What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324569 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 5324569?

Rent Arrears: $3,142.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $409.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249320-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324569 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 5324569?

Rent Arrears: $3,142.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $409.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249320-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324569 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324569 — 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 5324569 — net $1,591.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 June 2025	$3,142.86	Rent arrears to 24 June 2025
Rubbish removal (skip bin	$409.00	Rubbish removal (skip bin
Net award	$1,591.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,591.86

Claims and awards for application 5324569 — net $1,591.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 24 June 2025

Amount: $3,142.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 24 June 2025

Rubbish removal (skip bin

Amount: $409.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal (skip bin

Net award

Landlord $1,591.86

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,591.86

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rochelle Andrew must pay [The landlord/s] $1,591.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms [W] and Ms [L] appeared for the landlord. The owner was also present.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for the hire of a skip bin, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has cross-applied for bond refund and compensation. She says that the landlord destroyed her belongings and seeks replacement costs of $13,763.07.
The onus of proof is on each party to prove their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Section 85 says that the Tribunal must determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Background
The tenancy began on 1 November 2024 and ended on 24 June 2025 as a result of the landlord giving 42 days’ notice on 9 May 2025.
During the hearing, some time was spent discussing the chronology of events between 23 June and 26 June, but for reasons outlined below, most of that is not relevant.
The tenant had secured other accommodation and on Monday 23 June 2025 was still removing her belongings from the property. In the morning, she and her son dropped off her trailer and then went for breakfast. When they returned, it transpired that the road had been closed and so they could not remove all belongings. This also meant that the second-hand shop that was to collect items could not access the property.
The tenant texted the landlord, who said that she could have a further day, so that the tenancy would end on Wednesday 25 June, instead of 24 June. The owner was moving in on Friday 27 June.
The tenant declined, saying that she had to work. She added, “As you said, you can do your inspection and anything that isn’t reasonable because I haven’t had time for reasons beyond my control, [the owner] will have to deal with. Outside of the allowance that I have already been given for not receiving the property in a reasonable state that is...I am meaning all the things that will be left at the property. Not a lot I can do sorry”.
The tenant went back to the property on 24 June, before 10am and found that her trailer had been stolen. She said had been burgled. She said that mud had been tracked through the property and items that had been packed away ready for moving had been emptied on to the floor.
At 1.30pm the tenant told the property manager. She reported it to the Police later that afternoon. The tenant produced photographs taken on the evening of 24 June.
Ms [W] told the Tribunal that at 9.19am on 25 June, the tenant phoned and told her to dump everything and that she would drop off the keys.
The tenant denies making this call.
Ms [W] had made a note of the call in the landlord’s case management system at 11.53am 25 June 2025. She recorded:
19am got a phone call from Rochelle to say that she has tried to get everything taken away but her sons won’t help as they feel like someone is watching and won’t return back to the house, as they are going through a lot as their grandmother had passed away to. So it is what it is and to dump everything that is left at the property. She will drop off the keys later today to my office and drop off Police Report at the same time.
On 25 June, Ms [L], property manager, arrived at the premises between 10.30 and 11.00am to conduct the final inspection.
As she was finishing, at approximately 11.50am, the tenant came to the property to drop off the keys and collect her security cameras that were outside the property. Ms [L] asked her if she needed the keys to get back inside to disconnect the cameras, but that was not necessary. The tenant apologised for the state of the property. Ms [L] asked if she was coming back to clean, but she said she was not. Ms [L] asked about furniture that was on the veranda and the tenant said that the Salvation Army were supposed to have collected it but could not because the road had been closed.
Ms [L] understood that the tenant did not intend to return to collect any items. Ms [W] recorded in the case management system at 12.09pm that at 12.02 Ms [L] had turned up at the property with the keys, but no Police report.
The exit inspection photographs show: a. a set of drawers in the hallway; b. some items on the floor in the lounge, including a hoverboard; c. some items on the floor in bedroom 1, including a weighted blanket and a pack; d. some items on the floor in bedroom 3, including a skateboard and a mirror. Items were spilling out of the wardrobe; e. On the deck around the house there was a desk, some bedside cabinets, a mattress, some drawers, a chair, wooden panel/dissembled table, wooden box; f. Outside a trestle table with some gardening items on it. There was a lot of abandoned debris that on the whole appeared to be rubbish. There was a tarpaulin with green waste, a number of plastic bins, a wooden pallet, pieces of wood, cardboard and wooden boxes, plastic bags; g. A wooden wall unit was lying on the berm; h. The shed contained a lot of rubbish. i. The garage contained rubbish, a chair on its side, one sideboard with the doors removed.
At 12.43pm, after the landlord had taken possession, the tenant sent a text saying that the Police had said to not let anyone in the house and don’t touch anything. This was also sent to the owner’s mother.
The property manager understood that fingerprinting was to be undertaken of the house, as the house was broken into, not the garage.
On 26 June 2025 the tenant returned to the property with the Police for finger- printing. The owner’s sister was there, moving some paver stones that the tenant has left there.
Items had been moved into the garage. The tenant provided photographs showing that the furniture that had been left on the deck was now in the garage. Some of it had been broken. She also provided photographs of broken leadlight windows that she said were the drawers for the sideboard.
On 26 June the tenant texted the owner telling him not to destroy the items that had been left behind and telling him to find the doors that were left at the back door for the antique sideboard. He asked her to text his sister with pictures of the things that they needed to keep for her. She sent a list of items. She said that the items must be stored securely out of the weather and that the fridge should be left out for collection.
The owner replied asking when the items would be collected as he had two cars to go into the shed.
They arranged for her to visit on 6 July 2025. After she left, there was a considerable amount of rubbish and abandoned items in the shed.
A skip bin was delivered on 10 July 2025.
On 12 August 2025 the landlord filed an application for rent arrears and skip bin hire.
On 30 October 2025 the parties were notified of the hearing to take place via video link on 12 December 2025.
On 9 December 2025, the tenant cross-applied for compensation of $13,763.07 for replacement of items.
The 12 December hearing was turned into a case conference and directions issued.
The tenant’s claims are for the following replacement cost of items. The list also notes where the items were left: Cricket gear1,398in a black plastic rubbish bag in the bedroom Basketball71.98bedroom Office chair69.99bedroom
5kg Weighted Blanket 223.39 bedroom Hiking Pack 359.99bedroom Hoverboard999lounge Rimu Cot 1,999.00 garage Low boy1,344.00hallway Electronic cat door324.99still in the door Concrete Pavers 12 450 x 450 mm 600.00 outside Table and chairs585.00outside Aquarium heaters and lights1184.07outside Chicken feeder and water dispenser195outside Worm farm708.50outside Leaf blower329outside Mirrors780in various places Leadlight doors1700garage Outdoor trestle table350outside Tools125outside Garden hoses174.98outside student desk199.00outside heater74.00inside

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was 3,142.86. The rent arrears are proved.

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 and return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has not claimed for time cleaning or removing rubbish.
There was a lot of rubbish in the shed and scattered around the property. This is evident in the exit inspection report. The landlord simply seeks the cost of a skip bin for disposing of the rubbish and abandoned items. The tenant says they some of those items were not abandoned.

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for any loss of chattels?

Section 62 says that if the tenant leaves on the premises goods 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.
If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or 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. They must then either apply to the Tribunal for disposal or deal with the items in accordance with section 62A, which involves making an assessment of the market value and any of the goods have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may immediately dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit.
The landlord took possession of the premises on 25 June when the tenant returned the keys. The tenant did not say that she wanted any of the items left and did not say that she would return to collect any items.
The tenant argues that the landlord was obliged under section 62 not to dispose of the items.
In text communication on 23 June 2025, when the landlord offered the tenant an extra day to exit the property because of the difficulties with the road closure, the tenant said that she could not take another day off work, and said, “As you said, you can do your inspection and anything that isn’t reasonable because I haven’t had time for reasons beyond my control, [the owner] will have to deal with. Outside of the allowance that I have already been given for not receiving the property in a reasonable state that is...I am meaning all the things that will be left at the property. Not a lot I can do sorry”.
I note that on 23 June 2025, when the road was closed, there would still have been time for the tenant to clear, clean and pack up property. She could have tidied up the shed and garage and back yard and put into piles any items that she wanted to keep. There is no evidence of how long the road was closed, but it is very unlikely that a main thoroughfare such as Tremaine Avenue would have been closed throughout the whole day or the evening of 23 June. There were items that could have been put in a car when the tenant returned on 24 June and again on 25 June. The police were unlikely to take fingerprints from all of the items that were left outsided.
Ms [W] says that the tenant phoned at 9.19 on 25 June and told her to dump everything that was left at the property.
The tenant denies making this call, but based on the file note that Ms [W] made later that morning, before the keys were dropped off, I find it is more likely than not that the tenant made this call. It is unlikely that Ms [W] would have recorded that the items could be dumped if it had not been said.
When she dropped off the keys, the tenant told Ms [L] that she was not coming back, but now says that was in relation to the cleaning.
In fact, it must also have meant that she was not coming back to move all abandoned items, which were intermingled with rubbish. The time and cost involved in trying to clear the property would have been considerable. By leaving everything to the landlord, the tenant must have realised that there would be some cost associated with that.
At that time, the parties discussed the items that were left on the deck but not the items that were inside. It might have been prudent for Ms [L] to clarify what the tenant wanted done with all items left inside and outside the property, but the tenant had ample opportunity to say what she wanted and indeed to collect some items other than the security cameras while she was there.
The landlord had every reason to believe that the tenant wanted nothing that was left.
In her application, the tenant said that she had told the landlord not to touch anything when she handed over the keys. That was not reasonable, given the tenancy had ended on 24 June. In the absence of a communication from the Police, it was not reasonable to expect the landlord to touch nothing in the property, particularly in relation to a burglary in which the only thing that had been removed was a trailer that had been left overnight. It was entirely reasonable that the owner moved the items that had been left inside and around the property.
I therefore find that on the balance of probabilities, at the time the landlord took possession on 25 June 2025, the tenant had indicated that she was relinquishing her claim to everything left behind. It was reasonable that the landlord dispose of the chattels.
Even if I found that she had not made that clear on 25 June, she had had a further opportunity to retrieve her belongings.
In fact, there is no evidence that the landlord disposed of anything until after the tenant had had an opportunity to retrieve items. This occurred on 6 July. The skip bin was delivered on 10 July and collected on 15 July.
The tenant has not established that the landlord disposed of any items without giving her an opportunity to collect them.
The tenant said at the hearing that when she attended the property, she could not go through everything and that some items had been damaged.
I add that even if I were minded to order any compensation for damage to any items, I note: a. the landlord has sought no compensation for the time spent gathering all of the items left outside the property. That would have taken some hours. b. the tenant cannot expect the landlord clean up after her and then seek compensation.
Considering the substantial merits and justice of the case, it would not be fair to order the landlord to pay the tenant any compensation.
The tenant must pay the cost of the skip bin hire.
The landlord has been successful and so there is an order for reimbursement of the filing fee and they are entitled to name suppression.
The landlord advised that the cat door remains in the property and the cot is in the garage rafters where she left it. She may arrange a time to retrieve those items.

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 5324569 — net $1,591.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 June 2025	$3,142.86	Rent arrears to 24 June 2025
Rubbish removal (skip bin	$409.00	Rubbish removal (skip bin
Net award	$1,591.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,591.86

Claims and awards for application 5324569 — net $1,591.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 24 June 2025

Amount: $3,142.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 24 June 2025

Rubbish removal (skip bin

Amount: $409.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal (skip bin

Net award

Landlord $1,591.86

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,591.86

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rochelle Andrew must pay [The landlord/s] $1,591.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms [W] and Ms [L] appeared for the landlord. The owner was also present.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for the hire of a skip bin, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has cross-applied for bond refund and compensation. She says that the landlord destroyed her belongings and seeks replacement costs of $13,763.07.
The onus of proof is on each party to prove their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Section 85 says that the Tribunal must determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Background
The tenancy began on 1 November 2024 and ended on 24 June 2025 as a result of the landlord giving 42 days’ notice on 9 May 2025.
During the hearing, some time was spent discussing the chronology of events between 23 June and 26 June, but for reasons outlined below, most of that is not relevant.
The tenant had secured other accommodation and on Monday 23 June 2025 was still removing her belongings from the property. In the morning, she and her son dropped off her trailer and then went for breakfast. When they returned, it transpired that the road had been closed and so they could not remove all belongings. This also meant that the second-hand shop that was to collect items could not access the property.
The tenant texted the landlord, who said that she could have a further day, so that the tenancy would end on Wednesday 25 June, instead of 24 June. The owner was moving in on Friday 27 June.
The tenant declined, saying that she had to work. She added, “As you said, you can do your inspection and anything that isn’t reasonable because I haven’t had time for reasons beyond my control, [the owner] will have to deal with. Outside of the allowance that I have already been given for not receiving the property in a reasonable state that is...I am meaning all the things that will be left at the property. Not a lot I can do sorry”.
The tenant went back to the property on 24 June, before 10am and found that her trailer had been stolen. She said had been burgled. She said that mud had been tracked through the property and items that had been packed away ready for moving had been emptied on to the floor.
At 1.30pm the tenant told the property manager. She reported it to the Police later that afternoon. The tenant produced photographs taken on the evening of 24 June.
Ms [W] told the Tribunal that at 9.19am on 25 June, the tenant phoned and told her to dump everything and that she would drop off the keys.
The tenant denies making this call.
Ms [W] had made a note of the call in the landlord’s case management system at 11.53am 25 June 2025. She recorded:
19am got a phone call from Rochelle to say that she has tried to get everything taken away but her sons won’t help as they feel like someone is watching and won’t return back to the house, as they are going through a lot as their grandmother had passed away to. So it is what it is and to dump everything that is left at the property. She will drop off the keys later today to my office and drop off Police Report at the same time.
On 25 June, Ms [L], property manager, arrived at the premises between 10.30 and 11.00am to conduct the final inspection.
As she was finishing, at approximately 11.50am, the tenant came to the property to drop off the keys and collect her security cameras that were outside the property. Ms [L] asked her if she needed the keys to get back inside to disconnect the cameras, but that was not necessary. The tenant apologised for the state of the property. Ms [L] asked if she was coming back to clean, but she said she was not. Ms [L] asked about furniture that was on the veranda and the tenant said that the Salvation Army were supposed to have collected it but could not because the road had been closed.
Ms [L] understood that the tenant did not intend to return to collect any items. Ms [W] recorded in the case management system at 12.09pm that at 12.02 Ms [L] had turned up at the property with the keys, but no Police report.
The exit inspection photographs show: a. a set of drawers in the hallway; b. some items on the floor in the lounge, including a hoverboard; c. some items on the floor in bedroom 1, including a weighted blanket and a pack; d. some items on the floor in bedroom 3, including a skateboard and a mirror. Items were spilling out of the wardrobe; e. On the deck around the house there was a desk, some bedside cabinets, a mattress, some drawers, a chair, wooden panel/dissembled table, wooden box; f. Outside a trestle table with some gardening items on it. There was a lot of abandoned debris that on the whole appeared to be rubbish. There was a tarpaulin with green waste, a number of plastic bins, a wooden pallet, pieces of wood, cardboard and wooden boxes, plastic bags; g. A wooden wall unit was lying on the berm; h. The shed contained a lot of rubbish. i. The garage contained rubbish, a chair on its side, one sideboard with the doors removed.
At 12.43pm, after the landlord had taken possession, the tenant sent a text saying that the Police had said to not let anyone in the house and don’t touch anything. This was also sent to the owner’s mother.
The property manager understood that fingerprinting was to be undertaken of the house, as the house was broken into, not the garage.
On 26 June 2025 the tenant returned to the property with the Police for finger- printing. The owner’s sister was there, moving some paver stones that the tenant has left there.
Items had been moved into the garage. The tenant provided photographs showing that the furniture that had been left on the deck was now in the garage. Some of it had been broken. She also provided photographs of broken leadlight windows that she said were the drawers for the sideboard.
On 26 June the tenant texted the owner telling him not to destroy the items that had been left behind and telling him to find the doors that were left at the back door for the antique sideboard. He asked her to text his sister with pictures of the things that they needed to keep for her. She sent a list of items. She said that the items must be stored securely out of the weather and that the fridge should be left out for collection.
The owner replied asking when the items would be collected as he had two cars to go into the shed.
They arranged for her to visit on 6 July 2025. After she left, there was a considerable amount of rubbish and abandoned items in the shed.
A skip bin was delivered on 10 July 2025.
On 12 August 2025 the landlord filed an application for rent arrears and skip bin hire.
On 30 October 2025 the parties were notified of the hearing to take place via video link on 12 December 2025.
On 9 December 2025, the tenant cross-applied for compensation of $13,763.07 for replacement of items.
The 12 December hearing was turned into a case conference and directions issued.
The tenant’s claims are for the following replacement cost of items. The list also notes where the items were left: Cricket gear1,398in a black plastic rubbish bag in the bedroom Basketball71.98bedroom Office chair69.99bedroom
5kg Weighted Blanket 223.39 bedroom Hiking Pack 359.99bedroom Hoverboard999lounge Rimu Cot 1,999.00 garage Low boy1,344.00hallway Electronic cat door324.99still in the door Concrete Pavers 12 450 x 450 mm 600.00 outside Table and chairs585.00outside Aquarium heaters and lights1184.07outside Chicken feeder and water dispenser195outside Worm farm708.50outside Leaf blower329outside Mirrors780in various places Leadlight doors1700garage Outdoor trestle table350outside Tools125outside Garden hoses174.98outside student desk199.00outside heater74.00inside

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was 3,142.86. The rent arrears are proved.

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 and return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has not claimed for time cleaning or removing rubbish.
There was a lot of rubbish in the shed and scattered around the property. This is evident in the exit inspection report. The landlord simply seeks the cost of a skip bin for disposing of the rubbish and abandoned items. The tenant says they some of those items were not abandoned.

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for any loss of chattels?

Section 62 says that if the tenant leaves on the premises goods 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.
If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or 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. They must then either apply to the Tribunal for disposal or deal with the items in accordance with section 62A, which involves making an assessment of the market value and any of the goods have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may immediately dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit.
The landlord took possession of the premises on 25 June when the tenant returned the keys. The tenant did not say that she wanted any of the items left and did not say that she would return to collect any items.
The tenant argues that the landlord was obliged under section 62 not to dispose of the items.
In text communication on 23 June 2025, when the landlord offered the tenant an extra day to exit the property because of the difficulties with the road closure, the tenant said that she could not take another day off work, and said, “As you said, you can do your inspection and anything that isn’t reasonable because I haven’t had time for reasons beyond my control, [the owner] will have to deal with. Outside of the allowance that I have already been given for not receiving the property in a reasonable state that is...I am meaning all the things that will be left at the property. Not a lot I can do sorry”.
I note that on 23 June 2025, when the road was closed, there would still have been time for the tenant to clear, clean and pack up property. She could have tidied up the shed and garage and back yard and put into piles any items that she wanted to keep. There is no evidence of how long the road was closed, but it is very unlikely that a main thoroughfare such as Tremaine Avenue would have been closed throughout the whole day or the evening of 23 June. There were items that could have been put in a car when the tenant returned on 24 June and again on 25 June. The police were unlikely to take fingerprints from all of the items that were left outsided.
Ms [W] says that the tenant phoned at 9.19 on 25 June and told her to dump everything that was left at the property.
The tenant denies making this call, but based on the file note that Ms [W] made later that morning, before the keys were dropped off, I find it is more likely than not that the tenant made this call. It is unlikely that Ms [W] would have recorded that the items could be dumped if it had not been said.
When she dropped off the keys, the tenant told Ms [L] that she was not coming back, but now says that was in relation to the cleaning.
In fact, it must also have meant that she was not coming back to move all abandoned items, which were intermingled with rubbish. The time and cost involved in trying to clear the property would have been considerable. By leaving everything to the landlord, the tenant must have realised that there would be some cost associated with that.
At that time, the parties discussed the items that were left on the deck but not the items that were inside. It might have been prudent for Ms [L] to clarify what the tenant wanted done with all items left inside and outside the property, but the tenant had ample opportunity to say what she wanted and indeed to collect some items other than the security cameras while she was there.
The landlord had every reason to believe that the tenant wanted nothing that was left.
In her application, the tenant said that she had told the landlord not to touch anything when she handed over the keys. That was not reasonable, given the tenancy had ended on 24 June. In the absence of a communication from the Police, it was not reasonable to expect the landlord to touch nothing in the property, particularly in relation to a burglary in which the only thing that had been removed was a trailer that had been left overnight. It was entirely reasonable that the owner moved the items that had been left inside and around the property.
I therefore find that on the balance of probabilities, at the time the landlord took possession on 25 June 2025, the tenant had indicated that she was relinquishing her claim to everything left behind. It was reasonable that the landlord dispose of the chattels.
Even if I found that she had not made that clear on 25 June, she had had a further opportunity to retrieve her belongings.
In fact, there is no evidence that the landlord disposed of anything until after the tenant had had an opportunity to retrieve items. This occurred on 6 July. The skip bin was delivered on 10 July and collected on 15 July.
The tenant has not established that the landlord disposed of any items without giving her an opportunity to collect them.
The tenant said at the hearing that when she attended the property, she could not go through everything and that some items had been damaged.
I add that even if I were minded to order any compensation for damage to any items, I note: a. the landlord has sought no compensation for the time spent gathering all of the items left outside the property. That would have taken some hours. b. the tenant cannot expect the landlord clean up after her and then seek compensation.
Considering the substantial merits and justice of the case, it would not be fair to order the landlord to pay the tenant any compensation.
The tenant must pay the cost of the skip bin hire.
The landlord has been successful and so there is an order for reimbursement of the filing fee and they are entitled to name suppression.
The landlord advised that the cat door remains in the property and the cot is in the garage rafters where she left it. She may arrange a time to retrieve those items.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324569 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324569 — Rent arrears

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?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for any loss of chattels?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for any loss of chattels?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions