What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316204 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 5316204?

Compensation: Locksmith: $569.99 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Carpet: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $316.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316204?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316204?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12513645-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316204 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 5316204?

Compensation: Locksmith: $569.99 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Carpet: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $316.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316204?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316204?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12513645-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316204 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316204 — net $1,161.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Door	$316.25		nt. The tenant agreed that the sum was reasonable.
Repairs: Carpet	$120.00		ign a cost for landlord labour at $30.00 per hour. The tenant is ordered to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
Bond release		$1,000.00	Bond release
Compensation: Locksmith		$569.99	Locksmith
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$436.25	$1,597.99
Net award		$1,161.74
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,161.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jade Faulkner must pay [The tenant/s] $1,161.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2020 and ended on 21 May 2025. The premises were sublet by the tenant to its employees during the course of the tenancy with the approval of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant consented to the landlord’s claim for release of the bond being heard, despite the landlord not having complied with s.22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), which requires a landlord to file a counterclaim with the Tribunal. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. In this case, it means that the tenant must prove the claims that it has brought before the Tribunal and the landlord must prove his claims.
The Tribunal is not required to decide who is telling the truth, merely to decide if the allegation is proven to the point where it is more likely than not to have occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to file 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.”
The parties agreed that despite the clear obligation on the landlord to lodge a bond within 23 working days, the landlord did not do so, and has retained the bond. No application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was made by the tenant.
The parties agreed that a door was damaged by a subtenant during the course of the tenancy. An invoice for repairs was provided. The invoice is for $316.25. The tenant remains liable to the landlord for the actions of the subtenant. The tenant agreed that the sum was reasonable. The tenant is ordered to pay $316.25 to the landlord.
The parties agreed that an area of carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord was able to obtain replacement carpet at no cost. The landlord seeks compensation for his own labour costs of four hours. The time claimed is reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal will generally assign a cost for landlord labour at $30.00 per hour. The tenant is ordered to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord said that he carried out cleaning at the end of the tenancy as he did not consider that the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. The landlord said that the cleaning he completed was to bring the premises to a standard where they could be relet to new tenants.
The Tribunal considers that the standard, where premises are suitable to be relet, will be a higher standard than the “reasonably clean and tidy” requirement of a tenant at the end of a tenancy. In those circumstances, the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is dismissed. Lock
Section 46 (1) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The sub tenant gave evidence. He said that he arrived home with his two children on the evening of 2 May 2025. He was unable to gain entry to the premises through the one entry door. The lock to the door was not operating.
The sub tenant attempted to contact the landlord, initially by seeing if the landlord was home. The landlord lives at the adjoining house. The tenant said that it did not appear that the landlord was home. He said that the landlord’s vehicles were not in the driveway and that he was unable to gain access to the front door to the landlord’s premises as the gate was locked.
The sub tenant said that he attempted to contact the landlord by telephone. The tenant provided a screenshot of his outgoing call log to the landlord. The screenshot shows 2 calls being made to the landlord’s telephone number. The telephone number used by the tenant on this occasion was the same number that the Tribunal successfully contacted the landlord on for the purposes of this hearing.
The sub tenant was unable to contact the landlord by telephone. It was becoming cold and the tenant sub tenant was concerned for his two children. The sub tenant contacted his employer (the tenant in these proceedings). The employer said that the sub tenant should contact a locksmith used by the tenant.
The locksmith called at the premises. The locksmith said that the lock was broken and would need to be replaced. The locksmith was able to gain access to the premises through a bathroom window The locksmith used a specific tool to gain entry.
The lock was replaced. The locksmith provided the tenant with an invoice for $569.99 for the repairs on the basis of it having been an after-hours call out. The tenant his paid the locksmith and seeks reimbursement from the landlord.
The landlord said that he did not receive any calls from the sub tenant. The issue of the lock was not raised with the landlord when he attended the premises some days later.
The landlord said that he had a range of locks which would have been suitable as replacements.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the sub tenant that calls were made to the landlord’s telephone. The landlord accepted in evidence that he had not been at his home when the problem arose.
The landlord’s evidence was simply that he had replacement locks available to him. Whether those locks would have been suitable to complete the repairs is uncertain. I consider that the sub tenant has acted reasonably in all the circumstances and that the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the costs of the repairs. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $569.99.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been substantially or wholly successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316204 — net $1,161.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Door	$316.25		nt. The tenant agreed that the sum was reasonable.
Repairs: Carpet	$120.00		ign a cost for landlord labour at $30.00 per hour. The tenant is ordered to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
Bond release		$1,000.00	Bond release
Compensation: Locksmith		$569.99	Locksmith
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$436.25	$1,597.99
Net award		$1,161.74
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,161.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jade Faulkner must pay [The tenant/s] $1,161.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2020 and ended on 21 May 2025. The premises were sublet by the tenant to its employees during the course of the tenancy with the approval of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant consented to the landlord’s claim for release of the bond being heard, despite the landlord not having complied with s.22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), which requires a landlord to file a counterclaim with the Tribunal. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. In this case, it means that the tenant must prove the claims that it has brought before the Tribunal and the landlord must prove his claims.
The Tribunal is not required to decide who is telling the truth, merely to decide if the allegation is proven to the point where it is more likely than not to have occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to file 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.”
The parties agreed that despite the clear obligation on the landlord to lodge a bond within 23 working days, the landlord did not do so, and has retained the bond. No application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was made by the tenant.
The parties agreed that a door was damaged by a subtenant during the course of the tenancy. An invoice for repairs was provided. The invoice is for $316.25. The tenant remains liable to the landlord for the actions of the subtenant. The tenant agreed that the sum was reasonable. The tenant is ordered to pay $316.25 to the landlord.
The parties agreed that an area of carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord was able to obtain replacement carpet at no cost. The landlord seeks compensation for his own labour costs of four hours. The time claimed is reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal will generally assign a cost for landlord labour at $30.00 per hour. The tenant is ordered to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord said that he carried out cleaning at the end of the tenancy as he did not consider that the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. The landlord said that the cleaning he completed was to bring the premises to a standard where they could be relet to new tenants.
The Tribunal considers that the standard, where premises are suitable to be relet, will be a higher standard than the “reasonably clean and tidy” requirement of a tenant at the end of a tenancy. In those circumstances, the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is dismissed. Lock
Section 46 (1) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The sub tenant gave evidence. He said that he arrived home with his two children on the evening of 2 May 2025. He was unable to gain entry to the premises through the one entry door. The lock to the door was not operating.
The sub tenant attempted to contact the landlord, initially by seeing if the landlord was home. The landlord lives at the adjoining house. The tenant said that it did not appear that the landlord was home. He said that the landlord’s vehicles were not in the driveway and that he was unable to gain access to the front door to the landlord’s premises as the gate was locked.
The sub tenant said that he attempted to contact the landlord by telephone. The tenant provided a screenshot of his outgoing call log to the landlord. The screenshot shows 2 calls being made to the landlord’s telephone number. The telephone number used by the tenant on this occasion was the same number that the Tribunal successfully contacted the landlord on for the purposes of this hearing.
The sub tenant was unable to contact the landlord by telephone. It was becoming cold and the tenant sub tenant was concerned for his two children. The sub tenant contacted his employer (the tenant in these proceedings). The employer said that the sub tenant should contact a locksmith used by the tenant.
The locksmith called at the premises. The locksmith said that the lock was broken and would need to be replaced. The locksmith was able to gain access to the premises through a bathroom window The locksmith used a specific tool to gain entry.
The lock was replaced. The locksmith provided the tenant with an invoice for $569.99 for the repairs on the basis of it having been an after-hours call out. The tenant his paid the locksmith and seeks reimbursement from the landlord.
The landlord said that he did not receive any calls from the sub tenant. The issue of the lock was not raised with the landlord when he attended the premises some days later.
The landlord said that he had a range of locks which would have been suitable as replacements.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the sub tenant that calls were made to the landlord’s telephone. The landlord accepted in evidence that he had not been at his home when the problem arose.
The landlord’s evidence was simply that he had replacement locks available to him. Whether those locks would have been suitable to complete the repairs is uncertain. I consider that the sub tenant has acted reasonably in all the circumstances and that the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the costs of the repairs. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $569.99.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been substantially or wholly successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316204 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316204 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions