What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328809 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $4,596.50 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5328809?

Application Fee For Application 5283…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $415.00 awarded to landlord; Dumping Weeds: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,680.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Change Of Tenant Ad…: $170.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,920.00 awarded to landlord; Topsoil To Fill Holes In Back Yard: $66.50 awarded to landlord; Weeding: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12680409-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328809 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $4,596.50 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5328809?

Application Fee For Application 5283…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $415.00 awarded to landlord; Dumping Weeds: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,680.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Change Of Tenant Ad…: $170.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,920.00 awarded to landlord; Topsoil To Fill Holes In Back Yard: $66.50 awarded to landlord; Weeding: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12680409-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Gracia Avenue, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328809 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328809 — net $4,596.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 August 2025	$3,920.00		Rent arrears to 14 August 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$415.00		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement based on 4 weeks rent	$2,680.00		Carpet replacement based on 4 weeks rent
Weeding	$180.00		Weeding
Dumping weeds	$10.00		Dumping weeds
Topsoil to fill holes in back yard	$66.50		Topsoil to fill holes in back yard
Application fee for application 5283960	$27.00		Application fee for application 5283960
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Reimbursement of change of tenant admin fee		$170.00	Reimbursement of change of tenant admin fee
Total award	$7,326.50	$170.00
Net award	$4,596.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,596.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328809 — net $4,596.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 August 2025	$3,920.00		Rent arrears to 14 August 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$415.00		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement based on 4 weeks rent	$2,680.00		Carpet replacement based on 4 weeks rent
Weeding	$180.00		Weeding
Dumping weeds	$10.00		Dumping weeds
Topsoil to fill holes in back yard	$66.50		Topsoil to fill holes in back yard
Application fee for application 5283960	$27.00		Application fee for application 5283960
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Reimbursement of change of tenant admin fee		$170.00	Reimbursement of change of tenant admin fee
Total award	$7,326.50	$170.00
Net award	$4,596.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,596.50

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $4,596.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (6457637-002) to Grenadier Rent Shop Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 November 2025, which was held remotely.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Who are the parties to this application?

Mr [The party] and Ms [The tenant/s] claim that Ms Ineson is the only tenant, and that Mr Forrester should not be named as a party to these proceedings and should not be held responsible for any other cost claims made by the landlord.
The landlord says it decided not to release Mr Forrester from his obligations as a tenant, after Ms Ineson began falling into rent arrears. There were no rent arrears at the time Mr Forrester moved out of the premise.
The parties confirmed that on 17 May 2025, the property manager and the owner agreed to Mr Forrester being taken off the tenancy agreement, on the condition Ms Ineson paid an administration fee of $170.00 to have him removed. Ms Ineson has provided proof that this cost was paid on 21 May 2025.
Ms Ineson also confirmed during the hearing that she had made this request for Mr Forrester to be removed as a party to the tenancy, as he had moved out and she would be unable to pay the full rent on her own without support from WINZ. She also stated that she had made the landlord aware of this reason for her request and had also informed it that WINZ had told her it would pay the rent arrears that accrued after Mr Forrester moved out, only if Ms Ineson provided WINZ with a new tenancy agreement in her name only. The landlord confirmed it was aware of these factors, but it had not had any written proof from WINZ that WINZ would pay the rent arrears and assist with the rent payments each week. Therefore, it decided to renege on its 17 May 2025 agreement to remove Mr Forrester from the tenancy agreement. This decision resulted in WINZ being unbale to assist Ms Ineson with the increased rent she had to pay on her own nor with the growing rent arrears.
The landlord claimed the delay in reissuing the tenancy agreement lay with Ms Ineson as it had sent Ms Ineson the change of tenant form twice, once to her home email address on 4 June 2025 and again on 5 June 2025 to her work address, and it did not receive this form completed until 15 July 2025.
The landlord confirmed that when Ms Ineson presented it with the completed and signed change of tenant form on 15 July 2025, she was in rent arrears and so the landlord changed its mind and decided that Ms Ineson may not be able to pay the arrears, so it decided as a back up plan that it should keep Mr Forrester on the tenancy agreement so it could pursue him for the rent arrears Ms Ineson had accumulated since he had left the tenancy back in May 2025.
The $170.00 paid by Ms Ineson to have Mr Forrester removed as a party from the tenancy agreement was never reimbursed to her. There was no discussion with Mr Forrester about the reasons for the landlord’s change of heart and decision to renege on its agreement or any consideration given to the position this left him in, when he had left the tenancy in May 2025 based on the landlord’s promise he would be removed from the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s intention to renege on this promise has been to Mr Forrester’s detriment because he took on a new tenancy thinking he had no liability for this tenancy and that Ms Ineson would be assisted by WINZ to cover his prior share of the rent. The law
Promissory estoppel provides a common law equitable remedy when a person has relied upon another person’s promise to their own detriment. When someone makes a claim based on promissory estoppel, they need to prove five elements in order to establish a legal interest. Specifically, there must be: a. A legal relationship between the parties, most commonly established through a contractual agreement; b. A promise or assurance that was reasonably believable in the circumstances; c. Reliance on the promise or assurance that was justifiable in the circumstances; d. Detriment because of the person relying on the promise or assurance; and e. It would be unconscionable for the person to be allowed to get away with reneging on their promise. Analysis & findings
Based on all the evidence provided, I find that the landlord should be estopped from reneging on its agreement in May 2025 to remove Mr Forrester from the tenancy agreement, when: a. The landlord had given them an assurance that it would do so if Ms Ineson paid the fee, and she did so. Its delay in receipt of the completed form should not have led to the landlord breaking its promise to Mr Forrester; b. The landlord’s agreement to end Mr Forrester’s tenancy by 21 May 2025, and remove him from the tenancy agreement was in writing and was reasonably believable in all the circumstances; c. Mr Forrester relied on the landlord’s promise and his reliance was justifiable in the circumstances; d. Mr Forrester would suffer a detriment as a result of relying on the landlord’s assurance and then the landlord reneging on that promise to try to mitigate any financial repercussions to it that had resulted from Ms Ineson taking over the tenancy from 21 May 2025 when she paid the administration fee; and e. It would be unconscionable for the landlord to be allowed to get away with reneging on its assurance that Mr Forrester would be removed as a party from the tenancy agreement from 21 May 2025, and from any liability for anything to do with the rental premise thereafter because of a delay in the administration of the tenant removal form.
I remove Mr Forrester from the tenancy agreement, based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel from 11:59pm on 21 May 2025.
I also award Ms Ineson the reimbursement of the $170.00 administration fee she paid to have Mr Forrester removed from the tenancy agreement as this has never been reimbursed to her.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 14 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute owing this amount.

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, return the keys and all the chattels that are part of the tenancy agreement.

Was the premise left reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that on the 14 August 2025: a. The lawns required mowing; b. The yard required weeding; c. The premise was mostly reasonably clean and tidy but required: i. Some additional cleaning of the walls in the lounge/entrance way which had some marks on them; ii. Dusting of the skirting boards in the entrance way; iii. Some dirty marks on the floorboards in the entrance way; and iv. There was what a professional commercial carpet cleaner confirmed to be animal urine in the carpets and underlay throughout the house that required cleaning to remove the odour.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
I have reviewed the evidence produced by both parties, and while I cannot ascertain whether there was any cat urine odour in the premise, the pictures of the house appear to me to prove the inside of the house was reasonably clean and tidy, except for the carpets. The commercial cleaner’s ultraviolet (UV) light photographs prove that on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that there was animal urine deep in the carpet and underlay that cleaning was unable to remove and that urine was not in the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant and her partner had a cat and a dog during the tenancy and confirmed that a stray cat came into the garage from time to time despite being dissuaded from doing so by the tenant’s partner’s dog.
The tenant does not accept liability for the carpet cleaning costs because she had states she had the carpets fully and professionally cleaned before she left, and she, Mr Forrester and his mother (who is a professional cleaner) did not smell any pet odours in the house at all after the house and carpets had been professionally cleaned. Additionally, she states that a “Google search” shows that some cleaning products can produce the same UV results as produced by the commercial cleaners photographs.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for house cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the photographic evidence disproves liability for this cost because this evidence shows the premise to be at 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”. The dust on the entrance way skirting boards, small dirt marks on the walls and other small cleaning issues are required to get the premise to a standard the owners would be happy to move back into, rather than to a reasonably tidy standard.
Although the tenant has proven she had the carpets professionally cleaned, she and Mr Forrester had kept pets at the premise and Ms Ineson had confirmed at the end of her cat’s life (18 months ago) the cat had urinated inside. She did clean this urination up, but the urine would have gone through to the underlay. Additionally, Mr Forrester confirmed that a stray cat had urinated in the garage. This had not been reported to the landlord. Therefore, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should beheld responsible for the $415.00 cost for commercial cleaning of the carpet, which was done by the landlord prior to any decision being made to replace the carpet.
The landlord has withdrawn the lawn mowing claim for $80.00 due to the tenant proving the lawns were mowed the weekend before she moved out and the invoice for lawn mowing was for a month later.
The evidence proves that some weeding of the gardens and along the fence lines was required on 14 August 2025 (possession day). Therefore, I award the landlord $180.00 for the weeding, $10.00 for green waste removal from the weeding. Should the tenant pay for the eviction related costs such as the locks to be replaced and the bailiff?
The tenant stopped paying her rent in full and on time after Mr Forrester moved out. On 16 July 2025, under application 5283960, the tenant and landlord agreed to a repayment plan for the rent arrears. A mediator’s order was sealed that gave the landlord conditional but immediate termination and possession of the premise if the tenant was more than 2 days late in making the agreed repayments, as well as paying her rent as it fell due.
The tenant failed to make the agreed repayments. She says this is because after she provided the landlord with the completed change of tenant form on 15 July 2025, the owners changed their minds about releasing Mr Forrester from the tenancy agreement. This meant the tenant was unable to get the WINZ support she had been promised. She had been told by WINZ they would pay the rent arrears and sufficient money to make her rent payments on time going forward, but on the condition, she produced a tenancy agreement in her name only.
Having breached its agreement to release Mr Forrester from the tenancy and failing to provide the tenant with a new tenancy agreement in her name only, the tenant had no way to meet the rent or debt repayments. The landlord then enforced the conditional termination order without adequate communication with the tenant.
The landlord did not inform the tenant it intended to enforce the conditional termination order when she missed the first repayment on 1 August 2025, nor did it communicate to her when it required her to move out of the premise. Instead, it made an application for eviction warrant on 4 August 2025 and did not inform the tenant it had done so. Unaware of the eviction warrant application, on 7 August 2025 the tenant knew she was in a financial bind she could not get out of without a tenancy agreement in her sole name, so she asked if she could move out as she was unable to pay the rent and debt repayment.
On 8 August 2025 the landlord informed the tenant a bailiff had been appointed to evict her and she could move out or the bailiff would be in touch with her. The tenant proved she moved out on 9 and 10 August 2025. The bailiff came to take possession of the premise on 14 August 2025, 4 days after the tenant had moved out.
The tenant claims there was no need for the landlord to incur the costs of applying for the eviction warrant as she would have, and did move, out as soon as practicable after the landlord confirmed that it was agreeable to her doing so. The landlord knew the tenant had moved out but did nothing to stop the eviction process in the four days between the date the tenant had fully moved out and the eviction date. The landlord says this is because it had already applied for the eviction warrant and could not have stopped that process on 7 October 2025, when the tenant had confirmed she was willing to move out that weekend.
The tenant confirmed that when she moved out, she offered to return all the keys that had been provided to her at the start of the tenancy and the landlord refused to accept these and to accept vacant possession. Instead, it chose to go through the eviction process, that necessitated all the locks being changed and the tenant trespassed from re-entering the property. This requirement is based on the view that a tenant could have take copies of keys that they did not return and could go back to the house and enter unlawfully after being trespassed by the bailiff to move belongings they had been unable to move prior to the eviction.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the cost of the eviction warrant and the locksmith did not have to be incurred by the landlord had it: a. Not reneged on it agreement to release Mr Forrester from the tenancy agreement back in May 2025; b. Provided the tenant with a new tenancy agreement in her own name after receiving the change in tenant form on 15 July 2025 and the administration fee of $170.00 on 21 May 2025; c. Communicated with the tenant on 1 August 2025 and told her that if she did not pay the first debt repayment and the rent by 3 August 2025 that it would require her to move out immediately and if she did not it would apply for an eviction warrant and that she would be response for the costs associated with the eviction process; and d. Withdrawn the eviction warrant application on 8 to 11 August 2025, when the parties agreed the tenant would move out over the weekend of 9 and 10 August 2025.
I find that because the landlord contributed significantly to the tenant not being able to meet the rent and debt repayments, and then did not withdraw its eviction warrant application after it knew the tenant had moved out, it incurred the costs it is now seeking to hold the tenant accountable for. Therefore, the landlord’s claims are dismissed because the landlord should be estopped from benefitting from its poor communication with the tenant about the date it required her to move out, after having already putting her in a position where she had no choice but to move out because it reneged on its agreement to allow Ms Ineson from being the sole tenant by releasing Mr Forrester. Had it stuck to its promise, Ms Ineson has confirmed that WINZ would have paid the rent arrears once it had proof, she was the only tenant. She would have then been able to meet the rent payments, and she would not have incurred moving costs and the stress and inconvenience that came along with having to move out.

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 full 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 landlord withdrew its claim for the damaged toilet holder but claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy because of the tenant’s carless acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of a person in the premise with the tenant’s consent: a. Deep holes in the back yard that required topsoil to fill them in; b. Mildew and dirt stains on the lounge ranch slider curtains; c. Damage to the kitchen laminate benchtop; and d. Pet urine damage to the three-year-old carpet and underlay throughout the house and in the garage.
The tenant denies responsibility for this damage and claims it is fair wear and tear. The landlord claims this damage is far more than fair wear and tear and that the tenant is responsible for the cost of the remediation work undertaken. Holes in the yard
The tenant says she did not know about the holes and Mr Forrester would have filled these in had he been informed of them before Ms Ineson moved out. The tenant was not aware of how these holes occurred and thought that it may be because of a trowel being left in the yard. The landlord states the holes were too deep to be from a trowel resting on the dirt. I agree.
I find that the tenant is responsible for the $66.50 it cost the landlord to have these holes filled back in because the holes were not there at the beginning of the tenancy and cannot be said to be fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved. Curtain damage
The landlord is claiming the dry cleaning costs of $313.50 for mildew and dirt stains on the bottom of the ranch slider curtain in the lounge, which it says has resulted from the tenant’s animals coming in and out of the ranch slider. It says there were two dogs when it went to the 15 July 2025 inspection and that it did not notice this damage during the inspection but found it after the tenant had moved out. The tenant stated the cat passed away about 18 months ago, the dogs had been there the whole time and that the dogs did go in and out from the ranch slider door using the right in the corner.
The photographic evidence submitted looks like mildew rather than dirt. I am not satisfied that the stain in dirt from the animals.
Responsibility for mildew on curtains in a New Zealand rental property is a shared responsibility between the tenant and the landlord, depending on the underlying cause and how quickly the issue was addressed. Both parties confirmed that none of the other curtains in the house were mouldy. There was no evidence the house was not being aired out properly. Ventilation and mildew on the curtains has not been mentioned in the property inspection reports, although the landlord confirmed it had only done one inspection, on 15 July 2025, as the property management company had just taken over the management of the property from Iron bridge 3 months after Iron Bridge exit inspection.
The tenant stated Iron Bridge were very happy with how she kept the property and that all the property inspections it conducted throughout the tenancy confirmed that. The new property manager confirmed it did not have access to the Ironbridge property inspection reports, only the entry report.
The tenant has disproved liability for the damage because there was no evidence produced that supported the landlord’s claim the animals were responsible for the mildew stains on the balance of probabilities. The dogs had lived at the property for the two year and two-month tenancy, and no issues had been raised with the tenant over that time about the animal’s entry and exit causing stains/damage to the curtains. The claim is dismissed. Carpet damage
The landlord confirmed the house is three years old. The carpet was just under a year old when the tenancy commenced.
The landlord did not confirm whether the previous occupants had dogs or cats when they lived at the premise.
The landlord had a commercial carpet clean come to investigate the odour in the house after it had been locked up for a month after the tenant moved out. The carpet had been professionally cleaned by the tenant’s contractor before she moved out. Sometimes if a house is locked up after the carpets have ben cleaned there can be a damp odour when the house is opened up.
The owners say the house smelt strongly of pet urine and not dampness.
The tenant, her ex-partner and his mother all confirmed there was no pet urine odour on 10 August 2025, when the tenant moved out.
The tenant accepted her cat was old and did toilet inside a few times before it died 18 months ago but stated she cleaned it straight away as she has her own carpet cleaner. The tenant’s ex-partner also stated they had trouble with a stray cat that urinated in the garage and that they tried everything to keep the stray cat out of the premise, but it still got shut in sometimes. The tenant also confirmed the dogs never urinated inside. She believes the UV test results may not be accurate as UV shows the same result with some cleaning chemicals having been used on carpet as pet urine does.
I find that the tenant is responsible for the damaged carpets in all but the garage. Damage from a stray cat is not something that the tenant can be held liable. However, the tenant knew the cat had urinated in the garage and did not inform the landlord about this. Because of this I find the tenant responsible for 75% of the cost of the carpet replacement, before depreciation.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation as the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the fact the carpet was new 3 years ago and that the Inland Revenue’s IR265 depreciation schedule shows that carpet has a useful lifespan of 8 years. Therefore, the cost of the carpet replacement the tenant is responsible for must be depreciated by 37.5%.
The claim for the carpet replacement is $7,432.00. 75% of this cost is $5,574.00. With depreciation of 37.5%, the tenant is responsible for 62.5% of this amount, being $3,483.75 or 4 weeks rent, whichever is the lesser (Refer to s49B(3)(b) RTA). The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the carpet damage was intentional or that it was the result of activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence, and it had tenant insurance. $670 x4 = Four weeks rent is $2,680.00. Therefore 4 weeks rent is less than the depreciated value calculated. I award the landlord compensation of $2,680.00. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Grenadier Rent Shop Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and the filing fee from its prior application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328809 — Rent arrears at 15 Gracia Avenue, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328809 — Rent arrears at 15 Gracia Avenue, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who are the parties to this application?

How much is owed for rent ?

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

Was the premise left reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who are the parties to this application?

How much is owed for rent ?

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

Was the premise left reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions