What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284443 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 5284443?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $278.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Curtain: $94.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284443?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284443?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13148147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284443 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 5284443?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $278.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Curtain: $94.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284443?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284443?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13148147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284443 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284443 — net $440.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 8 May 2025	$278.57	Rent arrears (to 8 May 2025
Lock/key replacement: Replace 2 x keys	$40.00	Lock/key replacement: Replace 2 x keys
Replace bedroom curtain	$94.90	Replace bedroom curtain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$440.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$440.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $440.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $440.47 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $859.53 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 11 June 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
[Property Manager], Property Manager, and [Account Manager], Account Manager, appeared for the landlord by telephone.
The tenant appeared by AVL link from Manawatu Prison. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Background of the tenancy
This boarding house tenancy commenced on 28 March 2025.
The tenant occupied room seven and shared the communal facilities.
On the 6 May 2025, the landlord gave the tenant 48 hours’ notice under section 66U(1)(b) of the Act terminating the tenancy effective 8 May 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 May 2025. The landlord provided an up-to-date rent summary proving the amount owed. The tenant acknowledged not paying rent for the final days of his tenancy and took no issue with the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.

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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $40.00 after replacing one key that was lost during the tenancy, and one key that was not returned following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 49B(8), 66K(2) and 66L of the Act.
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 Act.
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) of the Act. 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 Act.
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 Act.
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 seeks compensation for the following damage in the amounts specified: a. Replace ripped curtain in room seven - $94.90. b. Install hallway cupboard door and patch and paint holes in the hallway: $546.25 – an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. c. Replace new door to bathroom due to damage: $373.75 – an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. d. Replace door to room four: $373.75 – an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. e. Patching and painting two holes in the wall of bedroom one: $166.75 - an invoice for the amount claimed was provided. f. Reglazing of two windows: $653.50 – an invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord told the Tribunal that on the evening of 10 May 2025, they were contacted by a tenant who reported the respondent had returned to the property and caused damage to the hallway walls, two doors, the wall behind the door in room one, and the bathroom door and that the tenant’s girlfriend had smashed two windows.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs, and an exit report dated 15 May 2025 evidencing the damage to the property. No pre-tenancy inspection reports or photographs were provided proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant took no issue with the landlord’s claim to replace the curtains stating he was responsible for ripping it. The amount claimed is ordered.
The tenant denied causing any other damage to the property. The tenant stated that he returned to the property to collect his belongings and was “set up” by the other occupants. Analysis and decision
Section 49B(8) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The Tribunal has heard that the respondent’s tenancy ended on 8 May 2025 and rent arrears to that date has been awarded. The landlord stated the damage to the property occurred on 10 May 2025, after the respondent’s tenancy ended. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for damage caused to a property after a tenancy has ended and the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed. The landlord may wish to consider bringing the damage to the attention of the Police.
However, if the Tribunal is wrong on this point and the respondent’s tenancy was ongoing, the Tribunal would have dismissed the landlord’s claim for compensation for the following reasons:
The landlord failed to prove the damage to the property occurred during the tenancy. The landlord did not provide any pre-tenancy inspection reports or photographs proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an end of tenancy report and photographs showing the damage. However, the Tribunal was unable to properly compare and contrast the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the respondent’s tenancy. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord failed to prove the tenant was responsible for the damage. The landlord stated the respondent was witnessed causing damage to the property by their other tenants. However, the landlord did not call for viva voce evidence from those witnesses or provide the Tribunal with any affidavits, Police reports, or witness statements to prove it was the respondent who was responsible for the damage to the property and not one of their other tenants. The tenant denies being responsible for the damage and claims that due to his poor relationship with the other occupants he was “set up” to take the blame. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant was responsible for the damage. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
The tenant has also been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284443 — net $440.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 8 May 2025	$278.57	Rent arrears (to 8 May 2025
Lock/key replacement: Replace 2 x keys	$40.00	Lock/key replacement: Replace 2 x keys
Replace bedroom curtain	$94.90	Replace bedroom curtain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$440.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$440.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $440.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $440.47 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $859.53 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 11 June 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
[Property Manager], Property Manager, and [Account Manager], Account Manager, appeared for the landlord by telephone.
The tenant appeared by AVL link from Manawatu Prison. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Background of the tenancy
This boarding house tenancy commenced on 28 March 2025.
The tenant occupied room seven and shared the communal facilities.
On the 6 May 2025, the landlord gave the tenant 48 hours’ notice under section 66U(1)(b) of the Act terminating the tenancy effective 8 May 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 May 2025. The landlord provided an up-to-date rent summary proving the amount owed. The tenant acknowledged not paying rent for the final days of his tenancy and took no issue with the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.

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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $40.00 after replacing one key that was lost during the tenancy, and one key that was not returned following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 49B(8), 66K(2) and 66L of the Act.
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 Act.
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) of the Act. 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 Act.
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 Act.
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 seeks compensation for the following damage in the amounts specified: a. Replace ripped curtain in room seven - $94.90. b. Install hallway cupboard door and patch and paint holes in the hallway: $546.25 – an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. c. Replace new door to bathroom due to damage: $373.75 – an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. d. Replace door to room four: $373.75 – an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. e. Patching and painting two holes in the wall of bedroom one: $166.75 - an invoice for the amount claimed was provided. f. Reglazing of two windows: $653.50 – an invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord told the Tribunal that on the evening of 10 May 2025, they were contacted by a tenant who reported the respondent had returned to the property and caused damage to the hallway walls, two doors, the wall behind the door in room one, and the bathroom door and that the tenant’s girlfriend had smashed two windows.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs, and an exit report dated 15 May 2025 evidencing the damage to the property. No pre-tenancy inspection reports or photographs were provided proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant took no issue with the landlord’s claim to replace the curtains stating he was responsible for ripping it. The amount claimed is ordered.
The tenant denied causing any other damage to the property. The tenant stated that he returned to the property to collect his belongings and was “set up” by the other occupants. Analysis and decision
Section 49B(8) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The Tribunal has heard that the respondent’s tenancy ended on 8 May 2025 and rent arrears to that date has been awarded. The landlord stated the damage to the property occurred on 10 May 2025, after the respondent’s tenancy ended. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for damage caused to a property after a tenancy has ended and the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed. The landlord may wish to consider bringing the damage to the attention of the Police.
However, if the Tribunal is wrong on this point and the respondent’s tenancy was ongoing, the Tribunal would have dismissed the landlord’s claim for compensation for the following reasons:
The landlord failed to prove the damage to the property occurred during the tenancy. The landlord did not provide any pre-tenancy inspection reports or photographs proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an end of tenancy report and photographs showing the damage. However, the Tribunal was unable to properly compare and contrast the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the respondent’s tenancy. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord failed to prove the tenant was responsible for the damage. The landlord stated the respondent was witnessed causing damage to the property by their other tenants. However, the landlord did not call for viva voce evidence from those witnesses or provide the Tribunal with any affidavits, Police reports, or witness statements to prove it was the respondent who was responsible for the damage to the property and not one of their other tenants. The tenant denies being responsible for the damage and claims that due to his poor relationship with the other occupants he was “set up” to take the blame. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant was responsible for the damage. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
The tenant has also been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284443 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284443 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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