What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Colliers New Zealand Limited As Agent For The Ministry

How much money was awarded in case 5329889?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,173.38 awarded to landlord; Recovered Costs: $85.00 awarded to tenant; Removal Of Tenant'S Belongings And S…: $5,765.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $13,139.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13074534-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Colliers New Zealand Limited As Agent For The Ministry

How much money was awarded in case 5329889?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,173.38 awarded to landlord; Recovered Costs: $85.00 awarded to tenant; Removal Of Tenant'S Belongings And S…: $5,765.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $13,139.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13074534-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

281 Jesmond Road, Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329889 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329889 — net $20,021.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$13,139.57		Rubbish removal
Removal of tenant's belongings and storage	$5,765.40		Removal of tenant's belongings and storage
Lock/key replacement: and padlock for gate	$1,173.38		Lock/key replacement: and padlock for gate
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Recovered costs		$85.00	Recovered costs
Total award	$20,106.35	$85.00
Net award	$20,021.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20,021.35

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Colliers New Zealand Limited As Agent For The Ministry Of Education $20,021.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Mr Raumati attended the hearing held on the 4 February 2025. The tenant did not attend the hearing in person, by video or by phone. The tenant was called twice but both calls went to answer phone.
This tenancy was terminated by way of a Tribunal order. The tenant did not leave by the vacate date and the landlord had to seek assistance from the bailiff and Police to evict the tenant on the 26 May 2025.
The tenancy premises comprise of a large rural home, shedding and garaging.
On the day of the eviction the tenant had not moved all her belongings from the property. She requested the landlord to assist her. The landlord agreed to store items in a 20-foot shipping container that its contractors delivered to the site. The contractors then packed the items identified by the tenant that she wanted to keep, or those items that the landlord believed has some value into the shipping container.
The landlord told the tenant where the container was stored and tried to make arrangements with her to uplift the goods. Despite this, the tenant failed to uplift the items and failed to make contact with the landlord. The tenant has not responded to telephone calls, or email contact from the landlord seeking her to uplift the goods and has not responded either to the landlord’s claims.
On the 1 December 2025 I made an order that the landlord could dispose of the tenant’s good that they were storing. The landlord has done that; Mr Raumati tells me that apart from a receiving $65 is cash for items sold and $20 from a scrap metal dealer they have not been able to sell the tenant’s goods and therefore have disposed of them.
The landlord seeks $28,405.87 for the costs of rubbish removal, locksmiths, removal of the tenant’s belongings, storage and methamphetamine testing. The landlord has provided an itemised breakdown of each cost it seeks, what it is for and how it is made up.
This is a somewhat unusual situation. Colliers acts as the Property Manager for the landlord Ministry of Education but has no authority to carry out any work at the property. Any work carried out for the landlord must be first routed through the Ministry’s contractors Downers, Downers then subcontracts out the work – in this case to ECB and ECB may engage other contractors to do work.

Did the tenant breach her obligations to the landlord?

At the end of a tenancy the tenant must quit the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and free of rubbish and remove all their belongings and return all keys.
The landlord provided photographs showing me the state of the property on the eviction date, the tenant did not quit the premises, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and free from rubbish and did not remove all of her belongings or return the keys. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenant was in breach of s 40(1)(e) (i-iii) RTA.

What compensation should be awarded to the landlord?

Under s77(1)(n) RTA the Tribunal may: order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.
What this means is that when a party commits a breach of the RTA, then the Tribunal can order compensation to put the party who has suffered the breach back to the position it would have been if the breach had not occurred.
The Tribunal in this case, should award the landlord the amount of compensation necessary to remedy the breach, that is to remove the tenant and her the belongings, clean the property, remove the rubbish and secure the property.
When awarding compensation, the Tribunal must consider what is reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of the compensation, the Courts have held that the Tribunal should look at the actual costs incurred (the invoices) by the landlord and then consider principles such as mitigation.
The RTA requires any person who claims a breach to mitigate their loss, this includes ensuring that repairs are done at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. Usually, the Tribunal expects landlords who undertake work such as cleaning up a property, to obtain more than one quote to ensure that the work is completed at a reasonable rate. By obtaining more than one quote a landlord can prove to the Tribunal that they have taken steps to ensure that the costs they incurred were not unnecessarily expensive.
I raise these issues because the amounts that the landlord is seeking for rubbish removal and clearing the tenants belongs are extraordinarily high compared to the usual costs incurred by landlords in these types of cases. Rubbish removal
The property was large and included a number of sheds that were full of the tenant’s belongings and rubbish. The landlord had to sort out belongings from rubbish, load the tenant’s belongings into a storage container, and then put the rubbish into bins that were removed by contractors. The landlord’s contractors were Junk to Go. That firm is well known, and I consider that their pricing is likely to be reasonable as they are used regularly by landlords in this area to remove rubbish from tenancies. The landlord provided evidence of the volume of rubbish and the labour required to remove the rubbish.
ECB who was Downer’s contractor and acted as a project manager for the site remediation added their commission cost to the Junk to Go’s invoice. I do not consider that it is reasonable for the tenant to pay this cost. If the landlord paid a contractor to oversee the work for them and agreed to pay a commission on top of the actual costs incurred, then that is a landlord cost not a tenant cost. I also do not consider that a commission cost on top of the rubbish removal fees to be reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. Therefore, I have not awarded the landlord the commission costs nor the costs which are noted on the spreadsheet as ECB staff.
I therefore award $13,139.57 to the landlord for rubbish removal, this is made up of the following invoices 26 May – Junk to go $5095.00 -PPE gear $175.00 27 May- Junk to go$3834.35 28 May- Junk to Go $2480.00 29 May-Junk to Go$1555.22 Removal of the tenant’s goods, packing them up and storage.
On the day of the eviction the tenant asked the landlord to help her to store her belongings. The landlord agreed. A container was brought to the property for the tenant’s goods to be packed into. The tenant’s belongings were sorted and placed into boxes the landlord obtained from National Storage.
The landlord sought the cost of container, 8 weeks storage, cost of packing boxes and travel to get them, costs of furniture removal.
The landlord provided me with an itemised breakdown of these costs. I award the following costs which I consider to be reasonable. 26 May Container delivery to site $300.00 8 weeks storage$2,400.00 27 May Packing boxes $186.96 Travel to get boxes$9.34 28 MayEasy move furniture $1,978.26 National storage boxes$29.97 4 June Easy move furniture $860.87 Total $5,765.40
I have not awarded the costs of trimming the tree to remove the container as I do not consider that this was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s failure to remove her belongings.
I have also not awarded any commission on the costs incurred for the same reasons that I have outlined above. Locks
The tenant did not return the keys, the landlord sought the costs of new locks for the property and for securing the property following eviction. I consider that those costs are reasonable and award the landlord the sum of $1,173.38 for locks. Methamphetamine testing.
The landlord also sought the costs of methamphetamine testing. Methamphetamine testing is a landlord cost unless it can be proven that the testing is necessary because of contamination. The results from the testing were negative, and therefore this is a landlord cost. Filing fee.
The landlord has been mostly successful in this application, and I award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329889 — net $20,021.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$13,139.57		Rubbish removal
Removal of tenant's belongings and storage	$5,765.40		Removal of tenant's belongings and storage
Lock/key replacement: and padlock for gate	$1,173.38		Lock/key replacement: and padlock for gate
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Recovered costs		$85.00	Recovered costs
Total award	$20,106.35	$85.00
Net award	$20,021.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20,021.35

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Colliers New Zealand Limited As Agent For The Ministry Of Education $20,021.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Mr Raumati attended the hearing held on the 4 February 2025. The tenant did not attend the hearing in person, by video or by phone. The tenant was called twice but both calls went to answer phone.
This tenancy was terminated by way of a Tribunal order. The tenant did not leave by the vacate date and the landlord had to seek assistance from the bailiff and Police to evict the tenant on the 26 May 2025.
The tenancy premises comprise of a large rural home, shedding and garaging.
On the day of the eviction the tenant had not moved all her belongings from the property. She requested the landlord to assist her. The landlord agreed to store items in a 20-foot shipping container that its contractors delivered to the site. The contractors then packed the items identified by the tenant that she wanted to keep, or those items that the landlord believed has some value into the shipping container.
The landlord told the tenant where the container was stored and tried to make arrangements with her to uplift the goods. Despite this, the tenant failed to uplift the items and failed to make contact with the landlord. The tenant has not responded to telephone calls, or email contact from the landlord seeking her to uplift the goods and has not responded either to the landlord’s claims.
On the 1 December 2025 I made an order that the landlord could dispose of the tenant’s good that they were storing. The landlord has done that; Mr Raumati tells me that apart from a receiving $65 is cash for items sold and $20 from a scrap metal dealer they have not been able to sell the tenant’s goods and therefore have disposed of them.
The landlord seeks $28,405.87 for the costs of rubbish removal, locksmiths, removal of the tenant’s belongings, storage and methamphetamine testing. The landlord has provided an itemised breakdown of each cost it seeks, what it is for and how it is made up.
This is a somewhat unusual situation. Colliers acts as the Property Manager for the landlord Ministry of Education but has no authority to carry out any work at the property. Any work carried out for the landlord must be first routed through the Ministry’s contractors Downers, Downers then subcontracts out the work – in this case to ECB and ECB may engage other contractors to do work.

Did the tenant breach her obligations to the landlord?

At the end of a tenancy the tenant must quit the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and free of rubbish and remove all their belongings and return all keys.
The landlord provided photographs showing me the state of the property on the eviction date, the tenant did not quit the premises, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and free from rubbish and did not remove all of her belongings or return the keys. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenant was in breach of s 40(1)(e) (i-iii) RTA.

What compensation should be awarded to the landlord?

Under s77(1)(n) RTA the Tribunal may: order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.
What this means is that when a party commits a breach of the RTA, then the Tribunal can order compensation to put the party who has suffered the breach back to the position it would have been if the breach had not occurred.
The Tribunal in this case, should award the landlord the amount of compensation necessary to remedy the breach, that is to remove the tenant and her the belongings, clean the property, remove the rubbish and secure the property.
When awarding compensation, the Tribunal must consider what is reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of the compensation, the Courts have held that the Tribunal should look at the actual costs incurred (the invoices) by the landlord and then consider principles such as mitigation.
The RTA requires any person who claims a breach to mitigate their loss, this includes ensuring that repairs are done at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. Usually, the Tribunal expects landlords who undertake work such as cleaning up a property, to obtain more than one quote to ensure that the work is completed at a reasonable rate. By obtaining more than one quote a landlord can prove to the Tribunal that they have taken steps to ensure that the costs they incurred were not unnecessarily expensive.
I raise these issues because the amounts that the landlord is seeking for rubbish removal and clearing the tenants belongs are extraordinarily high compared to the usual costs incurred by landlords in these types of cases. Rubbish removal
The property was large and included a number of sheds that were full of the tenant’s belongings and rubbish. The landlord had to sort out belongings from rubbish, load the tenant’s belongings into a storage container, and then put the rubbish into bins that were removed by contractors. The landlord’s contractors were Junk to Go. That firm is well known, and I consider that their pricing is likely to be reasonable as they are used regularly by landlords in this area to remove rubbish from tenancies. The landlord provided evidence of the volume of rubbish and the labour required to remove the rubbish.
ECB who was Downer’s contractor and acted as a project manager for the site remediation added their commission cost to the Junk to Go’s invoice. I do not consider that it is reasonable for the tenant to pay this cost. If the landlord paid a contractor to oversee the work for them and agreed to pay a commission on top of the actual costs incurred, then that is a landlord cost not a tenant cost. I also do not consider that a commission cost on top of the rubbish removal fees to be reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. Therefore, I have not awarded the landlord the commission costs nor the costs which are noted on the spreadsheet as ECB staff.
I therefore award $13,139.57 to the landlord for rubbish removal, this is made up of the following invoices 26 May – Junk to go $5095.00 -PPE gear $175.00 27 May- Junk to go$3834.35 28 May- Junk to Go $2480.00 29 May-Junk to Go$1555.22 Removal of the tenant’s goods, packing them up and storage.
On the day of the eviction the tenant asked the landlord to help her to store her belongings. The landlord agreed. A container was brought to the property for the tenant’s goods to be packed into. The tenant’s belongings were sorted and placed into boxes the landlord obtained from National Storage.
The landlord sought the cost of container, 8 weeks storage, cost of packing boxes and travel to get them, costs of furniture removal.
The landlord provided me with an itemised breakdown of these costs. I award the following costs which I consider to be reasonable. 26 May Container delivery to site $300.00 8 weeks storage$2,400.00 27 May Packing boxes $186.96 Travel to get boxes$9.34 28 MayEasy move furniture $1,978.26 National storage boxes$29.97 4 June Easy move furniture $860.87 Total $5,765.40
I have not awarded the costs of trimming the tree to remove the container as I do not consider that this was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s failure to remove her belongings.
I have also not awarded any commission on the costs incurred for the same reasons that I have outlined above. Locks
The tenant did not return the keys, the landlord sought the costs of new locks for the property and for securing the property following eviction. I consider that those costs are reasonable and award the landlord the sum of $1,173.38 for locks. Methamphetamine testing.
The landlord also sought the costs of methamphetamine testing. Methamphetamine testing is a landlord cost unless it can be proven that the testing is necessary because of contamination. The results from the testing were negative, and therefore this is a landlord cost. Filing fee.
The landlord has been mostly successful in this application, and I award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329889 — Property damage at 281 Jesmond Road, Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329889 — Property damage at 281 Jesmond Road, Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant breach her obligations to the landlord?

What compensation should be awarded to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant breach her obligations to the landlord?

What compensation should be awarded to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions