What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275366 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 5275366?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $1,491.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,120.11 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $603.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275366?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275366?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13367641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275366 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 5275366?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $1,491.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,120.11 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $603.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275366?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275366?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13367641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275366 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275366 — net $10,716.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.3.2025	$7,120.11	Rent arrears to 17.3.2025
Water rates	$603.06	Water rates
Power	$1,491.50	Power
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$437.00	Carpet cleaning
Curtains	$230.00	Curtains
Garage remote	$207.00	Garage remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,716.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,716.67

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $10,716.67 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with [The landlord’s representative] appearing for the landlord and [The tenant’s representative] attending for the tenants.
As noted in my order following the first hearing, this tenancy began on 5 October 2024 and was for a fixed term, due to end on 3 October 2025. The tenancy ended before the end of the fixed term.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Following the first hearing, the landlord was awarded water rates of $603.06 and power charges of $1,491.50. This is noted above for completeness and enforcement purposes.
One of the issues to be resolved in this hearing is the date the tenancy ended. The landlord claims the end date is 17 March 2025, whereas the tenant states the tenancy ended earlier, on 8 January 2025. This is discussed below.
The bond has been paid to the landlord, by mutual agreement, following a mediation on 17 March 2025. The landlord also seeks reimbursement of the filing fee arising from this mediation (application 5152319). However, this is a cost that ought to have been resolved at the mediation, which has now been concluded. Therefore, I decline to order reimbursement of this cost.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims rent arrears of $7,120.11, and relies on its rent summary, which shows rent from the start of the tenancy to 17 March 2025. The tenant claims he is only liable for rent up to 8 January 2025, stating he moved out on this day. At the first hearing, the tenant claimed he gave verbal notice to the landlord in December 2024 about ending the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find it likely that the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. While the tenant claims an earlier date, he has not produced the evidence in support. The first hearing was adjourned part-heard to give the parties the opportunity to produce further evidence in support of their respective positions. The tenant’s claims that the dates shown on the landlord’s text messages, produced at this hearing, have somehow been altered, are unsubstantiated.
The landlord’s evidence shows there was text communication from the tenant to the landlord, on 8 January 2025, seeking to add his wife’s name to the tenancy agreement. There is also email communication regarding the signing of a variation of the tenancy agreement. So, it seems unlikely the tenancy ended on 8 January 2025, as claimed. There is another text from the tenant to the landlord on 17 March 2025 stating that he will leave the keys at the premises the following day, which shows that the tenant retained the keys until at least 17 March 2025. The mediator’s order is dated 17 March 2025, where the parties agreed that the bond of $4,400.00 was to be paid to the landlord. Overall, I find it more likely that the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025.
The landlord’s rent summary, which includes a credit for the bond payment, has been confirmed to be correct. The tenant accepts that rent payments stopped after January 2025. As the landlord has established the claim for rent arrears, this is awarded above. Water and power charges
As noted in the earlier order, the tenant accepts the water and power charges claimed by the landlord, which are awarded above.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). The landlord has provided inspection reports with photographic evidence and invoices. The reports were completed at the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims are considered individually below. Cleaning
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and seeks cleaning costs of $897.00. The tenant accepts that some further cleaning was needed, and agrees to payment of $250.00 for cleaning, but not the full amount claimed by the landlord.
Having considered the whole of the evidence, including the photographic evidence in the landlord’s entry and exit inspection reports, I find the tenants are liable for $600.00, which is approximately two thirds of the cleaning costs. I consider the balance to be costs incurred by the landlord to bring the property up to a higher standard of cleanliness suitable for new tenants, which will not be the tenants’ responsibility. Pest control
The landlord claims pest control costs of $253.00 for flea treatment. The landlord believes the tenants kept a dog at the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant denies liability for the flea treatment, stating they did not keep a dog at the premises. His oral evidence is that he is allergic to cats and dogs, and his religion does not permit him to keep a dog.
Overall, I find the evidence is evenly balanced as to whether the tenants had a pet at the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement. It is unclear from the photographic evidence, including from the routine inspection in December 2024, and the person who carried out the inspection was not present to give evidence at the hearing. In the December 2024 report, it is noted that there were signs of a pet, but no pet was present during the inspection. Whether the landlord communicated its concerns about the tenants keeping a pet at the premises is uncertain.
Therefore, as the landlord has not been able to establish, with sufficient evidence, that the tenants are responsible for the need to arrange for flea treatment, this claim is dismissed. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims $437.00 for carpet stain removal ($380 plus GST), as shown in the invoice. The landlord notes stains in bedrooms 2, 3 and 4. The tenant accepts responsibility for the stains in bedroom 2, but not the other areas.
Overall, I find the landlord has established its claim. The landlord’s exit inspection report provides photographic evidence of the carpet stains, which are evident in multiple areas throughout the house, and were not present at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the carpet stain removal cost is awarded to the landlord. Garage remote
The landlord originally claimed $360.00 plus GST for replacement of two garage remotes. At the second hearing, the landlord confirmed that the cost of one remote only ($207.00) was being sought. The tenant accepted, at the second hearing, that he was liable for this cost, which is awarded above. Compensation for damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to curtains in bedroom 3. This is disputed by the tenant.
Overall, I find the landlord has established this claim, noting the photographic evidence showing the damage, which is likely to have occurred during this tenancy, and is beyond wear and tear from ordinary use. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee. The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted on the same basis.
The tenants also seek name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties, the public interest, and noting that not all claims against the tenants have been established, orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275366 — net $10,716.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.3.2025	$7,120.11	Rent arrears to 17.3.2025
Water rates	$603.06	Water rates
Power	$1,491.50	Power
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$437.00	Carpet cleaning
Curtains	$230.00	Curtains
Garage remote	$207.00	Garage remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,716.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,716.67

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $10,716.67 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with [The landlord’s representative] appearing for the landlord and [The tenant’s representative] attending for the tenants.
As noted in my order following the first hearing, this tenancy began on 5 October 2024 and was for a fixed term, due to end on 3 October 2025. The tenancy ended before the end of the fixed term.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Following the first hearing, the landlord was awarded water rates of $603.06 and power charges of $1,491.50. This is noted above for completeness and enforcement purposes.
One of the issues to be resolved in this hearing is the date the tenancy ended. The landlord claims the end date is 17 March 2025, whereas the tenant states the tenancy ended earlier, on 8 January 2025. This is discussed below.
The bond has been paid to the landlord, by mutual agreement, following a mediation on 17 March 2025. The landlord also seeks reimbursement of the filing fee arising from this mediation (application 5152319). However, this is a cost that ought to have been resolved at the mediation, which has now been concluded. Therefore, I decline to order reimbursement of this cost.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims rent arrears of $7,120.11, and relies on its rent summary, which shows rent from the start of the tenancy to 17 March 2025. The tenant claims he is only liable for rent up to 8 January 2025, stating he moved out on this day. At the first hearing, the tenant claimed he gave verbal notice to the landlord in December 2024 about ending the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find it likely that the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. While the tenant claims an earlier date, he has not produced the evidence in support. The first hearing was adjourned part-heard to give the parties the opportunity to produce further evidence in support of their respective positions. The tenant’s claims that the dates shown on the landlord’s text messages, produced at this hearing, have somehow been altered, are unsubstantiated.
The landlord’s evidence shows there was text communication from the tenant to the landlord, on 8 January 2025, seeking to add his wife’s name to the tenancy agreement. There is also email communication regarding the signing of a variation of the tenancy agreement. So, it seems unlikely the tenancy ended on 8 January 2025, as claimed. There is another text from the tenant to the landlord on 17 March 2025 stating that he will leave the keys at the premises the following day, which shows that the tenant retained the keys until at least 17 March 2025. The mediator’s order is dated 17 March 2025, where the parties agreed that the bond of $4,400.00 was to be paid to the landlord. Overall, I find it more likely that the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025.
The landlord’s rent summary, which includes a credit for the bond payment, has been confirmed to be correct. The tenant accepts that rent payments stopped after January 2025. As the landlord has established the claim for rent arrears, this is awarded above. Water and power charges
As noted in the earlier order, the tenant accepts the water and power charges claimed by the landlord, which are awarded above.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). The landlord has provided inspection reports with photographic evidence and invoices. The reports were completed at the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims are considered individually below. Cleaning
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and seeks cleaning costs of $897.00. The tenant accepts that some further cleaning was needed, and agrees to payment of $250.00 for cleaning, but not the full amount claimed by the landlord.
Having considered the whole of the evidence, including the photographic evidence in the landlord’s entry and exit inspection reports, I find the tenants are liable for $600.00, which is approximately two thirds of the cleaning costs. I consider the balance to be costs incurred by the landlord to bring the property up to a higher standard of cleanliness suitable for new tenants, which will not be the tenants’ responsibility. Pest control
The landlord claims pest control costs of $253.00 for flea treatment. The landlord believes the tenants kept a dog at the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant denies liability for the flea treatment, stating they did not keep a dog at the premises. His oral evidence is that he is allergic to cats and dogs, and his religion does not permit him to keep a dog.
Overall, I find the evidence is evenly balanced as to whether the tenants had a pet at the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement. It is unclear from the photographic evidence, including from the routine inspection in December 2024, and the person who carried out the inspection was not present to give evidence at the hearing. In the December 2024 report, it is noted that there were signs of a pet, but no pet was present during the inspection. Whether the landlord communicated its concerns about the tenants keeping a pet at the premises is uncertain.
Therefore, as the landlord has not been able to establish, with sufficient evidence, that the tenants are responsible for the need to arrange for flea treatment, this claim is dismissed. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims $437.00 for carpet stain removal ($380 plus GST), as shown in the invoice. The landlord notes stains in bedrooms 2, 3 and 4. The tenant accepts responsibility for the stains in bedroom 2, but not the other areas.
Overall, I find the landlord has established its claim. The landlord’s exit inspection report provides photographic evidence of the carpet stains, which are evident in multiple areas throughout the house, and were not present at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the carpet stain removal cost is awarded to the landlord. Garage remote
The landlord originally claimed $360.00 plus GST for replacement of two garage remotes. At the second hearing, the landlord confirmed that the cost of one remote only ($207.00) was being sought. The tenant accepted, at the second hearing, that he was liable for this cost, which is awarded above. Compensation for damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to curtains in bedroom 3. This is disputed by the tenant.
Overall, I find the landlord has established this claim, noting the photographic evidence showing the damage, which is likely to have occurred during this tenancy, and is beyond wear and tear from ordinary use. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee. The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted on the same basis.
The tenants also seek name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties, the public interest, and noting that not all claims against the tenants have been established, orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275366 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275366 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions