What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288240 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy address and the personal details contained in the attachment order

How much money was awarded in case 5288240?

Cleaning: $1,230.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: draught, mould, no ten…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,050.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $598.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288240?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13723710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288240 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy address and the personal details contained in the attachment order

How much money was awarded in case 5288240?

Cleaning: $1,230.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: draught, mould, no ten…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,050.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $598.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288240?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13723710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288240 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288240 — net $7,412.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17/06/2025	$6,050.00		Rent arrears to 17/06/2025
Cleaning: rubbish, carpet spot clean	$1,230.00		Cleaning: rubbish, carpet spot clean
Lock/key replacement	$730.00		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: 2 x skip bins	$598.29		Rubbish removal: 2 x skip bins
Lawns and Garden work: 50	$204.70		Lawns and Garden work: 50
Compensation: draught, mould, no tenancy agreement		$400.00	draught, mould, no tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: seizing tenant's goods		$1,000.00	seizing tenant's goods
Total award	$8,812.99	$1,400.00
Net award	$7,412.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,412.99

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288240 — net $7,412.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17/06/2025	$6,050.00		Rent arrears to 17/06/2025
Cleaning: rubbish, carpet spot clean	$1,230.00		Cleaning: rubbish, carpet spot clean
Lock/key replacement	$730.00		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: 2 x skip bins	$598.29		Rubbish removal: 2 x skip bins
Lawns and Garden work: 50	$204.70		Lawns and Garden work: 50
Compensation: draught, mould, no tenancy agreement		$400.00	draught, mould, no tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: seizing tenant's goods		$1,000.00	seizing tenant's goods
Total award	$8,812.99	$1,400.00
Net award	$7,412.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,412.99

Order

The tenancy address and the personal details contained in the attachment order are suppressed from the published order.
Jessica Geck must pay Lloyd Farms Limited $7,412.99 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The parties have agreed that the order for payment of money will be enforced by attachment order, as follows. [Attachment Order suppressed]

Reasons

Both parties (Daizou Shimotomai for the landlord) 1 attended the hearings.
This tenancy started on 10 July 2024 and ended on 15 June 2025 after the tenant gave notice.
Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.
The landlord’s claims are for rent owing and costs incurred after the tenancy ended. The tenant raises concerns about mould, repairs, and alleges the landlord seized a trailer and a vehicle unlawfully.
I note that the parties were constructive in the hearing and hoping to put the past behind them. I address the issues in that context. Events at the end of the tenancy
The rent ledger shows the tenant began to miss rent about three months after the tenancy began. The landlord contacted her in early February 2025 and advised the amount owing was $6,100.00. She apologised and made some extra payments but missed one week of rent in both April and May, so the debt did not reduce. The tenant then gave notice to terminate the tenancy advising that her final day would be 15 June 2025.
As the vacate date approached, the landlord became concerned the property would not be ready. He arranged for a skip bin to be delivered to the address and let the tenant know it would be collected on 16 June 2025, the day after the tenancy ended.
The tenant did not manage to finish moving by the end of the last day. She let the landlord know. He replied to say he would like to collect the keys the next morning but when he arrived, Ms Geck was not there.
This is when things started to escalate.
My summary of the events of the next week is that the landlord removed the tenant’s trailer and an unroadworthy vehicle from the tenancy address without 1 When I refer to the landlord in this decision, I mean Mr Shimotomai, who is a director of the landlord company. permission and without notifying the tenant. She made a police complaint. The trailer was returned but not the vehicle. Communication broke down.
A first hearing was held in the Tribunal on 25 August 2025. Orders were made arranging for the collection of the tenant’s vehicle and other goods.
Eight months passed until the next hearing because of adjournment requests from the parties and delays in providing evidence. Landlord and tenant legal obligations
Both landlords and tenants have legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Some of those are listed below. 2
A landlord must:- a. provide a signed, complete, and accurate written tenancy agreement before the tenancy starts; section 13 RTA. b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the smoke alarms regulations, Healthy Homes Standards 3 and all laws relating to buildings, health and safety; section 45 RTA.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of legally because they have been left at the premises after the tenancy ended and the tenant has not collected these after being given reasonable opportunity to do so. 4 Section 33(1) and (4) RTA.
A tenant must:- a. pay rent as and when it is due; section 40(1)(a) RTA. b. keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during and at the end of the tenancy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices; section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. c. not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises or use, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(a) RTA. d. notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for any repairs; section 40(1)(d) RTA. 2 There are other important duties such as a landlord ensuring premises are lawfully able to be used as residential premises (eg checking building and resource consents), supplying potable water, and not restricting access to water, electricity internet or other services. A tenant must not tamper with or remove smoke alarms, not make any renovation or change to the property without the landlord’s written consent, occupy the premises for principally residential purposes (not business), and abide by the tenancy agreement as to the number of occupants and subletting. 3 The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 4 See sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compensation may be awarded to a non-breaching party to recover expenses or loss, or as a lump sum or reduction of rent where the tenancy agreement or the law has been breached. The Tribunal can recognise non-financial loss such as inconvenience and stress, where appropriate.
In addition, some breaches are “unlawful acts” for which exemplary damages (like a fine or penalty) may be awarded (see Schedule 1A RTA). The Tribunal must decide the breach is intentional and that it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see s109(3) RTA.
I address the claims below. Landlord claims
Rent owing: The landlord provided rent records, and the tenant agrees these are correct. I award rent to the date claimed which is 17 June 2025 (the end of the rent week starting 11 June 2025). 5
Cleaning and rubbish removal: the tenant ran out of time to finish removing all rubbish and cleaning by the final date of the tenancy. She let the landlord know and promised she was working on it. Her view is that she was prevented from doing so by the landlord removing the trailer she was using for moving and locking/blocking the driveway. The landlord says he allowed her extra time to move and clean (until Monday 23 June 2025) but the tenant says she was advised not to go to the property unaccompanied and she did not receive the landlord’s text giving her more time. The result is that the landlord’s photos prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The invoiced cost of $1,230.00 for 41 hours of work at $30.00 per hour is reasonable to return the premises to a good condition and the landlord says the invoice includes time spent by the cleaner to deposit items into the skip bins. He says other work was done free of charge by employees of the landlord company, and I accept this. The cleaning invoice also includes spot-cleaning of the carpet in the house. Both parties agree the tenant cleaned the bathroom, toilet and hallway. After considering all factors, my decision is to award the amount claimed in full because it is a fair amount for all work done. However, the landlord needs to understand that although the tenant breached her legal obligation to return premises reasonably clean and remove all rubbish by the end date of a tenancy, a landlord has a legal obligation to respond reasonably to this breach. This is a legal principle called “mitigation of loss” and specifically applies to tenancies; see section 49 RTA. The principle is that if someone fails to respond reasonably to someone 5 The tenancy ended on 15 June 2025 but the tenant had not removed all belongings and rubbish on that date so the additional two days’ rent is reasonable. else’s wrong or breach, then their award of compensation may be reduced to exclude losses that could reasonably have been avoided. It is not uncommon that a tenant has not quite finished moving out by the final date of a tenancy and most landlords will allow some extra time to avoid extra cost and stress for everyone.
Skip bins: I award the claim for the cost of two skip bins to remove rubbish and unwanted belongings (as shown in the landlord’s photos and verified by invoices). I award $598.29.
Keys: the tenant accepts she did not return the keys because of the breakdown in communication and uncertainty of collecting her belongings. It is a tenant responsibility to return keys however all claims must be reasonable. There was discussion in the hearing about the high mileage and service charge of $341.85+gst. Unfortunately, this will depend on the location of a property and the availability of local locksmiths. I award the invoiced cost incurred by the landlord to change and rekey the locks which is $730.00. The garage door remote was returned during the hearing.
Lawns: photos show the large property needed mowing and the landlord notes that items left lying in the grass had to be picked up first. The tenant explained she had arranged for the lawns to be done but the very wet weather had prevented it before the end date. The communication breakdown between the parties meant the tenant did not rebook this. The landlord’s claim is for $409.40 charged at $100.00 per hour plus gst and $56.00 for mileage. I award half of this invoiced cost as my assessment is that the hourly rate and mileage charge are not reasonable for standard mowing work which is commonly charged at between $40.00 to $70.00 per hour.
Damage to walls: photos were supplied to show there were two holes in walls behind two doors where door handles had pushed through the gib, and one approximately 10cm 2 hole in the lounge wall at floor level. The tenant said this last hole started as a small existing hole at the start of the tenancy (perhaps where cables had been) and that her cat clawed at it and made it bigger. The tenant plastered two of the holes but not to a smooth finish. The landlord presented a quote for $828.00 to have plaster and paint repairs done. My decision is that the holes caused by door handles are wear and tear from normal use. A landlord should ensure that doorstops are robust and long enough to prevent door handles hitting the wall. The landlord has not incurred a cost to repair the hole near the floor and in my view, it can be sanded and repainted relatively easily. I do not award compensation.
Damage to carpet: the landlord initially applied for compensation for damaged carpet due to staining. He clarified in the hearing that:- a. no photos were taken at the start of the tenancy so there is no accurate record of its condition at that date; b. the carpet was about ten years old at the start of the tenancy; c. the cleaning invoice includes vacuuming and spot-cleaning but no photos were taken after that was done; d. the carpet has not been replaced and the property has been re-tenanted. My decision is that it is not proven that the carpet was damaged during this tenancy. The photos do prove the carpet was dirty and the tenant accepts there were a few stains (from fizzy drinks). The cost of spot-cleaning has been awarded in the cleaning claim and I make no additional award. Tenant claims
The tenant raises claims that:- a. The premises may not comply with the healthy homes standards; b. The house was cold; c. A cat door was never replaced or blocked off although this was promised by the landlord and this caused draughts into the house; d. Patches of mould grew behind furniture on some walls and on the ceiling in the lounge; e. She was not given a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the landlord before the tenancy started; f. The landlord acted unlawfully by seizing and removing a trailer (owned by a family member) that she was using to move out of the house, and a vehicle owned by her and stored at the property.
Compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS): these premises were required to comply within 120 days of the tenancy start date. 6 The Healthy Homes Standards are specific requirements for heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation to a certain standard, kitchen and bathroom ventilation of a certain capacity, properly working drainage and gutters, a ground moisture barrier in any enclosed subfloor, and no unreasonable gaps that allow noticeable draughts into the house. My decisions are:- a. A 23-kilowatt wood burner is supplied for heating which complies with the HHS. b. The ceiling and underfloor insulation were installed in 2011. The ceiling insulation is stated to be R2.8 7 and 870mm thickness when installed. This does not meet the required legal standard for ceiling insulation of R2.9 but 6 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 7 The R-value measures insulation according to how well it resists heat flow. it is probable the premises meet the R-value exemption for ceiling insulation installed before 1 July 2016 if it remains in reasonable condition and is at least 120mm in depth. 8 The underfloor insulation is R1.4 which meets the required legal standard (which is R1.3). The tenant did not provide any evidence to show the ceiling or underfloor insulation are not in reasonable condition or otherwise non-compliant. No breach is proven. I recommend the landlord inspect and take photos of the insulation to check for degradation and measure its depth to ensure it still meets the exemption requirements. c. There are bathroom and kitchen ventilation fans and no evidence these do not comply. The landlord should write the diameter or exhaust capacity of these on the HHS compliance statement. 9 d. There is no evidence of any issues with drainage or guttering although the premises may be missing a required ground moisture barrier. The landlord should check if this is legally required. 10 e. There is an unreasonable gap causing a draught which is caused by the landlord’s failure to repair or block off the broken cat door flap in the internal door from the garage. The HHS compliance statement says: Cat door will be blocked off before tenancy commences. The landlord said he forgot to do this. This is a breach of the draught stopping standard. I accept the draught causes the house to be colder than it should have been and award modest compensation of $150.00 because the tenant did not pursue the issue during the tenancy.
Mould on some walls and ceiling in the lounge: the tenant supplied photos showing distinct mould patches on walls and the edges of the ceiling in the lounge. She says she asked about this at the start of the tenancy and the landlord accepts he knew of some patches. It was not followed up on by the tenant or landlord. My decision is to award compensation of $150.00 to recognise there was some detriment from the mould, but the amount is modest because the tenant did not pursue the issue during the tenancy. I encourage the landlord to try to discover what is causing the mould. 11
Failure of landlord to provide a copy of the signed tenancy agreement before the tenancy commences: it is proven that the landlord did not provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement until about seven months after the 8 The landlord should amend his Healthy Homes compliance statement in any tenancy agreement to not tick ‘yes’ in section (A) of question 1 (under Ceiling Insulation) but instead tick ‘yes’ in section (C) which says the exemption applies, and state that the ceiling insulation is R2.8. 9 See the ‘Extractor Fans’ section on pages 19 and 20 of the compliance statement. 10 See question 3, page 22 of the compliance statement. 11 We discussed the possibility it could be caused by a gap in the ceiling insulation at the edges of the ceiling and no wall insulation causing condensation in the walls in cold weather when the lounge is heated. tenancy began. This is a breach of section 13 RTA which requires a landlord to do so. The reason for this is so that a tenant has the contract terms including all legally required compliance information which gives them important information about their rights and obligations, the landlord’s contact details, and what both parties have promised under that contract. The landlord signed the HHS compliance statement and said he accidentally did not sign the signing page of the contract as well. He also said it was an oversight not to send a copy of the contract to Ms Geck and he did so as soon as he realised this, many months later. Ms Geck said she was aware she did not have the contract but felt uncomfortable asking for it. I accept the landlord’s breach was not intentional and award modest compensation for inconvenience of $100.00. Tenant claim that the landlord unlawfully seized a trailer and vehicle
The landlord admits that he moved a trailer and the tenant’s vehicle from the tenancy premises on either 15 June or the morning of 16 June 2026. He said he stored these in one of his farm sheds.
The trailer was returned on 19 June 2025. The vehicle was returned to the tenant on about 26 August 2025 pursuant to my first order in these proceedings.
The landlord did not ask the tenant if he could move the trailer and vehicle before doing so. He told me in the first hearing that he used some sort of “kit” that he purchased to enter the locked vehicle and move it without having the keys.
My decision is that the landlord’s actions in moving the trailer and vehicle without permission and without notifying the tenant is a breach of section 33 RTA and an unlawful act.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages and a maximum penalty of $3,000.00 applies for this breach; s33(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages at its discretion and where satisfied the act is intentional and that it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see s109(3) RTA.
The act was clearly intentional. The landlord knew the items were not owned by him and deliberately moved them.
There is some evidence as to the landlord’s intent or reasons. The tenant discovered the trailer and vehicle were missing when she went to the property on the late afternoon of 16 June 2025. She said she phoned the landlord and asked him if he knew where they were, and that he told her he had them “to recover costs for the rent arrears and for the way I left the house”. This is supported by what she wrote in her application to the Tribunal made the next day (17 June 2025). The landlord said he could not recall whether he said this to her or not. I find it is probable that the landlord’s intent was to either punish the tenant for the rent debt and not having the property cleaned by the end date or because he thought he had the right to seize property if a debt was owed. There was discussion in the hearing that the landlord may have been given incorrect information about his rights.
The effect of removing the trailer was to make it difficult for the tenant to remove the rest of her belongings and rubbish from the property and deprived the owner of the trailer of their property for a few days. The landlord’s actions escalated the dispute and led to police involvement, delays, and additional costs for cleaning and rubbish removal. The landlord did return the trailer to the tenant’s family member after being spoken to by the police. The tenant’s vehicle was not roadworthy at the time it was removed, and she was using a friend’s car for transport. This reduces the effect on her to some extent, but she was prevented from having the car repaired or from selling it while it was in the landlord’s possession.
The interests of a tenant are that their property is not seized, disposed of, or sold by a landlord until the proper legal processes have been completed. If one party owes money, this debt must be proven in a court or accepted by the debtor before a creditor then has rights to recover that debt.
There is a public interest in ensuring landlords understand they cannot take a tenant’s property without lawful authority.
My decision is that it is just to award exemplary damages. I award $1,000.00 which is one-third of the maximum. Suppression and filing fees
Both parties have been partly successful, so I make no order about filing fees.
No bond was required for this tenancy.
My decision is that the public interest outweighs the parties’ own interests, so I do not suppress names from the published decision.
The tenancy address and the attachment order are suppressed from the published order (the latter contains financial and contact information).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288240 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288240 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions