What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327477 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 5327477?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,340.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Fire Excess: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Excess: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heater: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327477?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403922-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327477 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 5327477?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,340.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Fire Excess: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Excess: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heater: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327477?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403922-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327477 — Lost Rent

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327477 — net $4,608.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 03 November 2023	$670.00	Rent arrears to 03 November 2023
Rubbish removal, cleaning, lawns	$920.00	Rubbish removal, cleaning, lawns
Repairs: fire excess	$550.00	Repairs: fire excess
Replace heater	$550.00	Replace heater
Replace carpet excess	$550.00	Replace carpet excess
Compensation for two-week lost rent	$1,340.00	Compensation for two-week lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,608.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,608.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327477 — net $4,608.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 03 November 2023	$670.00	Rent arrears to 03 November 2023
Rubbish removal, cleaning, lawns	$920.00	Rubbish removal, cleaning, lawns
Repairs: fire excess	$550.00	Repairs: fire excess
Replace heater	$550.00	Replace heater
Replace carpet excess	$550.00	Replace carpet excess
Compensation for two-week lost rent	$1,340.00	Compensation for two-week lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,608.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,608.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,608.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord’s application was filed on 16 August 2025. On 18 November 2025, both parties appeared at a hearing before another adjudicator by phone. The tenant claimed that they had not received the application. The parties advised the adjudicator that they wished to explore resolution at mediation. The Tribunal confirmed the claims. The matter was then adjourned for disclosure and mediation. It appears that the matters were unable to be resolved at mediation, and on 4 December 2025, the case was scheduled for a video hearing on 19 February 2026. This was subsequently changed to an in-person hearing and scheduled for today, 31 March 2026. Notices of hearing have been sent to the tenant at the address for service they provided at the last hearing. There has been no explanation for the tenant’s absence or any request for an adjournment, and the matter has proceeded in their absence.
The landlord’s claims are as follows: i. Insurance excess incurred when house was flooded after tenant broke a pipe in the bathroom - $550.00. ii. Insurance excess following fire in the kitchen - $550.00. iii. Carpet replacement due to damage and stains - $2,600.00. iv. Replacement of natural gas heater that was damaged - $3,103.65. v. General clean, lawns, rubbish removal - $1,270.00 vi. Rent from the date that the tenant moved out following the fire until the property was re-tenanted (due to remedial works required) on 16 March 2024 (rent sought to 15 March 2024) - $13,400.00. Background
The tenancy commenced on 08 July 2022. The property was built in the 1980’s and consists of four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen / dining / lounge, laundry, and double internal garage. The tenant resided at the property with four young children between the ages of 5 and 9. The tenant appears to have been a single caregiver. The landlord stated that from time to time the tenant’s sister and brother also resided at the property. Damage claims Flood
Dealing with the claims in a chronological order, the first concerns a flood. The landlord stated that on or about 02 October 2023, the tenant’s sister advised that the tenant’s eldest son, who the landlord believed has behavioural issues, had kicked a pipe in the bathroom resulting in a flood. The landlord, who resides nearby visited the property shortly afterward.
The landlord stated that they discovered that a water pipe to the toilet had been broken resulting in a significant flood, which the landlord described as being “ankle deep,” throughout the entire downstairs portion of the house. The landlord stated that they repaired the pipe and made an insurance claim which covered drying the carpet. The landlord is seeking the insurance excess of $550.00.
There are no photographs of the flood, either before or after, and no documentary evidence to support the claim.
The landlord stated that they delayed making a claim because the tenant had accepted responsibility and promised to make weekly payments for this and other damage, but those payments did not eventuate. The landlord also stated that they had sympathy for the tenant’s personal circumstances, noting that the tenant was physically unwell. It appears the occupants had regular contact with social services and the Police. Fire
On 3 November 2023, upon arriving home at around 5pm, the landlord detected a strong odour, described as burning hair. A short time later, a neighbour alerted the landlord to a fire at the tenant’s nearby property. The landlord went to the property and saw smoke coming from the windows.
The landlord stated that the front door was unlocked. The landlord entered the property; no one was home. The landlord discovered a fire in the kitchen. Emergency services were called, and the fire was extinguished. The landlord stated that the fire had been caused by an unattended cooking pot left on the stove. The fire damaged the nearby pantry wall, the rangehood, the ceiling, and the wall behind the stove.
The landlord stated that around 6pm, the tenant arrived at the property and advised that he thought his brother may have been using the kitchen.
The landlord stated that emergency services advised the property was uninhabitable until the damage was repaired. The landlord also stated that the parties agreed the tenant would vacate the property. On the same day, the tenant secured emergency accommodation.
Over the next couple of weeks, the tenant visited the property to collect some of their possessions before handing the keys back to the landlord on 15 November 2023. The landlord then took photographs of the interior and exterior of the property which have been produced.
The landlord stated that on 3 November 2023, they made an insurance claim, which was accepted on or about 7 November 2023. The landlord said the insurers engaged a contractor, but due to the Christmas/New Year holiday period, the contractor was unable to commence repairs until February 2024. When the landlord questioned the delay, they were advised that there was an issue sourcing some of the materials, although the landlord questioned the veracity of that claim. The landlord stated that once commenced the repairs took three or four days.
Once the repairs were completed, the landlord entered into a new tenancy on 16 March 2024. The landlord also stated that the insurers were aware the property was a rental and that a delay would result in lost rent.
The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $550.00, and compensation for lost rent from 03 November 2023 to 15 March 2024 of $13,400.00. Carpet
The landlord stated the carpet in the dining / lounge area, hallway, and stairs was badly soiled and stained. The landlord stated that it could not be cleaned and required replacement.
There are no photographs showing the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy. However, there is a pre-tenancy inspection report completed by both parties, which records the carpet as being in an acceptable condition. The landlord stated that the carpet was about six years old at the start of the tenancy and was in good condition. The landlord did not make an insurance claim and is claiming the full replacement cost of $2,600.00. The invoice is dated 27 October 2023. Heater
The landlord stated they discovered that the fixed gas heater in the lounge was missing. There are no photographs of the heater at the commencement of the tenancy or showing where it was missing from at the end. The heater is listed in the tenancy agreement as a chattel. The landlord stated that the heater was likely an original feature of the property.
The landlord stated that the tenant advised that their eldest child had damaged the heater, and it had been disposed of.
The landlord did not make an insurance claim and is seeking the full cost of replacing the heater for $3,103.65. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
Section 41(1) of the Act states that a tenant is responsible for the actions or omissions of anyone they allow onto the premises (except the landlord or someone acting for the landlord). If that person does something that would breach the tenancy agreement if the tenant had done it, the tenant can be held liable for it.
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. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $550.00 per claim.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision Flood
Relating to the claim for flood damage, there are no photographs of the damaged pipe to allow an objective assessment. The only evidence as to the cause comes from the tenant’s sister.
While the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, the Tribunal must assess its reliability and weight. Had the statement been made by the tenant, it would have carried more weight. In this case, it has been made by a non-party, and there is insufficient supporting evidence. The claim is dismissed. Fire
The photographs on 15 November 2023 show damage to the kitchen. However, the damage is not extensive and is confined to the stove and surrounding area.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand safety guidance recommends staying in the kitchen while cooking at all times. If cooking must be left unattended, the stove should be turned off. A reasonable and prudent tenant exercising proper care would have either remained inside while the pot was on the stove or turned it off when they went outside.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was more likely than not caused by carelessness. The tenant was responsible for the actions of the family member. The landlord has insurance for damage. The tenant’s liability in this case is limited to the excess of $550.00.
The rent summary shows that on 03 November 2023, that the tenant was one week in rent arrears. I therefore award the landlord rent arrears of $670.00.
Turning to the claim for compensation for lost rent. The photographs do not show extensive damage. Once repairs commenced, they took only three or four days to complete.
The delay over the Christmas and New Year period, extending into January and February, is a loss that I consider too remote and does not naturally flow from the tenant’s breach.
In the circumstances, I award two weeks’ rent as reasonable compensation, rather than the twenty weeks claimed. Carpet
The carpet was six-years-old at the commencement of the tenancy and recorded as being in a reasonable condition.
The carpet has been badly soiled and stained in the lounge, hallway, and stairs. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear and was more likely than not the result of carelessness.
The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $550.00. As the damage was the result of carelessness, I declined to award the landlord the replacement cost of $2,600.00 and instead award the excess of $550.00. Heater
Unlike the flood claim, the evidence involves a statement the landlord claims to have been made by the tenant themselves. This carries more weight than hearsay from a third party.
The heater was a chattel, and the tenant was obliged to return it at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to do so.
Fixed gas heaters in rental properties have an estimated useful life span of approximately 10 – 15 years. The heater was over forty years old at the commencement of the tenancy. Awarding the full replacement cost would result in significant betterment. There is also no photographic evidence of the heater at the commencement. Taking these factors into account, I award $550.00. General cleaning, lawns, rubbish removal
The landlord claims that following the parties agreeing to end the tenancy that the tenant was given time to remove belongings. They stated that on 15 November 2023, the tenant handed back the keys.
The landlord stated that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, the lawns were not mown, and rubbish was not removed. The landlord stated that the tenant had removed items they wanted, but had left the rest, which included furniture.
The landlord has provided photographs of the property taken on 15 November 2023, which include the lawns.
The landlord has produced an invoice for cleaning and rubbish removal dated 17 March 2024. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) of the Act.
The Act 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, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Analysis and decision
The photographic evidence establishes that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, including the lawns, and failed to remove all rubbish.
The invoice is itemised with $720.00 for cleaning, and $450.00 for lawns and rubbish removal, including six trailer loads taken to the waste station.
I reduce the cleaning portion by $250.00 to exclude the kitchen, which required repair work. The remaining amount is reasonable. Bond
The landlord sought refund of the bond. However, the bond number provided is for a different tenancy.
The landlord explained that the parties intended to transfer the bond from a previous tenancy but did not do so.
I am unable to deal with a bond that relates to a different tenancy. Costs
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
Having regard to the tenant’s personal circumstances, I am satisfied there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A (4). Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327477 — Lost Rent

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327477 — Lost Rent

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions