What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298785 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (BN-00106155) to Haydybear

How much money was awarded in case 5298785?

Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Goods Left On Premises: $743.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,040.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Of Goods Left On Premises: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298785?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12620386-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298785 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (BN-00106155) to Haydybear

How much money was awarded in case 5298785?

Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Goods Left On Premises: $743.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,040.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Of Goods Left On Premises: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298785?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12620386-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 129 Martin Street, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298785 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 2, 129 Martin Street, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298785 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298785 — net $2,693.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/06/25	$3,040.00	Rent arrears to 27/06/25
Removal of goods left on premises	$743.50	Removal of goods left on premises
Storage of goods left on premises	$400.00	Storage of goods left on premises
Lock/key replacement	$189.75	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$2,693.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,693.25

Claims and awards for application 5298785 — net $2,693.25 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 27/06/25

Amount: $3,040.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 27/06/25

Removal of goods left on premises

Amount: $743.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Removal of goods left on premises

Storage of goods left on premises

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Storage of goods left on premises

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $189.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Net award

Landlord $2,693.25

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,693.25

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 3 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (BN-00106155) to Haydybear Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Haydybear Limited $2,693.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Flat 2, 129 Martin Street, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt (the Premises) owned by Haydybear Limited (the Landlord) for just under two months.
The Landlord says that, on or about 27 June 2025, the Tenant advised him she was no longer living at the Premises. The Landlord says he accepts the tenancy came to an on that date.
On 7 July 2025, the Landlord re-entered the Premises (with the services of a locksmith) and found the Tenant had not removed her belongings. The Landlord says in communications around that date, the Tenant agreed to the Landlord removing and storing her belongings.
The Landlord seeks compensation for rent arrears owed to 27 June 2025, cleaning and rubbish removal costs, compensation for a broken light and reimbursement of the cost of removing and storing the Tenant’s belongings.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Did the Tenant owe rent arrears at the end of the tenancy? b. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean and remove all rubbish at the end of tenancy? c. Are the Tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the bedroom light? d. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of removing and storing her goods from the

Premises?

e. Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

On 28 October 2025, the Landlord attended the phone hearing, the Tenant did not attend. Two calls to her last known mobile number (being her contact number as recorded in the tenancy agreement) went to voicemail. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in her absence. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
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. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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.

Did the Tenant owe rent arrears at the end of the tenancy?

The tenancy commenced on 7 May 2025. The Landlord says the tenancy came to an end on 27 June 2025 when the Tenant advised the Landlord she was no longer living at the Premises.
The Landlord has produced records which show rent throughout the tenancy was $560 per week. The total amount due in rent for the entirety of the tenancy (being 7 weeks and 3 days) was $4,160.
The Tenant paid the first two weeks of rent only, a total of $1,120. Therefore, the outstanding arrears as at the end of the tenancy was $3,040.
At the hearing, the Landlord agreed the total owed in rent was $3,040.00.
I make an order for that amount. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean and remove all rubbish at the end of tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove or arrange for the removal of all rubbish. 1 A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and seeks reimbursement of $650 being the cost incurred to have the house cleaned. The Landlord has provided a copy of the invoice paid to the cleaner but has not produced any evidence to show the condition the Premises was left in. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
As the Landlord has not proved the Tenant failed to leave the Premises reasonably clean, I dismiss the Landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning.
The Landlord also says the Tenant did not remove all rubbish from the Premises and seeks reimbursement of $80.64 for the cost of dumping rubbish at the local tip. The Landlord has provided a copy of the receipt for payment made to the local Council tip but has not produced any evidence to show the rubbish the Landlord alleges the Tenant left at the Premises.
As the Landlord has not proved the Tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the Premises, I dismiss the Landlord’s claim for compensation for removal of rubbish.

Are the Tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the bedroom light?

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. 2
The Landlord says the Tenant damaged the ceiling light in the bedroom, and produced a photo taken on or about 7 July 2025 which shows a wire hanging from a ceiling rose. The Landlord seeks reimbursement of the cost of an electrician repairing the light, and produced an invoice for $332.
The Landlord did not produce evidence to show the condition of the light at the start, or during, the tenancy. Without such evidence, the Landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The Landlord says the light was the only light in the bedroom, and he is certain there was a light intact at the start of the tenancy. He says it must have been cut or removed by the Tenant.
As referred to above, it is incumbent upon the applicant (in this case, the Landlord) to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. 3 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. 4
As the Landlord has not provided the evidence necessary to prove the damage was caused by the Tenant, the claim for compensation for repairs to the bedroom light is dismissed. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 3 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 4 Ibid. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of removing and storing her goods from the

Premises?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all their goods from the premises. 5
If the tenant leaves goods on the premises (that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods) the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, 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. 6 If the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and may apply to the Tribunal seeking an order for disposal.
If, before the goods are disposed of, the tenant claims the goods, the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of the goods. 7
The Landlord says on 27 June 2025, the Tenant advised the Landlord she was no longer living at the Premises. The Landlord says he and the Tenant discussed the removal of her belongings that remained in the Premises. The Landlord says he offered to assist with the cost of moving her belongings. The Landlord says the Tenant provided him with an address in Lower Hutt where she agreed the Landlord could move her belongings to.
However, the Landlord says when the movers he arranged took her belongings to that Lower Hutt address, the address did not exist. The Landlord then arranged for the movers to transport her belongings to a storage unit in Upper Hutt. The Landlord advised the Tenant that her belongings were in storage.
The Landlord says the Tenant’s father eventually collected her belongings from the storage unit, approximately 4 – 5 weeks later.
The Landlord seeks reimbursement of the cost of moving her belongings. The Landlord provided a receipt from a moving company for $743.50. The Landlord also seeks reimbursement of the cost of the storage unit for 4 weeks and provided an invoice for $400.
Given the Tenant did not attend the hearing, I accept the Landlord’s account of what was agreed and arranged as undisputed evidence. I accept the Landlord was willing to pay for moving the Tenant’s belongings to the Lower Hutt address, but upon finding that address did not exist, the Landlord is entitled to seek compensation for the cost of moving the belongings to an alternative address – a storage unit in Upper Hutt. 5 Section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act. 6 Section 62(2) of the Act. 7 Section 62A(4)(a) of the Act.
The Landlord is entitled to seek compensation for the cost of storing the Tenant’s belongings until they were collected by her father.
I make an order for compensation for the cost of moving and storing the Tenant’s belongings, as sought.

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all keys provided by the landlord. 8
The Landlord says the Tenant did not return the keys to the Premises and a locksmith was required to gain entry on 7 July 2025. The Landlord has provided evidence he paid a locksmith $189.75 on 7 July 2025.
I accept that Tenant did not return the keys and make an order accordingly.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298785 — net $2,693.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/06/25	$3,040.00	Rent arrears to 27/06/25
Removal of goods left on premises	$743.50	Removal of goods left on premises
Storage of goods left on premises	$400.00	Storage of goods left on premises
Lock/key replacement	$189.75	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$2,693.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,693.25

Claims and awards for application 5298785 — net $2,693.25 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 27/06/25

Amount: $3,040.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 27/06/25

Removal of goods left on premises

Amount: $743.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Removal of goods left on premises

Storage of goods left on premises

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Storage of goods left on premises

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $189.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Net award

Landlord $2,693.25

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,693.25

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 3 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (BN-00106155) to Haydybear Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Haydybear Limited $2,693.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Flat 2, 129 Martin Street, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt (the Premises) owned by Haydybear Limited (the Landlord) for just under two months.
The Landlord says that, on or about 27 June 2025, the Tenant advised him she was no longer living at the Premises. The Landlord says he accepts the tenancy came to an on that date.
On 7 July 2025, the Landlord re-entered the Premises (with the services of a locksmith) and found the Tenant had not removed her belongings. The Landlord says in communications around that date, the Tenant agreed to the Landlord removing and storing her belongings.
The Landlord seeks compensation for rent arrears owed to 27 June 2025, cleaning and rubbish removal costs, compensation for a broken light and reimbursement of the cost of removing and storing the Tenant’s belongings.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Did the Tenant owe rent arrears at the end of the tenancy? b. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean and remove all rubbish at the end of tenancy? c. Are the Tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the bedroom light? d. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of removing and storing her goods from the

Premises?

e. Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

On 28 October 2025, the Landlord attended the phone hearing, the Tenant did not attend. Two calls to her last known mobile number (being her contact number as recorded in the tenancy agreement) went to voicemail. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in her absence. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
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. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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.

Did the Tenant owe rent arrears at the end of the tenancy?

The tenancy commenced on 7 May 2025. The Landlord says the tenancy came to an end on 27 June 2025 when the Tenant advised the Landlord she was no longer living at the Premises.
The Landlord has produced records which show rent throughout the tenancy was $560 per week. The total amount due in rent for the entirety of the tenancy (being 7 weeks and 3 days) was $4,160.
The Tenant paid the first two weeks of rent only, a total of $1,120. Therefore, the outstanding arrears as at the end of the tenancy was $3,040.
At the hearing, the Landlord agreed the total owed in rent was $3,040.00.
I make an order for that amount. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean and remove all rubbish at the end of tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove or arrange for the removal of all rubbish. 1 A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and seeks reimbursement of $650 being the cost incurred to have the house cleaned. The Landlord has provided a copy of the invoice paid to the cleaner but has not produced any evidence to show the condition the Premises was left in. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
As the Landlord has not proved the Tenant failed to leave the Premises reasonably clean, I dismiss the Landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning.
The Landlord also says the Tenant did not remove all rubbish from the Premises and seeks reimbursement of $80.64 for the cost of dumping rubbish at the local tip. The Landlord has provided a copy of the receipt for payment made to the local Council tip but has not produced any evidence to show the rubbish the Landlord alleges the Tenant left at the Premises.
As the Landlord has not proved the Tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the Premises, I dismiss the Landlord’s claim for compensation for removal of rubbish.

Are the Tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the bedroom light?

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. 2
The Landlord says the Tenant damaged the ceiling light in the bedroom, and produced a photo taken on or about 7 July 2025 which shows a wire hanging from a ceiling rose. The Landlord seeks reimbursement of the cost of an electrician repairing the light, and produced an invoice for $332.
The Landlord did not produce evidence to show the condition of the light at the start, or during, the tenancy. Without such evidence, the Landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The Landlord says the light was the only light in the bedroom, and he is certain there was a light intact at the start of the tenancy. He says it must have been cut or removed by the Tenant.
As referred to above, it is incumbent upon the applicant (in this case, the Landlord) to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. 3 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. 4
As the Landlord has not provided the evidence necessary to prove the damage was caused by the Tenant, the claim for compensation for repairs to the bedroom light is dismissed. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 3 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 4 Ibid. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of removing and storing her goods from the

Premises?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all their goods from the premises. 5
If the tenant leaves goods on the premises (that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods) the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, 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. 6 If the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and may apply to the Tribunal seeking an order for disposal.
If, before the goods are disposed of, the tenant claims the goods, the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of the goods. 7
The Landlord says on 27 June 2025, the Tenant advised the Landlord she was no longer living at the Premises. The Landlord says he and the Tenant discussed the removal of her belongings that remained in the Premises. The Landlord says he offered to assist with the cost of moving her belongings. The Landlord says the Tenant provided him with an address in Lower Hutt where she agreed the Landlord could move her belongings to.
However, the Landlord says when the movers he arranged took her belongings to that Lower Hutt address, the address did not exist. The Landlord then arranged for the movers to transport her belongings to a storage unit in Upper Hutt. The Landlord advised the Tenant that her belongings were in storage.
The Landlord says the Tenant’s father eventually collected her belongings from the storage unit, approximately 4 – 5 weeks later.
The Landlord seeks reimbursement of the cost of moving her belongings. The Landlord provided a receipt from a moving company for $743.50. The Landlord also seeks reimbursement of the cost of the storage unit for 4 weeks and provided an invoice for $400.
Given the Tenant did not attend the hearing, I accept the Landlord’s account of what was agreed and arranged as undisputed evidence. I accept the Landlord was willing to pay for moving the Tenant’s belongings to the Lower Hutt address, but upon finding that address did not exist, the Landlord is entitled to seek compensation for the cost of moving the belongings to an alternative address – a storage unit in Upper Hutt. 5 Section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act. 6 Section 62(2) of the Act. 7 Section 62A(4)(a) of the Act.
The Landlord is entitled to seek compensation for the cost of storing the Tenant’s belongings until they were collected by her father.
I make an order for compensation for the cost of moving and storing the Tenant’s belongings, as sought.

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all keys provided by the landlord. 8
The Landlord says the Tenant did not return the keys to the Premises and a locksmith was required to gain entry on 7 July 2025. The Landlord has provided evidence he paid a locksmith $189.75 on 7 July 2025.
I accept that Tenant did not return the keys and make an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298785 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 129 Martin Street, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298785 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 129 Martin Street, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Premises?

Did the Tenant owe rent arrears at the end of the tenancy?

Are the Tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the bedroom light?

Premises?

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Premises?

Did the Tenant owe rent arrears at the end of the tenancy?

Are the Tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the bedroom light?

Premises?

Did the Tenant fail to return all keys at the end of tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.