What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288899 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has asked for a suppression Order. Breaches of her obligations

How much money was awarded in case 5288899?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent 30 April 2025: $720.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288899?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530102-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288899 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has asked for a suppression Order. Breaches of her obligations

How much money was awarded in case 5288899?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent 30 April 2025: $720.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288899?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530102-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Alidade Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288899 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288899 — net $1,747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent 30 April 2025 to 8 May 2025	$720.00	Rent 30 April 2025 to 8 May 2025
Compensation for loss of use of the premises	$1,000.00	Compensation for loss of use of the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,747.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,747.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference/ teleconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, unpaid water rates and compensation. Background

On 23 April 2025 the Tribunal issued an Order terminating the tenancy on 29 April 2025.

That Order paid $883.80 from the bond to the landlord for rent and water rates up to 29 April.

The tenant was faced with circumstances that made it difficult for her to comply, and she did not vacate the premises as Ordered.

There is some dispute about whether the landlord allowed additional time for the tenant to move out.

It is not disputed that the tenant was evicted on 8 May. Rent

The tenant accepts that rent is owed from 30 April to 8 May. An Order for payment of those arrears is made accordingly.

The evidence about water rates is not clear. The landlord withdrew that claim during the hearing. Compensation for loss of rents

The tenant was not able to remove her belongings when she was evicted on 8 May. She says the bailiff told her she had 5 days to remove her things.

The evidence includes chains of e-mail between the tenant and the landlord’s son about removal of the tenants’ belongings.

The landlord says that the tenant made no reliable arrangements to remove her things and when she did come to the premises to start doing so, she refused to leave until the police were called.

The tenant says that she was not given fair opportunity to remove her belongings.

The landlord got a quote for the cost of storage and for transporting the tenant’s belongings to storage. Initially compensation was claimed for those quoted costs.

Ultimately, the tenant’s belonging were removed by her on 25 May.

The landlord’s claim is now for $1,000.00, as a contribution toward the loss caused by not having use of the premises until then.

The starting point is that the tenant had an obligation to vacate the premises and remove her belongings from the premises when the tenancy ended 1 .

By failing to vacate the tenant committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded 2

Even if, after that, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain for another week, the tenant had an obligation to make sure she vacated and removed her goods from the premises at the end of that extra period. She didn’t.

If the bailiff said the tenant had 5 days to remove her things, that could only have been as a pragmatic concession to the tenant which did not alter her fundamental obligations under the RTA. She did not remove her belongings within that period either.

The evidence does not prove that the landlord breached her obligation to, “.......make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods.” 3 The txts provided show several communications aimed at making such arrangements. They show that the landlord’s aim was for the tenant to remove her goods so the landlord could regain use of the premises.

The txts do show that the landlord’s son imposed unreasonable “rules” about how the tenants’ goods were to be collected, eg. requiring that the garage be emptied first, which there is no legal basis for him to impose. It does not appear that those requirements contributed significantly to the delays in the tenant collecting her property but a small allowance is appropriate for the possibility that some of the loss resulted from the landlord’s failure to take reasonable mitigation steps

Loss of rent for the premises would have been from 8 May 2025 to 25 May 2025 @ $630.00 per week = $1,525.80. I take into account that the premises were not to be re-rented but occupied by the tenant’s son so there is no direct rent loss.

There is though a loss caused to the landlord from being unable regain use of the premises for 17 days after the tenancy ended. That is an actual and foreseeable loss caused by the tenant’s breach.

I find $750.00 to be fair compensation

Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. 1 S.40(1)(e) RTA 2 S.40(3A) RTA 3 S.62(2) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288899 — net $1,747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent 30 April 2025 to 8 May 2025	$720.00	Rent 30 April 2025 to 8 May 2025
Compensation for loss of use of the premises	$1,000.00	Compensation for loss of use of the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,747.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,747.00

Order

The tenant has asked for a suppression Order. Breaches of her obligations have been proved and the grounds for suppression in s.95A RTA are not established.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,747.00 immediately, as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference/ teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, unpaid water rates and compensation. Background
On 23 April 2025 the Tribunal issued an Order terminating the tenancy on 29 April 2025.
That Order paid $883.80 from the bond to the landlord for rent and water rates up to 29 April.
The tenant was faced with circumstances that made it difficult for her to comply, and she did not vacate the premises as Ordered.
There is some dispute about whether the landlord allowed additional time for the tenant to move out.
It is not disputed that the tenant was evicted on 8 May. Rent
The tenant accepts that rent is owed from 30 April to 8 May. An Order for payment of those arrears is made accordingly.
The evidence about water rates is not clear. The landlord withdrew that claim during the hearing. Compensation for loss of rents
The tenant was not able to remove her belongings when she was evicted on 8 May. She says the bailiff told her she had 5 days to remove her things.
The evidence includes chains of e-mail between the tenant and the landlord’s son about removal of the tenants’ belongings.
The landlord says that the tenant made no reliable arrangements to remove her things and when she did come to the premises to start doing so, she refused to leave until the police were called.
The tenant says that she was not given fair opportunity to remove her belongings.
The landlord got a quote for the cost of storage and for transporting the tenant’s belongings to storage. Initially compensation was claimed for those quoted costs.
Ultimately, the tenant’s belonging were removed by her on 25 May.
The landlord’s claim is now for $1,000.00, as a contribution toward the loss caused by not having use of the premises until then.
The starting point is that the tenant had an obligation to vacate the premises and remove her belongings from the premises when the tenancy ended 1 .
By failing to vacate the tenant committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded 2
Even if, after that, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain for another week, the tenant had an obligation to make sure she vacated and removed her goods from the premises at the end of that extra period. She didn’t.
If the bailiff said the tenant had 5 days to remove her things, that could only have been as a pragmatic concession to the tenant which did not alter her fundamental obligations under the RTA. She did not remove her belongings within that period either.
The evidence does not prove that the landlord breached her obligation to, “.......make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods.” 3 The txts provided show several communications aimed at making such arrangements. They show that the landlord’s aim was for the tenant to remove her goods so the landlord could regain use of the premises.
The txts do show that the landlord’s son imposed unreasonable “rules” about how the tenants’ goods were to be collected, eg. requiring that the garage be emptied first, which there is no legal basis for him to impose. It does not appear that those requirements contributed significantly to the delays in the tenant collecting her property but a small allowance is appropriate for the possibility that some of the loss resulted from the landlord’s failure to take reasonable mitigation steps
Loss of rent for the premises would have been from 8 May 2025 to 25 May 2025 @ $630.00 per week = $1,525.80. I take into account that the premises were not to be re-rented but occupied by the tenant’s son so there is no direct rent loss.
There is though a loss caused to the landlord from being unable regain use of the premises for 17 days after the tenancy ended. That is an actual and foreseeable loss caused by the tenant’s breach.
I find $750.00 to be fair compensation
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. 1 S.40(1)(e) RTA 2 S.40(3A) RTA 3 S.62(2) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288899 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Alidade Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288899 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Alidade Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

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