What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5331891?

The tribunal order states: Vikki George and Daniel Jefford must pay Layton Holdings Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5331891?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,184.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $182.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13043173-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5331891?

The tribunal order states: Vikki George and Daniel Jefford must pay Layton Holdings Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5331891?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,184.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $182.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13043173-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Jetty Road, Governors Bay, RD 1, Christchurch 8971 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331891 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

2 Jetty Road, Governors Bay, RD 1, Christchurch 8971 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331891 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331891 — net $1,764.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,184.28	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout	$70.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout
Rubbish removal	$182.10	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Kitchen Flooring - Insurance Excess	$500.00	Repairs: Kitchen Flooring - Insurance Excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,764.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,764.38

Claims and awards for application 5331891 — net $1,764.38 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,184.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout

Amount: $70.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout

Rubbish removal

Amount: $182.10
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Dismissed claims

Compensation — for want of jurisdiction. Quiet Enjoyment
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Compensation

Order

Vikki George and Daniel Jefford must pay Layton Holdings Limited As Agent For Hamish And Wendy Foster $1,764.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,184.28 Cleaning$100.00 Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout$70.00 Rubbish removal$182.10 Lawns and Garden work$350.00 Repairs: Kitchen Flooring - Insurance Excess$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,414.38 Bond$1,650.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,764.38
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (6543010-001) to Layton Holdings Limited As Agent For Hamish And Wendy Foster immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. General Principles
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”
The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA. Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of amenity of the tenancy.
Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing there was discussion about whether all payments by the tenants had been properly accounted for in the transition between the owners managing this tenancy and a property manager being appointed. I am satisfied that all payments have been taken into account and the rent summary properly records the amount of $2,148.28 as of 22 August 2025.

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, lawn and garden work was required. However, I have not awarded the full amounts claimed by the landlord. The standard is “reasonably clean”. It is not pristine, commercially clean or to the standard that the landlord wishes to present the property to a new tenant.
I have considered all the photographs in the exit inspection report. Overall, most of the premises are reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has established that some additional cleaning was required in relation to blinds and the sleepout. I am also satisfied that stain treatment was required to the sleepout carpet, but not carpet cleaning of the whole house. The landlord also proved that lawn and garden work was required. Having regard to the photographs and similar claims to the Tribunal, I award $350 for the lawns and garden.
I have awarded the full amount claimed for rubbish removal.
The landlord also claimed an additional inspection cost for the property manager having to travel to Akaroa twice after the tenant failed to vacate on time. That cost could have been avoided by a phone call prior to travel. The claim is dismissed.

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.
The kitchen vinyl was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have awarded the insurance excess, as claimed by the landlord. The Tenant Claims
The tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages. They say that the landlord interfered with their reasonable peace and quiet, failed to maintain the premises and, in particular, that a ramp was unsafe. They also claim that the landlord issued a notice which was retaliatory. The tenants did not attempt to quantify their claims. Repair & Maintenance
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was a concrete ramp leading from a door out of the premises. There was an external handrail part way down the ramp, from the top to where a gully trap protrudes into the ramp. One of the tenants slipped on the ramp and gashed her knee.
The tenant says that she has suffered severe consequences because of her injury. She says that the ramp/balustrade was not properly maintained, was unsafe and non-compliant. The tenants provided very little evidence in relation to their claims. They did not raise any concerns regarding the ramp or handrail with the landlord before the accident. The tenants relied on their own reading of the Building Code and referred to clauses which relate to accessibility requirements of public buildings. There was no independent evidence in relation to compliance. The medical evidence records what the tenant has told the physician, rather than providing an objective assessment of any consequences.
The landlord said that the balustrade/handrail was installed in 2018 to replace a timber rail which had rotted. The landlord obtained advice and Producer Statements from an experienced supplier before installing the handrail and after the tenant’s fall. The supplier advised that the only requirement is for the handrail to protect ramp users from falls of 1m or greater, which this handrail did.
While it is clear that the tenant is suffering following her injury, the tenants did not establish that the handrail was non-compliant, unsafe or that the landlord had failed in its maintenance obligations. The claim is dismissed.
I also note that, even if they had proved that the landlord breached its obligations, it was unclear what the tenants were seeking in relation to the fall and injury. The application refers to compensation for injury related loss of income and medical costs. Section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 prevents anyone from bringing proceedings for damages arising directly or indirectly out of personal injury covered by that Act.
This Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to matters under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which does not include awarding compensation for personal injury. The Tribunal can hear claims for property damage or breach of the tenancy agreement. It cannot award damages for pain, suffering, or loss resulting from personal injury. Accordingly, the claim for personal injury compensation is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Again, the tenant’s provided little substantive evidence to support their claims. They described that landlord “constantly criticising” them, making them fear their tenancy may be terminated, and of being judged. They provided few examples of the behaviour which is alleged to have caused those feelings.
I reviewed most of the text exchanges throughout the tenancy. There is nothing in those communications which would lead me to conclude that the landlord was “harassing” the tenant or interfering with their quiet enjoyment. There was no evidence to support the tenant’s assumption that the landlord removed fruit from the property after the tenants said they were enjoying the fruit trees. This is aspect of the claim is dismissed. Notice to Terminate
On 26 June 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord terminated the tenancy after she raised concerns about the ramp. The tenants fall occurred on 5 March 2025. She advised the landlord of the issue three days later. The landlord responded appropriately. It took advice from the balustrade supplier. It also applied some non-slip paint to try to improve the surface of the ramp. As far as the landlord was aware, there were no outstanding issues with the ramp until May 2025.
Rent had been an issue throughout the tenancy. The landlord made an application for rent arrears. During that process, on or about 29 May, the tenant suggested the arrears were caused by her injury and the landlord’s failure to provide a safe and compliant ramp. Rent had been an issue before the tenant’s injury and continued to be after the landlord accepted a payment plan for arrears.
On 26 June the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate. I do not find a causal or temporal connection between the tenant’s comments regarding the ramp on 29 May and the notice to terminate. If anything, the landlord was motivated to end the tenancy because of arrears, not the tenant exercising any right. Rather than seek an order for termination, the landlord preferred to give the tenants a 90-day notice. The tenants have not established that the notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory. This aspect of their claim is also dismissed.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331891 — net $1,764.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,184.28	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout	$70.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout
Rubbish removal	$182.10	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Kitchen Flooring - Insurance Excess	$500.00	Repairs: Kitchen Flooring - Insurance Excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,764.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,764.38

Claims and awards for application 5331891 — net $1,764.38 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,184.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout

Amount: $70.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout

Rubbish removal

Amount: $182.10
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Dismissed claims

Compensation — for want of jurisdiction. Quiet Enjoyment
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Compensation

Order

Vikki George and Daniel Jefford must pay Layton Holdings Limited As Agent For Hamish And Wendy Foster $1,764.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,184.28 Cleaning$100.00 Carpet Cleaning: Stain Removal - Sleepout$70.00 Rubbish removal$182.10 Lawns and Garden work$350.00 Repairs: Kitchen Flooring - Insurance Excess$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,414.38 Bond$1,650.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,764.38
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (6543010-001) to Layton Holdings Limited As Agent For Hamish And Wendy Foster immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. General Principles
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”
The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA. Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of amenity of the tenancy.
Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing there was discussion about whether all payments by the tenants had been properly accounted for in the transition between the owners managing this tenancy and a property manager being appointed. I am satisfied that all payments have been taken into account and the rent summary properly records the amount of $2,148.28 as of 22 August 2025.

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, lawn and garden work was required. However, I have not awarded the full amounts claimed by the landlord. The standard is “reasonably clean”. It is not pristine, commercially clean or to the standard that the landlord wishes to present the property to a new tenant.
I have considered all the photographs in the exit inspection report. Overall, most of the premises are reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has established that some additional cleaning was required in relation to blinds and the sleepout. I am also satisfied that stain treatment was required to the sleepout carpet, but not carpet cleaning of the whole house. The landlord also proved that lawn and garden work was required. Having regard to the photographs and similar claims to the Tribunal, I award $350 for the lawns and garden.
I have awarded the full amount claimed for rubbish removal.
The landlord also claimed an additional inspection cost for the property manager having to travel to Akaroa twice after the tenant failed to vacate on time. That cost could have been avoided by a phone call prior to travel. The claim is dismissed.

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.
The kitchen vinyl was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have awarded the insurance excess, as claimed by the landlord. The Tenant Claims
The tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages. They say that the landlord interfered with their reasonable peace and quiet, failed to maintain the premises and, in particular, that a ramp was unsafe. They also claim that the landlord issued a notice which was retaliatory. The tenants did not attempt to quantify their claims. Repair & Maintenance
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was a concrete ramp leading from a door out of the premises. There was an external handrail part way down the ramp, from the top to where a gully trap protrudes into the ramp. One of the tenants slipped on the ramp and gashed her knee.
The tenant says that she has suffered severe consequences because of her injury. She says that the ramp/balustrade was not properly maintained, was unsafe and non-compliant. The tenants provided very little evidence in relation to their claims. They did not raise any concerns regarding the ramp or handrail with the landlord before the accident. The tenants relied on their own reading of the Building Code and referred to clauses which relate to accessibility requirements of public buildings. There was no independent evidence in relation to compliance. The medical evidence records what the tenant has told the physician, rather than providing an objective assessment of any consequences.
The landlord said that the balustrade/handrail was installed in 2018 to replace a timber rail which had rotted. The landlord obtained advice and Producer Statements from an experienced supplier before installing the handrail and after the tenant’s fall. The supplier advised that the only requirement is for the handrail to protect ramp users from falls of 1m or greater, which this handrail did.
While it is clear that the tenant is suffering following her injury, the tenants did not establish that the handrail was non-compliant, unsafe or that the landlord had failed in its maintenance obligations. The claim is dismissed.
I also note that, even if they had proved that the landlord breached its obligations, it was unclear what the tenants were seeking in relation to the fall and injury. The application refers to compensation for injury related loss of income and medical costs. Section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 prevents anyone from bringing proceedings for damages arising directly or indirectly out of personal injury covered by that Act.
This Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to matters under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which does not include awarding compensation for personal injury. The Tribunal can hear claims for property damage or breach of the tenancy agreement. It cannot award damages for pain, suffering, or loss resulting from personal injury. Accordingly, the claim for personal injury compensation is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Again, the tenant’s provided little substantive evidence to support their claims. They described that landlord “constantly criticising” them, making them fear their tenancy may be terminated, and of being judged. They provided few examples of the behaviour which is alleged to have caused those feelings.
I reviewed most of the text exchanges throughout the tenancy. There is nothing in those communications which would lead me to conclude that the landlord was “harassing” the tenant or interfering with their quiet enjoyment. There was no evidence to support the tenant’s assumption that the landlord removed fruit from the property after the tenants said they were enjoying the fruit trees. This is aspect of the claim is dismissed. Notice to Terminate
On 26 June 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord terminated the tenancy after she raised concerns about the ramp. The tenants fall occurred on 5 March 2025. She advised the landlord of the issue three days later. The landlord responded appropriately. It took advice from the balustrade supplier. It also applied some non-slip paint to try to improve the surface of the ramp. As far as the landlord was aware, there were no outstanding issues with the ramp until May 2025.
Rent had been an issue throughout the tenancy. The landlord made an application for rent arrears. During that process, on or about 29 May, the tenant suggested the arrears were caused by her injury and the landlord’s failure to provide a safe and compliant ramp. Rent had been an issue before the tenant’s injury and continued to be after the landlord accepted a payment plan for arrears.
On 26 June the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate. I do not find a causal or temporal connection between the tenant’s comments regarding the ramp on 29 May and the notice to terminate. If anything, the landlord was motivated to end the tenancy because of arrears, not the tenant exercising any right. Rather than seek an order for termination, the landlord preferred to give the tenants a 90-day notice. The tenants have not established that the notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory. This aspect of their claim is also dismissed.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331891 — Rent arrears at 2 Jetty Road, Governors Bay, RD 1, Christchurch 8971

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331891 — Rent arrears at 2 Jetty Road, Governors Bay, RD 1, Christchurch 8971

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions