What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329384 about?

The tribunal order states: Kendall Frederickson must pay Durga Lakshmi Investments Limited $2388.00

How much money was awarded in case 5329384?

Cleaning: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Cost: $980.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329384?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12879669-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329384 about?

The tribunal order states: Kendall Frederickson must pay Durga Lakshmi Investments Limited $2388.00

How much money was awarded in case 5329384?

Cleaning: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Cost: $980.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329384?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12879669-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Chester Street, Patea, Patea 4520 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329384 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329384 — net $2,388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/8/25	$1,950.00	Rent arrears to 28/8/25
Cleaning and rubbish costs	$1,350.00	Cleaning and rubbish costs
Skip cost	$980.00	Skip cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,388.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,388.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329384 — net $2,388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/8/25	$1,950.00	Rent arrears to 28/8/25
Cleaning and rubbish costs	$1,350.00	Cleaning and rubbish costs
Skip cost	$980.00	Skip cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,388.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,388.00

Order

Kendall Frederickson must pay Durga Lakshmi Investments Limited $2388.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (BN-00045737) to Durga Lakshmi Investments Limited immediately.
The landlord claims for carpet replacement and repainting are dismissed.
The landlord claims for exemplary damages are dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for the refund of the bond and healthy homes standards is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing that took place remotely represented by its director Ms Devi. The tenant did not attend.
The tenant was telephoned by the Tribunal but did not answer the telephone when called to join the hearing. A message was left and an additional email also sent to her by the Registry but she did not join the hearing at any point.
I am satisfied she has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
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 landlord also applies for exemplary damages.
The application also sought termination of the tenancy but the tenancy has now ended so this no longer required consideration.
The tenant made an application for the Tribunal to consider the refund of the bond and in relation to healthy homes standards. Civil burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims $1,920 in rent arrears.
The landlord says this is for the final four weeks of the tenancy. The weekly rent is $480.
The landlord provided two rent summaries and a bank statement. The landlord’s rent summaries show that the last day the tenant paid rent was on 30 July 2025. At this point I accept that the tenant’s rent was paid up to 31 July 2025 (with no arrears and no credit). No further rent was then received for the period from 1 August 2025 to 28 August 2025.
As there were discussions about the tenant moving out of the property I have carefully considered if the tenant is liable for rent from 1 August to 28 August 2025 and conclude that she is so liable.
A handyman visited the property and told the landlord it seemed that the tenant remained living at the property on 14 August 2025. The landlord then continued to chase the tenant for rent in a variety of ways at this point (text and email). The tenant did not respond. The landlord was alerted by the neighbours to the property on 28 August 2025 and they reported that it appeared to have been left by the tenant.
In this context the landlord made further contact with the tenant by text that same day.
The tenant confirmed at this point she would be returning to clean the next day (although I heard how she did not do that). The landlord told the tenant then to return the keys that day to her agent (again I heard that she did not, but this was not part of this claim).
I therefore accept the landlord’s position that this tenancy ended on 28 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlord $1,920 in rent arrears.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
A substantial quantity of rubbish was left at the premises, including chest freezers, a sofa, lounge chairs, and mattresses. To remove this waste, the landlord hired two 6 cubic metre skips. The landlord now seeks reimbursement for this expense, and invoices have been provided to the Tribunal in support of the claim. The volume and nature of the rubbish left behind justify the expenditure, and the amounts claimed are both reasonable and properly evidenced. Accordingly, the sum sought is proven.
The landlord engaged a professional cleaner to deal with the rubbish and also to clean.
The property was not left in a condition that could be described as reasonably clean or tidy. Both large and small items of rubbish were scattered throughout the home. Photographic evidence strongly suggests that no effort was made to clean the property prior to vacating. The kitchen including the oven and cupboards were clearly in an unacceptable state. The floors were scattered with rubbish and the bathroom needed cleaning. The outside of the premises also had rubbish both scattered around the section and in piles. While cleaning costs claimed are quite high, it reflects the level of uncleanliness at the property and the fact the rubbish was widespread.
That said, a deduction has been made on the amount claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. That is because I consider that the landlord has not established that lawn mowing was required at the time the tenant vacated the premises. While the lawns may have required attention by the time the cleaning was undertaken, that does not make it the tenant’s responsibility. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence to show that the curtains required cleaning or that the windows were left in an unreasonable condition. Although the landlord may choose to carry out a higher standard of cleaning, a tenant is not automatically liable for such work. The tenant’s liability is limited to what can be proven as falling below the standard of being reasonably clean and tidy.
The sum ordered is proven.

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.
When considering damage betterment and depreciation should be taken into account. 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors. Painting the inside of the house
The landlord says that the tenant or her children made graffiti marks on the walls and so the whole house was repainted internally. The landlord claims $5232.50 to re-paint the insider of the house on the basis of a quote.
While the landlord provided a quote for this work she clarified in the hearing that the paintwork was actually carried out by her husband and three others who travelled from Auckland.
There are a number of difficulties to the landlord establishing this claim.
First, the landlord has no probative evidence at all relating to the condition of the premises prior to the start of the tenancy. Inspections were also not undertaken during the course of the tenancy. An insurance report provided acknowledges both gradual deterioration and tenant-related factors. The absence of probative evidence from the start of the tenancy means I cannot be sufficiently satisfied the damage claimed occurred during the course of the tenancy.
Further, even if I was satisfied that the landlord had sufficiently proven the damage was done during the course of the tenancy this part of the application would not have succeeded. This is because: a. even if liability the damage was proven there was insufficient evidence to justify a claim for the entire re-paint of the inside of the house as claimed. There are very limited pictures in the builder’s report of what appear to be child-like scribbles on several walls. The scribble/graffiti marks are not evidenced as being in all of the rooms but only in some limited areas. The repainting work that has been undertaken clearly included re-painting an older style kitchen and I find, for example, this was entirely unconnected to any graffiti. b. The landlord did not, in fact, incur a loss of $5232.50 as claimed because the work was done by her husband and helpers. The landlord has not sufficiently proven the loss that has been incurred. c. The landlord purchased the property in 2018 and said it was renovated prior to purchase. No painting has been done since purchase. Consequently, the age of the paintwork is indeterminate, and given the duration between purchase and the conclusion of this tenancy, it is reasonable to conclude that the paintwork would have substantially depreciated during that period. Indeed, as stated above the insurance report itself acknowledges both gradual deterioration and tenant-related factors. Importantly, here no condition report or other probative evidence was provided to establish the state of the paintwork at the commencement of the tenancy. In light of these considerations, any award would likely have been subject to significant reduction, if not extinguished entirely to take into account depreciation.
This part of the application is dismissed. Replacing the carpets
The landlord says that the carpets had to be replaced throughout the entire property due to damage. The landlord says that stains could not be removed despite cleaning.
In the application the landlord claims $6,670.92 based on a quote but the work has now been done in a different way. Invoices show a cost of $2,689.62 in labour for fitting the carpet and $1,439.60 for purchasing the carpet itself. The landlord purchased the carpet and then got it fitted.
Again, the landlord has no probative evidence relating to the condition of the carpet prior to the start of the tenancy. Inspections were not undertaken during the course of the tenancy. This means I cannot be sufficiently satisfied what carpet damage occurred during the course of the tenancy in order to establish tenant liability.
Further, even if I was satisfied that the landlord had sufficiently proven the damage that was done during the course of the tenancy this part of the claim would not have succeeded. This is because: a. evidence of the condition of the carpet after it had been cleaned was very limited so there was insufficient evidence to justify a claim making the tent liable to re-carpet the entire inside of the house. b. as set out above, the landlord purchased the property in 2018 and said it was renovated prior to purchase. The landlord has done no work to the carpet since that date. This means (as above) the carpet is of indeterminate age, and given the length of time between the landlord’s purchase of the property and the conclusion of this tenancy, it is reasonable to assume that the carpet would have undergone significant depreciation during that period. The insurance report itself records a combination of gradual deterioration alongside tenant-related factors. Crucially, no condition report or other probative evidence was provided to establish the state of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy. Taken together, these considerations mean that any award would likely have been subject to substantial reduction, if not extinguished entirely to take into account depreciation.
This part of the application is therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages
The landlord claims exemplary damages because of the tenant damaging the property and the tenant having a dog at the premises, contrary to the terms of her tenancy agreement.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Importantly, exemplary damages can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. This means that not every breach of an obligation can result in an award of exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See s 109(3) RTA.
The landlord described how the tenant had put a pet in the house and had damaged the property and left it as a “dump”. The landlord said that the dog the tenant had was contrary to the tenancy agreement. The landlord also thought the tenant had an arrogant attitude towards the tenancy as it was a fixed term (so the tenant felt it would be difficult to remove her). The landlord has found it difficult having to have the property vacant while work was done on it.
I have considered these claims carefully.
In relation to the keeping of a pet without the landlord’s permission, a new legislative provision has recently been incorporated into the RTA concerning the keeping of pets. That new provision provides, so far as relevant here, that if a tenant keeps a pet without agreement or consent of the landlord, they commit an unlawful act. However, this provision only applies from 1 December 2025.
The difficulty for the landlord here is that these proceedings were started prior to the commencement of that section of the RTA coming into force and the tenancy here also ended on 28 August 2025 (which is prior to the legislative change) (see RTA, Schedule 1AA Transitional, savings, and related provisions, Part 8 Provisions relating to Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 and section 44(a) Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52)).
This means that exemplary damages are not available to the landlord in respect of this breach even if proven.
This part of the application is therefore dismissed.
Turning to exemplary damages for the poor condition/damage the landlord says the tenant left the premises in, I am not satisfied a provision of the RTA provides for such a breach to be an unlawful act so I am unable to award exemplary damages in respect of this.
Similarly, the tenant’s attitude does not give rise to exemplary damages either as this is not an unlawful act.
This part of the application is also dismissed. Tenant claims
The tenant made an application for the Tribunal to consider the refund of the bond. This has been considered as part of the landlord’s claim. The bond has been released to the landlord towards the sums which have been proven.
The tenant also made a claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant did not attend the hearing today and therefore this claim has not been proven and it is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
I have awarded the landlord the filing fee as they have had some success.
Suppression was not sought by the landlord. The tenant does not seek suppression in her own application. The tenant has not been, in any event, substantially successful (s 95A RTA). I see no other reason to award suppression. Therefore, no suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329384 — Rent arrears at 29 Chester Street, Patea, Patea 4520

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329384 — Rent arrears at 29 Chester Street, Patea, Patea 4520

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