Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5278642 — Rent arrears
Decided 10 Oct 2025 · Published 10 Oct 2025 · Application 5278642
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $317.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,075.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $317.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,758.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] did not attend the hearing.
- This tenancy has ended and both parties have applied for the bond. The landlord wants orders for rent arrears and compensation.
How much is owed for rent?
- The parties attended mediation. I have a note from the mediator recording that [Tenant 1] agreed to pay rent arrears in the amount of $290 from her share of the bond. As I explained to the tenants who came to the hearing, my role is to decide disputes between landlords and tenants. This means the bond is refunded to cover the any loss during the tenancy and the tenants can sort out between themselves what is owed and by whom.
How does the assignment affect liability?
- The parties agree there was an assignment on 22 October 2024. [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3], and [Tenant 4] were the tenants after the assignment. Change of tenant forms were signed and sent to the Bond Centre.
- Section 43C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the outgoing tenants had rights and obligations under the RTA and their tenancy agreement right up until the date of the assignment. The law also allows the landlord to bring a claim against the outgoing tenants for any breaches up to the date of the assignment. This explanation of responsibility before and after the assignment date supports the tenants’ submission that theirs was a new tenancy and the landlord should have carried out an inspection.
- I find the landlord should have carried out an inspection to make sure there was no damage before the assignment date. This is because the assignment of a tenancy has the same practical implications for the outgoing tenants as ending a tenancy and the same practical implications for the ingoing tenants as starting a tenancy. Further, there is nothing in the RTA which allows the new tenants after an assignment to assume responsibility for damage which happened before the date of assignment. Garage door remote
- The claim for the garage door remote is dismissed because there is no evidence the tenants received two remotes when the tenancy was assigned. Are the tenants’ 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. Rug doctor
- There is a claim for a rug doctor. The landlord could not provide an invoice to show a rug doctor was used. The landlord has not proved he suffered a loss and this claim is dismissed. Curtains
- There is a claim for replacement curtains because [Tenant 1]’s cat damaged the curtains. The landlord provided photos and a quote for new curtains. The tenants said only the lounge curtains were badly damaged, and all the curtains were still functional at the end of the tenancy. There was mould along the hems when their tenancy started.
- I find the damage to the lounge curtains was most likely careless or intentional because of the number of pulls and scratch marks. I find the damage to the bedroom curtains was minor and not sufficient to warrant replacing the curtains. I note the landlord has found new tenants without replacing the lounge curtains.
- With claims like this I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
- The IRD depreciation table sets out that curtains in a tenancy premises are expected to last 8 years. The lounge curtains are about 10 years old. The landlord submitted that the curtains were of a superior quality. He provided an email from the business that made the curtains confirming the lounge curtains should last 10–15 years.
- I am persuaded I should extend the expected life of these curtains to 10 years. I am not extending the useful life to 15 years because of the mould and because this is a residential tenancy, so there is more wear and tear. This means the claim is not allowed because any order the tenants pay for new curtains would mean paying for an improvement. The claim is dismissed. The balcony
- There is claim for compensation because there are two scrapes on the balustrade. I have seen the photos. The scrape is minor and consistent with the other marks and weathering. It seems most likely to me these were the result of fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. The fridge
- There is a claim for a replacement fridge because there is damage in the freezer which cannot be repaired. I have considered the photos. The damage is a small hole on the moulded runner for one of the freezer bins. It seems most likely to me the damage was the result of fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. The walls
- There is a claim for damage to walls inside the house and in the garage. The damage to the garage happened before the date of the assignment and is not considered here.
- The landlord’s photos show that most of the dings and scrapes inside the house are small. I have carefully considered the landlord’s evidence. It seems most likely to me the marks are fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved. Kitchen bench
- The claim for the bench repair was dismissed at the hearing because the tenants did not have notice of the amount being claimed. Reimbursement of the rent reduction
- The parties agreed to a rent reduction after [Tenant 1] moved out and before the tenants gave their 21 day notice to end the tenancy. The landlord agreed to reduce the rent by $75 a week. He said he only did this because he thought the tenants would sign a fixed term tenancy agreement. I have read the emails and it seems most likely to me the tenants did not understand the reduction was conditional on them staying. This claim is dismissed. Compensation because the tenants took too long to make a decision
- This claim was dismissed at the hearing. Essentially the landlord held off advertising just in case the tenants accepted his offer of a fixed term tenancy at a reduced rent. There was no breach of the RTA by the tenants and this claim is dismissed. Other orders
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because he is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.
- The tenants’ application for suppression, made because publication of their names could affect future tenancies, is also allowed. The only claim I have allowed is for a small amount of rent and that was made by consent. I find there is no public interest in their names.