that provides that where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy was still in place, until the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.
If there was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant that stated that rent would not be payable during the period of additional access, or the landlord was accessing the property, this may override the statutory position.
However, on review of the correspondence I consider that that was not explicitly agreed here.
The landlord had agreed to allow further time, but there was no explicit agreement that rent would not be payable during this period of additional access. Although I appreciate the tenant’s submission that she would not have taken up a new tenancy if she had known rent was still payable, that does not change her obligations.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant was liable for rent until she gave up vacant possession and this coincided with when the keys were passed to the landlord on 10 January 2025.
The tenant’s claim for overpaid rent is dismissed. Skip bin costs
The tenant seeks reimbursement of skip bin costs amounting to $308.00 and added to her account at the end of her tenancy.
The landlord says that as part of the end of tenancy process skip bins were provided. They advised that three skip bins were provided free to charge to assist the tenant with moving house and the cost for these of $1,290.00 was not charged to the tenant. Unfortunately, one of the skip bins was unable to be picked up due to being overloaded, so the landlord had to engage trades to remove items out of the skip bin so it could be collected.
The charge for this was $308.00 and this was added to the tenant’s account at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that they were not advised of how full the skip bins were able to be, and that they also were not given sufficient time to return to remove the rubbish themselves.
The landlord has provided evidence of this cost, and I do agree that this is payable by the tenant. I do not consider that not knowing it wouldn’t be able to be collected if it was overfilled is not later an excuse for not having to cover the cost of it. Clarification could have been sought at any stage.
Tenants are responsible for the removal of all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 1 The tenant was fortunate in this case, that the landlord covered most of the costs associated with assisting the tenant to comply with the RTA in this respect as there was no obligation on them to do so. Whether this amount should have been added to the rent account or charged separately is now not relevant to my determination.
I consider that this additional cost due to overfilling was reasonably payable by the tenant and the tenant’s claim to have this reimbursed is dismissed. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord requested a bond of more than four weeks rent and that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) RTA. A landlord must also send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 18(4), 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This claim is based on the tenant’s submission that in January 2025, the tenant advised the landlord that in accordance with section 31(2) of the RTA, the landlord needed to return the overpaid rent into the tenant’s bank account. This was in respect of both the overpaid rent and the amount for skip bin costs charged to the tenant’s account.
As detailed above, I do not consider that the tenant did overpay rent, and I find that the skip bin costs were reasonable.
It follows that there was no obligation for any rent to be paid into the bond centre, and no breach by the landlord.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord claims for the cost to mow the lawn and to remove clippings and rubbish from the grounds. The amounts sought are $111.45 for mowing the lawns and $439.85 for removal of clippings and rubbish from the grounds.
Photographs of the rubbish have been provided. In addition, the landlord allowed the tenant further time to return to the property and recorded in a letter what items needed to be rectified. This included removal of large items left outside, lawn moving and removing grass clippings and other garden waste. The letter advised that if the tenant did not remedy the identified issues, the costs would be passed to the tenant.
There was no obligation on the landlord to allow the tenant to return to the property at the end of the tenancy to remedy any issues.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not remove all rubbish, and did not leave the exterior property reasonably clean and tidy and the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims for the cost of repairs to patch holes in the wardrobe(s) ($131.40), patch the hole in the wall ($65.70) and to refix a broken handrail ($47.25) at a total claimed amount of $244.35. Photographs have been provided of the areas that they say required repair.
The tenant says that it was a long tenancy, and these items were reflective of fair wear and tear or general maintenance works. In particular, the tenant says that the holes in the wardrobe were small, like scuff marks, and reasonable considering the 11–12-year tenancy. In respect of the laundry hole, the tenant says this was a ducting hole that they were given consent to install for the dryer as there was no other way to duct the dryer without creating security issues.
In respect of the handrail, the tenant also disputes this amount and says that the handrail was not installed into a stud, meaning it was prone to damage. She also says that it was damaged accidentally when her son grabbed it as he slipped and that it wasn’t careless or intentional and she reported this during the tenancy.
I accept the position of the handrail. This was caused by the tenant’s son grabbing it when falling, or normal use, and the fact that it came out of the wall likely shows it was not fit for purpose in some way, which may have included it not being installed into the stud as suggested.
With respect to the holes in the wardrobe – I do not have any pre-tenancy photographs. It is therefore difficult for me to assess with any great level of certainty, whether this damage occurred during the tenancy, and what would have been fair wear and tear. I accept that scuff marks would be expected at the end of a tenancy of this length, and this could also include small holes in the wardrobe.
As a result, I cannot be more certain than not that this damage was caused by the tenant either carelessly or intentionally during the tenancy and this claim is also dismissed.
I accept that the hole for the dryer ducting was caused intentionally by the tenant and was more than fair wear and tear, regardless of the reasons for installation.
Accordingly, the claimed amount of $65.70 is awarded. Other issues
Because Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression, however the tenant did. The tenant has been partially successful on aspects of the claims, in addition, there were some other issues raised by the tenant that support the granting of name suppression. On balance, I consider that the interests of the tenant outweigh any public interest and name suppression is granted to the tenant. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 04 December 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265963 — net $450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$439.85	Rubbish removal
Lawn mowing	$111.45	Lawn mowing
Repairs; wall hole	$65.70	Repairs; wall hole
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$450.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$450.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $450.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $194.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.
Al other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application disputing the landlord’s claims, seeking a refund of the bond as well as claiming exemplary damages for breaches on receipt of bond.
The tenancy commenced on 22 January 2014. Tenant’s claims

When did the tenancy end?

There is a dispute about when the tenancy is said to have ended.
The tenant advises that there was an agreement that the tenancy would end on 30 December 2024, however she was afforded more time by the landlord to clear everything out and finish cleaning (as nothing would happen during the holiday period anyway). The tenant says that she ceased physically residing at the property on 31 December 2024.
The landlord considers that the tenancy ended on 10 January 2025 after the keys were returned and the additional works were done by the tenant.
The landlord has accordingly charged rent until 10 January 2025, and this was paid. The tenant considers that she has overpaid rent by 11 days (31 December 2023 to 10 January 2024 and amounting to $308.00) and that this should be refunded to her (“period of additional access”).
The tenant refers to section 31(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on apportionment of rent to support her claim.
Section 50 the RTA states that for a tenancy to end, the tenant must give up vacant possession of the property. This is reinforced by section 60 of the RTA that provides that where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy was still in place, until the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.
If there was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant that stated that rent would not be payable during the period of additional access, or the landlord was accessing the property, this may override the statutory position.
However, on review of the correspondence I consider that that was not explicitly agreed here.
The landlord had agreed to allow further time, but there was no explicit agreement that rent would not be payable during this period of additional access. Although I appreciate the tenant’s submission that she would not have taken up a new tenancy if she had known rent was still payable, that does not change her obligations.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant was liable for rent until she gave up vacant possession and this coincided with when the keys were passed to the landlord on 10 January 2025.
The tenant’s claim for overpaid rent is dismissed. Skip bin costs
The tenant seeks reimbursement of skip bin costs amounting to $308.00 and added to her account at the end of her tenancy.
The landlord says that as part of the end of tenancy process skip bins were provided. They advised that three skip bins were provided free to charge to assist the tenant with moving house and the cost for these of $1,290.00 was not charged to the tenant. Unfortunately, one of the skip bins was unable to be picked up due to being overloaded, so the landlord had to engage trades to remove items out of the skip bin so it could be collected.
The charge for this was $308.00 and this was added to the tenant’s account at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that they were not advised of how full the skip bins were able to be, and that they also were not given sufficient time to return to remove the rubbish themselves.
The landlord has provided evidence of this cost, and I do agree that this is payable by the tenant. I do not consider that not knowing it wouldn’t be able to be collected if it was overfilled is not later an excuse for not having to cover the cost of it. Clarification could have been sought at any stage.
Tenants are responsible for the removal of all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 1 The tenant was fortunate in this case, that the landlord covered most of the costs associated with assisting the tenant to comply with the RTA in this respect as there was no obligation on them to do so. Whether this amount should have been added to the rent account or charged separately is now not relevant to my determination.
I consider that this additional cost due to overfilling was reasonably payable by the tenant and the tenant’s claim to have this reimbursed is dismissed. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord requested a bond of more than four weeks rent and that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) RTA. A landlord must also send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 18(4), 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This claim is based on the tenant’s submission that in January 2025, the tenant advised the landlord that in accordance with section 31(2) of the RTA, the landlord needed to return the overpaid rent into the tenant’s bank account. This was in respect of both the overpaid rent and the amount for skip bin costs charged to the tenant’s account.
As detailed above, I do not consider that the tenant did overpay rent, and I find that the skip bin costs were reasonable.
It follows that there was no obligation for any rent to be paid into the bond centre, and no breach by the landlord.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord claims for the cost to mow the lawn and to remove clippings and rubbish from the grounds. The amounts sought are $111.45 for mowing the lawns and $439.85 for removal of clippings and rubbish from the grounds.
Photographs of the rubbish have been provided. In addition, the landlord allowed the tenant further time to return to the property and recorded in a letter what items needed to be rectified. This included removal of large items left outside, lawn moving and removing grass clippings and other garden waste. The letter advised that if the tenant did not remedy the identified issues, the costs would be passed to the tenant.
There was no obligation on the landlord to allow the tenant to return to the property at the end of the tenancy to remedy any issues.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not remove all rubbish, and did not leave the exterior property reasonably clean and tidy and the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims for the cost of repairs to patch holes in the wardrobe(s) ($131.40), patch the hole in the wall ($65.70) and to refix a broken handrail ($47.25) at a total claimed amount of $244.35. Photographs have been provided of the areas that they say required repair.
The tenant says that it was a long tenancy, and these items were reflective of fair wear and tear or general maintenance works. In particular, the tenant says that the holes in the wardrobe were small, like scuff marks, and reasonable considering the 11–12-year tenancy. In respect of the laundry hole, the tenant says this was a ducting hole that they were given consent to install for the dryer as there was no other way to duct the dryer without creating security issues.
In respect of the handrail, the tenant also disputes this amount and says that the handrail was not installed into a stud, meaning it was prone to damage. She also says that it was damaged accidentally when her son grabbed it as he slipped and that it wasn’t careless or intentional and she reported this during the tenancy.
I accept the position of the handrail. This was caused by the tenant’s son grabbing it when falling, or normal use, and the fact that it came out of the wall likely shows it was not fit for purpose in some way, which may have included it not being installed into the stud as suggested.
With respect to the holes in the wardrobe – I do not have any pre-tenancy photographs. It is therefore difficult for me to assess with any great level of certainty, whether this damage occurred during the tenancy, and what would have been fair wear and tear. I accept that scuff marks would be expected at the end of a tenancy of this length, and this could also include small holes in the wardrobe.
As a result, I cannot be more certain than not that this damage was caused by the tenant either carelessly or intentionally during the tenancy and this claim is also dismissed.
I accept that the hole for the dryer ducting was caused intentionally by the tenant and was more than fair wear and tear, regardless of the reasons for installation.
Accordingly, the claimed amount of $65.70 is awarded. Other issues
Because Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression, however the tenant did. The tenant has been partially successful on aspects of the claims, in addition, there were some other issues raised by the tenant that support the granting of name suppression. On balance, I consider that the interests of the tenant outweigh any public interest and name suppression is granted to the tenant. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 04 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265963 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265963 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions