What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283999 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 5283999?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283999?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12447546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283999 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 5283999?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283999?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12447546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5283999 — Rent arrears

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 landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 22 September 2025.
On [date redacted], on application of the landlord the tribunal terminated the tenancy at 5pm on the [termination date redacted] and awarded the landlord [order sum redacted] plus the filing fee of $20.44. 1 The landlord has enforced that order and the tenant tells me she has paid $3690.00 off the amount owed. 2
The tenant rented the 2-bedroom property from August 2021 to [January] 2023. During the tenancy, the Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT) investigated the tenancy. As a result of that investigation the Chief Executive filed proceedings against the landlord. Those matters were to be heard first on the 22 September, but the landlord and the Chief Executive have settled the 1 [Order number redacted]. 2 The tenant later in the hearing said it may be more than this amount but was unable to give me the exact amount owing. claims brought by the Chief Executive. The terms of the agreement are that the landlord was to pay the Chief Executive on behalf of the tenant the sum of $5000.00. Both parties agreed that that amount could be set off against any amount owed by the tenant.
As the tenant was present for that hearing, it was agreed that it was best to use the time allocated to hear the landlord’s claims and determine all matters.
During the hearing of the landlord’s claims both parties indicated that they had further claims and evidence that they wished to file.
There is legal principal Res Judicata, also known as issue estoppel, that once a matter has been heard that a party cannot bring another claim about the same matter.
A party also has the obligation when bringing a claim to bring all the claims against the parties it is claiming against, this allows the Court or Tribunal to hear all the evidence and allows expeditious and efficient resolution of matters and provides finality when an order has been made. See Re Henderson (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313).
This tenancy ended over two and half years ago. I consider that the parties have had sufficient time to bring all their claims and the landlord has had sufficient time to gather and produce all evidence it wishes to produce in support of its claims against the tenant. Claims to be determined.
The landlord claims: a. Rent from 12 January to the 31 January 2023 b. Water owing of $710.00. c. Compensation for water used, as the landlord claims the tenant failed to notify him of a leak in her toilet cistern. d. The costs of repainting the walls of $3800.00 e. The cost of replacement carpet $1600.00 f. The cost of cleaning and rubbish removal $450.00 g. The cost of replacement keys $120.00 h. The filing fee $28.00 The burden of proof and evidence.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
I confirm that I have carefully considered all of the evidence submitted by both parties before making my decision.

Is the tenant liable for rent from 12- 31 January?

The landlord is seeking rent for this period. He says that he did not know exactly when the tenant moved out, because the tenant did not communicate with him or return the keys. He said that he had to wait until he was sure that the tenant was not coming back before he re-entered the property.
Tenants are liable for rent for the days that they remain in possession of the property after the tenancy ends. 3
The landlord has not proven that the tenant left on the 31 January 2023 and therefore his claim for further rent is dismissed. I have reached this decision for the following reasons: a. The landlord accepted that he did not know exactly the tenant moved out and said at the hearing “I have chosen the 31 January.” b. The evidence is clear that the tenant’s skip bin was dropped off on the 11 January as the tenant has produced an email from the skip bin company confirming that. The tenant says that she left the same day that the skip bin was delivered as per the Tribunal’s order. c. The email from the skip bin company shows that the bin was to be picked up the following Monday (16 January 2023), the parties both say they thought that the skip bin was there longer than that but have no evidence to prove that it was not picked up on the 16 January. I therefore consider it most likely that the skip bin was picked up on Monday 16 January and the tenant had left sometime before that date.

Does the tenant owe any money for water?

The landlord is seeking water owing of $710.00.
Tenants are only liable for water that they exclusively use. 4 3 Section 60 RTA.
There are several different premises at the property. There is this tenant’s premises, a granny flat that the landlord and his partner live in and the main house, which the landlord rents out.
There is no separate water meter for the tenant’s unit.
The landlord says that the tenant agreed to pay $10.00 per week in the tenancy agreement for water. He seeks 71 weeks of water. 5
I dismiss the landlord’s claims for water for the following reasons: a. The landlord has brought two previous claims for rent arrears to the Tribunal and produced rent ledgers in those claims. The landlord claims that the water was owed for the same period as the rent he claimed, but did not make a water rates claim at the time that he filed the claim for rent arrears. I consider that a claim for water rates owing at that date should have been properly brought at the same time as those claims. b. The landlord told me today that the rent amount in the tenancy agreement of $435.00 was inclusive of water owed, but this is inconsistent with evidence he had given in previous applications including 4340492 where the landlord submitted a letter to the tenant in evidence which stated the amount of rent was $430.00 per week not $425.00. I do not consider it clear what amount the parties had agreed to pay for water. c. As there was no check meter, there is no way of ascertaining what the tenant’s exclusive use was. d. Apart from the letter in April 2022 there did not appear to be any request for payment in writing by the landlord for the outstanding water. e. The evidence given by the landlord was inconsistent on how the water was calculated. Did the tenant fail to notify the landlord of water leak at the property resulting in a large water bill?
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord must provide the property in reasonable repair. Tenants have an obligation to report any item in need of repair to the landlord as soon as possible so the landlord can fix it. 6
The landlord says in April 2022 he received an excessive water bill for the property from water care. He says that he conducted a leak test and could not find any leak. He says that he then asked the tenant if she knew of any leaks, and she told him about the toilet continually running. The landlord says that the 4 Section 39 (3) RTA. 5 There was no reason given by the landlord that he was seeking this number of weeks, when the tenancy was 75 weeks in total. 6 Section 40(1)(d) RTA. tenant should have told him about this leak earlier and that it was because of this problem that he had a large water bill.
The tenant says that the toilet running was a problem right from the beginning of the tenancy. She said sometimes it worked sometimes it didn’t. However, she denies that it would be the cause of the large water bill. She says that she observed the landlord doing work at the property in a small digger and breaking a pipe, and the landlord told her he had to turn off the water while he fixed it.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant failed to notify him about the toilet overrun and that this was the cause of the large water bill. I say this for the following reasons: a. The landlord did not conduct a pre tenancy inspection. I therefore have no way of knowing if the toilet was broken at the beginning of the tenancy. b. Considering the evidence presented by the Chief Executive in its case against the landlord, I consider it more than likely that the toilet was leaking the whole way during the tenancy. I say this because it was confirmed that the landlord had changed the positioning of the toilet and completed works at the property that he had not obtained consent for. I also consider that the evidence given by compliance officers and council inspectors of the general condition and state of repair of the property, shows a property that is run down and not in reasonable repair. I also consider that the property was not in reasonable repair at the beginning of the tenancy, because it clear from the text messages between the parties that the landlord was coming to fix items at the property (including removing the previous tenant’s rubbish and installing a stove) in the first few days of the tenancy. If the toilet was leaking throughout the tenancy as I have found, then the leaking would have occurred all through the tenancy, not suddenly in April 2022. c. The graph of consumption in the water care invoice shows that this month was an anomaly, the month before the meter was not read so the leak or defect may have been there for two months or more, but it is clear that something out of the ordinary happened at the property which caused the leak. d. There were a number of people living in the three premises at the property. It is possible that all of the occupants between the three premises used this water, or that the leak occurred in another one of the premises.. The lack of a water meter for the tenant’s unit mean that I cannot conclusively attribute the cause of the water increase to her. e. The landlord did not seek a leak rebate from Watercare. Did the tenant fail to clean the property and remove her rubbish at the end of the tenancy?
A tenant has an obligation to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all their rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs of the property which he says were taken at the end of the tenancy, they show a property that is not left clean and tidy condition and rubbish piled up in a skip bin.
Each party says that they put the rubbish in the skip bin. I do not know who put the rubbish in the skip bin. The landlord was not able to verify the date he took the photographs he produced in evidence.
The tenant paid for the skip bin. She says she put the rubbish in the skip bin before leaving.
The tenant accepts that she did not leave the property in a clean condition, but she disputes that the landlord’s photographs are an accurate depiction of how she left the property. She says that she believes that the landlord has taken a rubbish bag and strewn rubbish about.
I consider it more than likely that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean condition, because she accepted that due to her leaving in a rush she did not have time to clean and the photographs taken by compliance officers during the tenancy, show that the way that the tenant lived in the property was not at a standard that the tribunal would consider reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says that he and a friend cleaned the property up and added any rubbish to the skip bin. As the tenant paid for the skip bin then the tenant has already paid the cost of rubbish removal.
The landlord was unable to itemise the time spent by him and his friend cleaning. He had no receipts for the amounts he said he had paid his friend.
Whilst I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, I do not make any award for compensation because of the following: a. The landlord could not prove any loss. b. The landlord was required to remove the additions to the property (a bedroom and reinstate the toilet) by a notice to fix from Council. This building work was considerable, and I would expect that at the end of the work that the landlord would have had to extensively clean the property. c. The landlord rented the property to the tenant with the previous tenant’s rubbish in place. It would be unfair to allow the landlord to breach his obligations to the tenant, and then hold the tenant to a higher standard.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for painting and carpet?

The landlord says that the tenant painted the walls during the tenancy and stained the carpet. The landlord says at the end of the tenancy he had to repaint the walls and replace the carpet.
The landlord says that at the beginning of the tenancy the walls were freshly painted, and he usually paints between tenancies. The tenant disputes that the walls were freshly painted, she says that there was little time between tenancies, evidenced by the landlord not being able to remove the previous tenant’s rubbish and complete repairs. She says that the whole place was in disrepair, and she was desperate to get a place to live for her and her daughter at a time when [City] was in the midst of both lockdowns and a housing shortage.
The tenant accepts that she painted two walls in a darker colour during the tenancy she says she did this to try and make the property look better. She accepts that she is not a painter and that the painting she did was probably not of a high standard.
I do not accept that the tenant should be liable for the cost of repainting the walls for the following reasons: a. The landlord did not have an ingoing inspection report that showed me the condition of the property. b. The landlord showed me an undated photographs of the property after he had completed all of the works, but that does not tell or show me the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. c. The photographs taken by the compliance officers do not show a property that looks freshly painted less than a year beforehand. d. The landlord would have had to paint walls after he completed the extensive repairs and removal of the alteration which were required to bring the property up to a standard that a tenant could rent it. e. The landlord had no invoices of the amounts he had paid for paint or painting. Whilst he had evidence from his builder friend that the amounts were ‘reasonable’, this is not evidence of the actual time or costs he spent. f. I do not consider it fair to make the tenant pay for painting walls in a property that was on the evidence provided by the compliance officers well below a reasonable standard.
The landlord says that the tenant should pay for replacement carpet because there were stains on the carpet that she caused. I dismiss this application as there is no evidence such as photographs to support this claim. There is no inspection report or photograph at the beginning of the tenancy showing me the condition of the property. The carpet appears old and worn and the landlord has not produced any invoices for this work. The keys.
The tenant accepts she did not hand back the one key that the landlord gave her. However, as the landlord has not provided evidence that supports his claim that he changed the locks, such as receipts or invoices for the work done, then he has not proven his claim. Did the tenant breach s40(2)(c) RTA by threatening the landlord and a visitor?
A tenant has an obligation not to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of her neighbours. This landlord was her neighbour.
The landlord claims that on one occasion 7 he came to the property with a friend who had a trailer, to collect items from his premises. They parked in the driveway used by the tenant and accessed the landlord’s premises by dismantling a temporary fence. The landlord says that the tenant came out and was aggressive to him and his friend (who the tenant had a previous connection with), she asked them to leave, when they did not leave, she went inside and got something that looked like a gun and came back out and asked them to leave again.
The tenant says that she was upset to see the landlord’s friend on her property. This person was someone who she had a dispute with, and whom she had reported to the Police. She accepts that she swore at them and asked them to leave and when they did not, she went inside and got her air rifle and came outside with it. The landlord and his friend then left. The tenant says she was upset and frightened and that is why she had to get her air rifle out as the landlord and his friend would not leave and were mocking her.
Whilst the tenant’s admits that she swore, yelled and produced an air rifle, I do not consider that she was in breach of s45(1)(c) for the following reasons: a. The landlord and his friend were on the tenant’s premises at the time the incident occurred. Section 45 (1)(c) is when a tenant uses her premises in such a way that it affects the way that the neighbours use of their premises or their privacy or comfort. It does not cover situations where a tenant is asking his landlord or his friend to leave her premises. b. The landlord had given no notice to the tenant that he would be coming through the property. Whilst he does not need to do so when he is outside the property, he should not have brought his friends onto the property without telling the tenant. c. The landlord did not report the incident to the Police and did not seem overly concerned about the behaviour at the time. His friend who gave 7 No one could tell me the date that this incident was alleged to have occurred and there was conflicting evidence about whether it occurred on one occasion or over one or more visits. evidence at the hearing confirmed that he was not concerned about the tenant’s behaviour. Did the tenant use the property for an unlawful purpose by selling drugs from the property?
There is no evidence that supports this allegation apart from the landlord’s belief because some people would come to his door looking for someone by another name. This is not evidence that the tenant was selling drugs, it is evidence that the there was a number of premises within the one property and its was sometimes difficult for visitors of all the homes to identify where the person they wanted to contact lived. This included delivery drivers. This claim is dismissed.

Why has the tenant been granted name suppression?

I have granted the tenant name suppression because this decision refers to an application taken by the Chief Executive under s124A, and I am required to do that pursuant to s95A(2) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283999 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283999 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent from 12- 31 January?

Does the tenant owe any money for water?

Should the tenant pay the landlord for painting and carpet?

Why has the tenant been granted name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent from 12- 31 January?

Does the tenant owe any money for water?

Should the tenant pay the landlord for painting and carpet?

Why has the tenant been granted name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions