What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5291082?

The tribunal order states: Duncan John McKenzie must pay Shelley Ann Sutherland $1,517.17

How much money was awarded in case 5291082?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5243612 D…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,267.17 awarded to landlord; Storage Fees: $196.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291082?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291082?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13044108-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5291082?

The tribunal order states: Duncan John McKenzie must pay Shelley Ann Sutherland $1,517.17

How much money was awarded in case 5291082?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5243612 D…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,267.17 awarded to landlord; Storage Fees: $196.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291082?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291082?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13044108-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 2, 169 York Place, Centre City, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291082 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291082 — net $1,517.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22 May 2025	$1,267.17	Rent arrears (to 22 May 2025
Previous order application 5243612 dated 22/05/2025	$27.00	Previous order application 5243612 dated 22/05/2025
Storage fees	$196.00	Storage fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,517.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,517.17

Order

Duncan John McKenzie must pay Shelley Ann Sutherland $1,517.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 May 2025 under application 5243612.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 5 November 2025, the Tribunal granted the tenant’s application for rehearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears (to 22 May 2025)$1,267.17 Previous order application 5243612 dated 22/05/2025 $27.00 Storage fees$196.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,517.17 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,517.17
This rehearing proceeded by way of video conference. The landlord appeared. The tenant failed to appear and was joined to the hearing by telephone.
At the commencement of the hearing the Adjudicator asked the landlord to confirm their claims. At this time, the tenant became heightened, disruptive, and argumentative. The tenant interrupted both the landlord and the Adjudicator. The tenant used profanity and alleged the landlord was behaving inappropriately. The tenant stated that he would not engage in the hearing and hung up. The Tribunal rejoined the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The tenant would not allow the Adjudicator to speak, reiterated that he would not engage in the proceedings and hung up. The Tribunal tried unsuccessfully to join the tenant to the hearing for the third time.
The Tribunal provided the tenant with multiple opportunities to engage in the hearing without success. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant elected not to participate and in accordance with section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the hearing proceeded in his absence. Landlord’s claims
On 19 June 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for refund of the bond. The landlord advises the bond was refunded by the Bond Centre prior to the tenant’s successful application for rehearing. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was terminated on 12 May 2025 and the Tribunal granted the landlord possession of premises on 22 May 2025. The landlord provided the Tribunal with rent records. The rent records prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,267.17 and 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.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $231.84 after paying a contractor to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord stated the carpet was stained and smelt of cigarette smoke.
The Tribunal was not provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report or photographs proving the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was not provided with an exit inspection report or photographs proving the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The carpet cleaning invoice did not indicate that stain treatment and deodorisation were required.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Compensation for lock changes
The landlord seeks compensation of $523.00 after paying a contractor to change locks during the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said the locks were changed after it was suggested the tenant had located the master key, hidden in the property, and used it to access another tenant’s room.
The landlord was unable to provide any evidence to substantiate their claim that a lock change was required and the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant return a mirror at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $20.00 to replace a mirror that was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a chattels list indicating that a mirror was provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. No pre-tenancy photographs were provided showing the mirror in situ at the commencement of the tenancy. No exit inspection photographs were provided showing the mirror was missing at the end of the tenancy, nor was an invoice for the amount claimed provided.
Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved their loss and the claim is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for the electrician’s call out fee?
The landlord seeks compensation of $113.85 after paying an electrician to attend the property to reset the switchboard circuit following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they discovered the two power points in the tenant’s bedroom and the power point outside the tenant’s bedroom were not working. The landlord said they were worried the tenant may have interfered with the power points and arranged for a contractor to investigate.
The landlord said the electrician found no evidence to suggest the tenant had interfered with the power points or the switchboard. On that basis the claim for compensation for the electrician’s call out fee is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay storage fees?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $196.00 after paying to store the tenant’s possessions for at least 35 days following the end of the tenancy. Two invoices proving the amount claimed were provided.
The landlord said they arranged for the tenant’s possessions to be removed and stored in accordance with the requirements of section 62(3) of the Act. The landlord said that the tenant collected some of his belongings from the storage facility, but the rest were dumped.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the cost was reasonably incurred by the landlord and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
On 22 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for possession and reimbursement of the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Shelley Ann Sutherland has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291082 — net $1,517.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22 May 2025	$1,267.17	Rent arrears (to 22 May 2025
Previous order application 5243612 dated 22/05/2025	$27.00	Previous order application 5243612 dated 22/05/2025
Storage fees	$196.00	Storage fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,517.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,517.17

Order

Duncan John McKenzie must pay Shelley Ann Sutherland $1,517.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 May 2025 under application 5243612.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 5 November 2025, the Tribunal granted the tenant’s application for rehearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears (to 22 May 2025)$1,267.17 Previous order application 5243612 dated 22/05/2025 $27.00 Storage fees$196.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,517.17 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,517.17
This rehearing proceeded by way of video conference. The landlord appeared. The tenant failed to appear and was joined to the hearing by telephone.
At the commencement of the hearing the Adjudicator asked the landlord to confirm their claims. At this time, the tenant became heightened, disruptive, and argumentative. The tenant interrupted both the landlord and the Adjudicator. The tenant used profanity and alleged the landlord was behaving inappropriately. The tenant stated that he would not engage in the hearing and hung up. The Tribunal rejoined the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The tenant would not allow the Adjudicator to speak, reiterated that he would not engage in the proceedings and hung up. The Tribunal tried unsuccessfully to join the tenant to the hearing for the third time.
The Tribunal provided the tenant with multiple opportunities to engage in the hearing without success. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant elected not to participate and in accordance with section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the hearing proceeded in his absence. Landlord’s claims
On 19 June 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for refund of the bond. The landlord advises the bond was refunded by the Bond Centre prior to the tenant’s successful application for rehearing. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was terminated on 12 May 2025 and the Tribunal granted the landlord possession of premises on 22 May 2025. The landlord provided the Tribunal with rent records. The rent records prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,267.17 and 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.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $231.84 after paying a contractor to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord stated the carpet was stained and smelt of cigarette smoke.
The Tribunal was not provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report or photographs proving the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was not provided with an exit inspection report or photographs proving the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The carpet cleaning invoice did not indicate that stain treatment and deodorisation were required.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Compensation for lock changes
The landlord seeks compensation of $523.00 after paying a contractor to change locks during the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said the locks were changed after it was suggested the tenant had located the master key, hidden in the property, and used it to access another tenant’s room.
The landlord was unable to provide any evidence to substantiate their claim that a lock change was required and the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant return a mirror at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $20.00 to replace a mirror that was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a chattels list indicating that a mirror was provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. No pre-tenancy photographs were provided showing the mirror in situ at the commencement of the tenancy. No exit inspection photographs were provided showing the mirror was missing at the end of the tenancy, nor was an invoice for the amount claimed provided.
Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved their loss and the claim is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for the electrician’s call out fee?
The landlord seeks compensation of $113.85 after paying an electrician to attend the property to reset the switchboard circuit following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they discovered the two power points in the tenant’s bedroom and the power point outside the tenant’s bedroom were not working. The landlord said they were worried the tenant may have interfered with the power points and arranged for a contractor to investigate.
The landlord said the electrician found no evidence to suggest the tenant had interfered with the power points or the switchboard. On that basis the claim for compensation for the electrician’s call out fee is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay storage fees?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $196.00 after paying to store the tenant’s possessions for at least 35 days following the end of the tenancy. Two invoices proving the amount claimed were provided.
The landlord said they arranged for the tenant’s possessions to be removed and stored in accordance with the requirements of section 62(3) of the Act. The landlord said that the tenant collected some of his belongings from the storage facility, but the rest were dumped.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the cost was reasonably incurred by the landlord and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
On 22 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for possession and reimbursement of the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Shelley Ann Sutherland has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291082 — Rent arrears at Room 2, 169 York Place, Centre City, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291082 — Rent arrears at Room 2, 169 York Place, Centre City, Dunedin 9016

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?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant return a mirror at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable to pay storage fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant return a mirror at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable to pay storage fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions