What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322524 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 5322524?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cutlery Insert (By Consent: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,010.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322524?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12539131-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322524 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 5322524?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cutlery Insert (By Consent: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,010.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322524?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12539131-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat C9, 30 Bute Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322524 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322524 — net $672.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.8.25	$2,010.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Exemplary damages:
Wall repairs (adjusted	$500.00	Wall repairs (adjusted
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
cutlery insert (by consent	$29.00	cutlery insert (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$672.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$672.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Gerrit Jacobus Olivier must pay [The landlord/s] $672.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,010.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consist of a 20-year-old apartment with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
The tenancy began on 21 February 2025 and ended on 8 August 2025 when the tenant vacated early. The agreement was fixed for 12 months from 21 February 2025 to 20 February 2026.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
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 party bringing the claim (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 (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 ended on 8 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was subject to a 12-month fixed term tenancy.
The tenant states that he was forced to vacate the premises during the fixed term due to extreme financial hardship because of the economic downturn.
The landlord claims $2010.00 being 3 weeks unpaid rent to when a new tenancy started on 9 August 2025. The tenant says that he faced extreme financial hardship due to the economic downturn and being self-employed. The tenant says his work simply ran out.
During the hearing the landlord provided a tenancy agreement for the new tenancy starting 9 August 2025 which I have sighted.
Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the rent debt up to 8 August 2025. Accordingly, the landlord is entitled to rent for the period from the date the tenant vacated until the earlier of the end of the fixed term or the date a new tenancy commenced. The landlord’s claim for rent is therefore allowed.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Exemplary damages:
The landlord claims exemplary damages for early termination of the fixed term agreement.
Exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are only available for specific “unlawful acts” listed in the Act. Ending a fixed term tenancy early without lawful reason is a breach of the tenancy agreement, but it is not classified as an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages can be awarded.
The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the windowsills were not clean and that there was mould on the wall in one of the bedrooms. The landlord also claimed that there was a deposit of fat on one of the windows as a result of outdoor cooking.
The tenant responded by stating that he did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant provided a written response during the hearing to the landlord’s claims. In that response he states that he left the unit, including windows, glass and external deck area clean.
The tenant also provided his own photographic evidence in support of his response. The tenant did acknowledge during the hearing that he had a clothes drier in one of the bedrooms which would have contributed to the mould on the wall.
Having carefully considered the evidence before me, and on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the landlord’s small claim for cleaning is reasonable in all the circumstances. I have sighted the invoice from VIP Cleaning dated 2 August 2025 for $115.00. I have also sighted the landlord’s photographic evidence confirming a small number of areas which were not left in a reasonably clean condition. Kitchen drawer cutlery insert
The landlord says the kitchen drawer cutlery insert was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not oppose this claim and therefore the claim is allowed by consent.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls by installing TV brackets and two metal shelves.
The tenant attempted to repair the holes in the walls where the TV brackets were.
The landlord claims the amount of $1000.00 as a reasonable contribution towards the damage repairs.
While I accept that the installation of the bracket and shelves has resulted in some damage requiring repair, I am not satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The amount claimed is also not supported by the evidence filed. The appropriate measure of compensation is the reasonable cost of repairing and repainting only the affected area.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is reduced to reflect the actual loss attributable to the tenant’s actions, being the cost of making good the specific area where the TV brackets were installed.
The landlord’s claim is reduced to reflect the actual loss attributable to the tenant’s actions. Based on the scant evidence provided by the landlord I find that an amount of $500.00 is a reasonable contribution towards the damage caused. I have sighted an invoice from Fresh NZ Painting Limited dated 8 August 2025 for $4945.00.
The claim is allowed and the amount awarded is reduced reflecting the evidence provided by the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322524 — net $672.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.8.25	$2,010.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Exemplary damages:
Wall repairs (adjusted	$500.00	Wall repairs (adjusted
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
cutlery insert (by consent	$29.00	cutlery insert (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$672.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$672.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Gerrit Jacobus Olivier must pay [The landlord/s] $672.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,010.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consist of a 20-year-old apartment with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
The tenancy began on 21 February 2025 and ended on 8 August 2025 when the tenant vacated early. The agreement was fixed for 12 months from 21 February 2025 to 20 February 2026.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
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 party bringing the claim (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 (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 ended on 8 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was subject to a 12-month fixed term tenancy.
The tenant states that he was forced to vacate the premises during the fixed term due to extreme financial hardship because of the economic downturn.
The landlord claims $2010.00 being 3 weeks unpaid rent to when a new tenancy started on 9 August 2025. The tenant says that he faced extreme financial hardship due to the economic downturn and being self-employed. The tenant says his work simply ran out.
During the hearing the landlord provided a tenancy agreement for the new tenancy starting 9 August 2025 which I have sighted.
Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the rent debt up to 8 August 2025. Accordingly, the landlord is entitled to rent for the period from the date the tenant vacated until the earlier of the end of the fixed term or the date a new tenancy commenced. The landlord’s claim for rent is therefore allowed.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Exemplary damages:
The landlord claims exemplary damages for early termination of the fixed term agreement.
Exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are only available for specific “unlawful acts” listed in the Act. Ending a fixed term tenancy early without lawful reason is a breach of the tenancy agreement, but it is not classified as an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages can be awarded.
The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the windowsills were not clean and that there was mould on the wall in one of the bedrooms. The landlord also claimed that there was a deposit of fat on one of the windows as a result of outdoor cooking.
The tenant responded by stating that he did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant provided a written response during the hearing to the landlord’s claims. In that response he states that he left the unit, including windows, glass and external deck area clean.
The tenant also provided his own photographic evidence in support of his response. The tenant did acknowledge during the hearing that he had a clothes drier in one of the bedrooms which would have contributed to the mould on the wall.
Having carefully considered the evidence before me, and on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the landlord’s small claim for cleaning is reasonable in all the circumstances. I have sighted the invoice from VIP Cleaning dated 2 August 2025 for $115.00. I have also sighted the landlord’s photographic evidence confirming a small number of areas which were not left in a reasonably clean condition. Kitchen drawer cutlery insert
The landlord says the kitchen drawer cutlery insert was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not oppose this claim and therefore the claim is allowed by consent.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls by installing TV brackets and two metal shelves.
The tenant attempted to repair the holes in the walls where the TV brackets were.
The landlord claims the amount of $1000.00 as a reasonable contribution towards the damage repairs.
While I accept that the installation of the bracket and shelves has resulted in some damage requiring repair, I am not satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The amount claimed is also not supported by the evidence filed. The appropriate measure of compensation is the reasonable cost of repairing and repainting only the affected area.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is reduced to reflect the actual loss attributable to the tenant’s actions, being the cost of making good the specific area where the TV brackets were installed.
The landlord’s claim is reduced to reflect the actual loss attributable to the tenant’s actions. Based on the scant evidence provided by the landlord I find that an amount of $500.00 is a reasonable contribution towards the damage caused. I have sighted an invoice from Fresh NZ Painting Limited dated 8 August 2025 for $4945.00.
The claim is allowed and the amount awarded is reduced reflecting the evidence provided by the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322524 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat C9, 30 Bute Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322524 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat C9, 30 Bute Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions