What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315761 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 5315761?

Property Damage: $446.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315761?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13161747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315761 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 5315761?

Property Damage: $446.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315761?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13161747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315761 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315761 — net $1,796.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.7.26	$3,000.00	Rent arrears to 13.7.26
Window repairs	$446.28	Window repairs
Net award	$1,796.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,796.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315761 — net $1,796.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.7.26	$3,000.00	Rent arrears to 13.7.26
Window repairs	$446.28	Window repairs
Net award	$1,796.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,796.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,796.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]BN-17372862) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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.” Terms of tenancy
The landlord’s application said the tenancy started on 19 September 2023 and ended on 17 July 2025. The tenancy agreement provided with the application said the tenancy started on 18 September 2024 and was a fixed term tenancy to end on 18 September 2025. The landlord said this was a renewal and implied on that basis I should be assessing whether the damage was caused during this tenancy using the date the tenancy originally started. I understand the tenant moved in earlier than September 2023. I have not been provided with the original tenancy agreement but in any event, I record that I do not consider that the lack of clarity about the start date impacts the claims or my findings for the reasons set out in this order. The fixed-term tenancy was ended by agreement.

How much is owed for rent?

1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 2
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being 14 July 2025, was $3,000.
There is no dispute that the tenant owes $600 for one weeks rent (of the 5 weeks in arrears).
The tenant says the landlord agreed that she would not be liable for the full rent for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy. The tenant provided a recorded phone call between her and the landlord in which he says he will not require full payment of the rent. In the phone call the landlord said he would accept the bond of $2200 which the tenant confirmed was the amount of the bond and he said that she would need to pay an additional $200 which is $2400 in total. The bond that is held by the bond centre is $1650.
The tenant accepts that the landlord agreed she did not need to pay full rent for the last four weeks on the basis that he would get the bond. The tenant says she paid $2200 for the bond but has not provided confirmation of that and I have not received the previous tenancy agreement which would have recorded the amount of the bond. The tenant said the previous tenancy agreement recorded the total move in costs was $2200, which I consider this likely included the first weeks rent. In any event the amount of bond held is $1650.
The landlord has proven by way of the rent summary that the tenant is liable for $3,000 rent arrears and I accept that the comments made by the landlord in his phone call with the tenant could not be considered his agreement that the tenant does not pay rent, but rather his reliance on the tenant saying the bond was $2,200 and that this could be used to off-set the final 4 weeks of rent. I therefore order that the tenant pay the full rent arrears claimed. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 2 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 5 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 7 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 10 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The claims

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 12 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 13 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 14
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
The landlord claimed $250 for general cleaning and $200 for rubbish removal. The landlord had his property manager provide oral evidence that cleaning and rubbish removal were required. He provided photographs in support of the claim.
The tenant disputed the claim and said she cleaned the property and removed her rubbish and that she only put appropriate rubbish into the bin for collection which was taken out for collection by her neighbour.
The landlord provided very little photographic evidence that supported the claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. One undated photograph he said was of the garage showing the tenant’s rubbish (balloons, decorations, the tenants washing machine), which I consider likely to have been taken at some point during the tenancy. The photographs of rubbish provided by the tenant show items the tenant says she removed, and the landlord did not have direct evidence of this not being the case.
Date stamped post-tenancy photographs were not provided and as noted above during the hearing the landlord was confused about the date photographs were taken of the premises. In reviewing the evidence provided I consider that the landlord has not proven that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I accept that one bin would have required cleaning, but the invoice does not itemise this task and only refers to cleaning the house. I consider the landlord has not proven the claim for cleaning and the claim is dismissed.
I am also unclear about the extent of rubbish that was left at the premises. The tenant says she collected a few items remaining at the premises and the 12 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 13 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 14 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. rubbish that was in the council bins for collection was in the correct bins and able to be uplifted by the Council. I consider the landlord has not proven the claim for rubbish removal. The claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Damage claims
The landlord’s insurance excess was $500.

REPLACE BEDROOM SINK

The landlord claimed $900 to replace the bathroom sink. The tenant said the bathroom sink was damaged at the commencement of the tenancy. This was confirmed by the tenant’s witnesses. In the absence of pre-tenancy photographs to show that the sink was not damaged at the commencement of the tenancy I consider the landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed.

REPLACE BATHROOM DRAWS

The landlord claims $300 to replace the bathroom draws which appear to have been damaged with water.
The tenant says the draws were damaged by a leak that the landlord failed to repair during the tenancy. The tenant says she communicated with the property manager about the leak.
The damage appears to have been consistent with a leak. The landlord said he had no information about a leak. While the tenant did not provide any written evidence that she raised the leak with the landlord I accept there was a degree of poor communication between the landlord and his property managers (which appears to have been the case with respect to the bond value and its initial non- lodgement).
I therefore find that the damage to the bathroom draws were more likely that not caused by a leak that was not addressed by the landlord. The damage is more than fair wear and tear; however, I consider the tenant has disproved liability.

REPLACE GARAGE DOOR LOCK

The landlord claimed $120 to replace the garage door lock, The tenant said the damage was fair wear and tear. The landlord did not provide a photograph of the damage and I am uncertain about what the actual damage with the door lock is. In the circumstances the landlord has not proven damage to the garage door lock and this claim is dismissed.

REPLACE HOLE IN GARAGE CEILING

The landlord claimed $150 to repair a whole in the garage ceiling. The tenant says the hole was present at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not refute this claim by providing a pre-tenancy inspection report. Because the landlord has not proven this damage was caused during the tenancy the claim is dismissed.

REPLACE RANCHSLIDER WINDOW

The landlord claims $446.28 to repair a broken ranch slider window. The landlord provided a photograph of the damage and an invoice. The damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant accepted the damage occurred at around the time she was vacating the premises.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said the damage was a heat crack, however provided no independent evidence that this was the case. I therefore find the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage likely to be careless damage by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. The amount ordered for the ranch slider window is proved.

GARAGE DOOR REMOTE

The claim for the garage remote control was withdrawn at the hearing. Bond
By consent, the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered. Filing Fee
The landlord has been partly successful in his claim but did not seek the filing fee, therefore I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 15
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying 15 See section 95A (1) RTA. particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 16
The landlord sought name suppression and as he has had substantial success, in that the substantial claim was the rent arrears claim, I order suppression for the landlord.
The tenant sought name suppression. The tenant has had some success in defending the landlord’s claims and the misunderstanding about the rent arrears and the bond are largely due to the issues with the management of this tenancy and I consider her interests outweigh the public interest. Name suppression for the tenant is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315761 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315761 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

REPLACE BEDROOM SINK

REPLACE BATHROOM DRAWS

REPLACE GARAGE DOOR LOCK

REPLACE HOLE IN GARAGE CEILING

REPLACE RANCHSLIDER WINDOW

GARAGE DOOR REMOTE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

REPLACE BEDROOM SINK

REPLACE BATHROOM DRAWS

REPLACE GARAGE DOOR LOCK

REPLACE HOLE IN GARAGE CEILING

REPLACE RANCHSLIDER WINDOW

GARAGE DOOR REMOTE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions