What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286539 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 5286539?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,035.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $161.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286539?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12270884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286539 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 5286539?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,035.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $161.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286539?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12270884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286539 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286539 — net $223.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 April 2025	$2,035.71	Rent arrears to 25 April 2025
Rubbish removal: Council bins	$161.00	Rubbish removal: Council bins
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$223.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$223.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $223.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 August 2025. [The tenant] attended the hearing on behalf of the tenant. [The tenant] did not attend.
The tenancy began on 11 February 2025 and ended shortly thereafter on 25 April 2025 when the tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice. The tenants are sisters. There was a breakdown in their relationship during the tenancy, which is why it did not last long. The landlord claims the tenant owes rent arrears of $2,035.71. The landlord also claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish.
The landlord withdrew their claim for compensation for repairs at the hearing, accepting that the alleged damage was pre-existing and not caused during the tenancy.
The issues I need to determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears? c. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish? d. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord the filing fee? e. Should the tenant be granted name suppression?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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 do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

The law

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Where a tenancy agreement lists multiple tenants, they are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the tenancy. This means that they are individually responsible for the entire tenancy, not just their individual portion. If one tenant fails to pay the rent, the landlord can pursue any or all of the other tenants for the full amount owed for rent arrears. Analysis
Both parties accept the tenancy ended on 25 April 2025.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $2,035.71 up to 25 April 2025.
[The tenant] claims there was an agreement between herself and [the tenant] to pay half the rent each. [The tenant] claims she transferred her portion of the rent to [the tenant], who did not forward it to the landlord. [The tenant] submitted screenshots of bank transfers showing payments of her portion of the rent to [the tenant] during the tenancy.
The issue of who is at fault for letting rent arrears accrue is not relevant to my determination of whether the tenant fell into rent arrears or not. This is because the tenants are jointly and severally liable under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has chosen to file their claim against both tenants, which they are entitled to do. If [the tenant] believes that [the tenant] should repay [the tenant] any amount paid by [the tenant] under the terms of this order, [the tenant] can file a claim against [the tenant] in the Disputes Tribunal.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s rent summary is accurate, and the tenant owes $2,035.71 in rent arrears up to 25 April 2025.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). Did the tenant leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy and remove all rubbish? The law
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 2
The term “premises” incudes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 3 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8
The landlord seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Internal cleaning:$209.88 b. Rubbish removal and lawns/garden:$209.88 c. Removal of contaminated rubbish bins:$161.00 d. Carpet cleaning:$495.00 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 23 April 2025.
The tenant submitted photographs of the premises taken on 24 April 2025.
The photographs submitted by the landlord show the premises in a very different state to those submitted by the tenant. The landlord’s photographs show rubbish and personal belongings strewn throughout the inside of the premises. The premises have clearly not been cleaned and rubbish is present. In contrast, the tenant’s photographs show no rubbish or personal belongings present. The premises appear clean and tidy. The floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped, and the surfaces wiped down.
The tenancy ended on 25 April 2025. Whilst the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy or free from rubbish on 23 April 2025, the tenant had until the end 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. of the tenancy on 25 April 2025 to meet their obligations. The landlord did not submit any photographs taken on or shortly after 25 April 2025. The most recent photographs I have before me are those taken by the tenant on 24 April 2025, which show the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and free from all rubbish.
In the absence of photographs of the premises taken on or shortly after 25 April 2025, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left rubbish at the premises, with the exception of the contaminated recycling bin.
The tenant accepts that the recycling bin was full at the end of the tenancy and had non-recyclable items in it such as curtains. The landlord submitted an invoice for $161.00 to dispose of the rubbish inside the recycling bin.
Turning now to consider the outside of the premises, the landlord claims the lawns and garden needed to be tidied at the end of the tenancy.
In the landlord’s photographs taken on 23 April 2025 and tenant’s photographs taken on 24 April 2025, the lawns do not appear to have been mowed, but are nonetheless relatively short.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy on 11 February 2025. The lawns are overgrown and untidy in some areas.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left the outside of the premises unreasonably clean and tidy, particularly when compared to the state of the lawns and garden at the beginning of the tenancy. Conclusion on cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord has not proven that the tenant left the inside or outside of the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. Therefore, the landlord’s claims for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawns/garden maintenance is dismissed.
The landlord has proven that the tenant did not remove the non-recyclable rubbish in the recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, their claim for compensation of $161.00 is granted.
The landlord has not proven the tenant left any other rubbish at the premises and therefore, their claim for compensation for general rubbish removal is dismissed.

Should the tenant reimburse the landlord the filing fee?

The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord the filing fee. 9

Should the tenant be granted name suppression?

The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I must grant their request for name suppression. 10
I have a residual discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant seeks name suppression because they are concerned about the effect publication will have on their ability to secure a rental property in the future.
The tenant is 17 years old and has a young child. For these reasons, I find the tenant to be vulnerable. I also consider these personal circumstances will most likely present a hurdle for the tenant in securing rental accommodation in the future. I accept that if the tenant’s name is published, this will most likely exacerbate the issue.
There is a public interest in prospective landlord’s knowing whether a prospective tenant pays their rent on time however, this information can easily be obtained through a reference check and publication of the tenant’s name is not necessary.
The rent arrears in this case are not particularly high and the only other breach committed by the tenant relates to not removing the rubbish in the contaminated recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. These breaches, whilst not minor, are not egregious.
I have weighed the public’s interest against the tenant’s interest and find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication in this case. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1982, section 102(4)(b). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1982, section 95A(1).
For these reasons, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286539 — net $223.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 April 2025	$2,035.71	Rent arrears to 25 April 2025
Rubbish removal: Council bins	$161.00	Rubbish removal: Council bins
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$223.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$223.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $223.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 August 2025. [The tenant] attended the hearing on behalf of the tenant. [The tenant] did not attend.
The tenancy began on 11 February 2025 and ended shortly thereafter on 25 April 2025 when the tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice. The tenants are sisters. There was a breakdown in their relationship during the tenancy, which is why it did not last long. The landlord claims the tenant owes rent arrears of $2,035.71. The landlord also claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish.
The landlord withdrew their claim for compensation for repairs at the hearing, accepting that the alleged damage was pre-existing and not caused during the tenancy.
The issues I need to determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears? c. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish? d. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord the filing fee? e. Should the tenant be granted name suppression?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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 do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

The law

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Where a tenancy agreement lists multiple tenants, they are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the tenancy. This means that they are individually responsible for the entire tenancy, not just their individual portion. If one tenant fails to pay the rent, the landlord can pursue any or all of the other tenants for the full amount owed for rent arrears. Analysis
Both parties accept the tenancy ended on 25 April 2025.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $2,035.71 up to 25 April 2025.
[The tenant] claims there was an agreement between herself and [the tenant] to pay half the rent each. [The tenant] claims she transferred her portion of the rent to [the tenant], who did not forward it to the landlord. [The tenant] submitted screenshots of bank transfers showing payments of her portion of the rent to [the tenant] during the tenancy.
The issue of who is at fault for letting rent arrears accrue is not relevant to my determination of whether the tenant fell into rent arrears or not. This is because the tenants are jointly and severally liable under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has chosen to file their claim against both tenants, which they are entitled to do. If [the tenant] believes that [the tenant] should repay [the tenant] any amount paid by [the tenant] under the terms of this order, [the tenant] can file a claim against [the tenant] in the Disputes Tribunal.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s rent summary is accurate, and the tenant owes $2,035.71 in rent arrears up to 25 April 2025.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). Did the tenant leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy and remove all rubbish? The law
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 2
The term “premises” incudes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 3 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8
The landlord seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Internal cleaning:$209.88 b. Rubbish removal and lawns/garden:$209.88 c. Removal of contaminated rubbish bins:$161.00 d. Carpet cleaning:$495.00 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 23 April 2025.
The tenant submitted photographs of the premises taken on 24 April 2025.
The photographs submitted by the landlord show the premises in a very different state to those submitted by the tenant. The landlord’s photographs show rubbish and personal belongings strewn throughout the inside of the premises. The premises have clearly not been cleaned and rubbish is present. In contrast, the tenant’s photographs show no rubbish or personal belongings present. The premises appear clean and tidy. The floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped, and the surfaces wiped down.
The tenancy ended on 25 April 2025. Whilst the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy or free from rubbish on 23 April 2025, the tenant had until the end 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. of the tenancy on 25 April 2025 to meet their obligations. The landlord did not submit any photographs taken on or shortly after 25 April 2025. The most recent photographs I have before me are those taken by the tenant on 24 April 2025, which show the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and free from all rubbish.
In the absence of photographs of the premises taken on or shortly after 25 April 2025, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left rubbish at the premises, with the exception of the contaminated recycling bin.
The tenant accepts that the recycling bin was full at the end of the tenancy and had non-recyclable items in it such as curtains. The landlord submitted an invoice for $161.00 to dispose of the rubbish inside the recycling bin.
Turning now to consider the outside of the premises, the landlord claims the lawns and garden needed to be tidied at the end of the tenancy.
In the landlord’s photographs taken on 23 April 2025 and tenant’s photographs taken on 24 April 2025, the lawns do not appear to have been mowed, but are nonetheless relatively short.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy on 11 February 2025. The lawns are overgrown and untidy in some areas.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left the outside of the premises unreasonably clean and tidy, particularly when compared to the state of the lawns and garden at the beginning of the tenancy. Conclusion on cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord has not proven that the tenant left the inside or outside of the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. Therefore, the landlord’s claims for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawns/garden maintenance is dismissed.
The landlord has proven that the tenant did not remove the non-recyclable rubbish in the recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, their claim for compensation of $161.00 is granted.
The landlord has not proven the tenant left any other rubbish at the premises and therefore, their claim for compensation for general rubbish removal is dismissed.

Should the tenant reimburse the landlord the filing fee?

The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord the filing fee. 9

Should the tenant be granted name suppression?

The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I must grant their request for name suppression. 10
I have a residual discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant seeks name suppression because they are concerned about the effect publication will have on their ability to secure a rental property in the future.
The tenant is 17 years old and has a young child. For these reasons, I find the tenant to be vulnerable. I also consider these personal circumstances will most likely present a hurdle for the tenant in securing rental accommodation in the future. I accept that if the tenant’s name is published, this will most likely exacerbate the issue.
There is a public interest in prospective landlord’s knowing whether a prospective tenant pays their rent on time however, this information can easily be obtained through a reference check and publication of the tenant’s name is not necessary.
The rent arrears in this case are not particularly high and the only other breach committed by the tenant relates to not removing the rubbish in the contaminated recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. These breaches, whilst not minor, are not egregious.
I have weighed the public’s interest against the tenant’s interest and find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication in this case. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1982, section 102(4)(b). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1982, section 95A(1).
For these reasons, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286539 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286539 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

Should the tenant reimburse the landlord the filing fee?

Should the tenant be granted name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

Should the tenant reimburse the landlord the filing fee?

Should the tenant be granted name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions