What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336382 about?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Van der Krogt and Stanley Van der Krogt must pay David Broadhurst

How much money was awarded in case 5336382?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity (Fence: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No written tenancy agr…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Curtains (50% Depreciation: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Gate: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $395.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336382?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13166931-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336382 about?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Van der Krogt and Stanley Van der Krogt must pay David Broadhurst

How much money was awarded in case 5336382?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity (Fence: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No written tenancy agr…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Curtains (50% Depreciation: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Gate: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $395.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336382?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13166931-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1B Mill Road, Kaikoura, Kaikoura 7300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336382 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336382 — net $680.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$600.00		Rent arrears
Reinstate gate	$15.00		Reinstate gate
Rubbish removal	$395.50		Rubbish removal
Curtains (50% depreciation	$100.00		Curtains (50% depreciation
Cleaning (shower and vanity drawers – external cat litter	$120.00		Cleaning (shower and vanity drawers – external cat litter
Compensation: Loss of amenity (fence		$350.00	Loss of amenity (fence
Compensation: No written tenancy agreement/HHS		$200.00	No written tenancy agreement/HHS
Total award	$1,230.50	$550.00
Net award	$680.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$680.50

Both parties attended the hearings. The final hearing was a continuation hearing to consider landlord vacated claims after previously concluding possession and tenant claims. The adjourning order of 12 January 2026 noted:

The tenants sought compensation of $2,500.00.

The landlord sought rent arrears and vacated costs. A Possession Order was initially sought after the tenants remained at the premises after a notice to terminate but possession has since returned to the landlord. A variation to determine vacated claims was accepted.

The importance of evidence was highlighted to both parties in previous orders. The informal, unwritten nature of much this arrangement and subsequent operation has been problematic for both parties prosecuting their claims.

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.”

The parties had a parallel commercial agreement that has also ended. That is in dispute within another, appropriate, jurisdiction. That dispute has no direct bearing on this determination and where evidence or submissions have crossed over, only the applicable substance has been considered here.

Prior to this tenancy there was a historic connection that appears to have induced a level of informality compared to previous agency managed tenancies at this premises.

The tenancy commenced with a four-month rent free period granted by the landlord. No bond was taken.

The vast difference in the respective recounting of some events by the parties is obvious and suggests to me that someone is not telling the truth or is very confused. I am not necessarily able to know who that might be. I have relied on what is known or clearly proven by other evidence.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Tenant claims

The tenants sought $2,500.00 compensation as they believed the landlord had failed to maintain the premises and suffered a loss of amenity. They also made claims regarding Healthy Homes Standards and failure regarding smoke alarms.

The application itself was vague, stating “I have lived in this property over the 2yrs 6mths.. I believe it doesn't meet the healthy homes standards.. the roof leaks in three places.. it's cold .. draughty.. no carpet.. single glazed windows..”

From that, more specific claims were detailed during the hearings, primarily regarding claims of failures to maintain and loss of amenity. Failure to maintain s 45

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn. Roof leak.

The tenants claimed three roof leaks were not repaired in a timely manner with water leaking into their living area.

Relatedly, access to the roof was raised as a point of contention by both parties.

The landlord provided a written statement from Mike Paul. In it he claims the landlord had never asked him to go up on the roof (as claimed by the tenants). Further, he stated ne was approached by one tenant who asked him to be a witness for this hearing and to provide a false statement. The tenants believe Mr Paul’s statement was swayed by some broader community influence of the landlord.

A key witness, Tim Hawkins, was called by the landlord. He appeared by telephone in support of a series of previously submitted written statements. His relationship with both parties appeared amicable. He attended the roof leaks in October 2025. He stated that it appeared two leaks had been repaired previously and no moisture was detected in either area of impact. The third area, near the entrance door was confirmed as an active leak from the roof.

Mr Hawkins stated, after advising the landlord of the leak, he was instructed to “undertake the necessary roofing repairs”. A temporary sealing was applied to make it weathertight. The invoice for roofing materials for the repair were provided as evidence of the intention to complete the repair.

The tenants provided photos that clearly show some water staining in a number of ceiling panels in the living room. The date and source of such leak damage was uncertain. If Mr Hawkins testimony is accepted, as seems reasonable, it would seem to be historic damage and subject to roof repair at the time with internal water staining left as is.

The landlord provided photos of the living area the tenants claimed was subject to ongoing leaks, pointing out the placement of furnishings and appliances appeared inconsistent with tenant claims of ongoing leaks.

I accept roof leaks occurred but I do not have sufficient evidence from the tenants that the landlord failed to maintain or repair in a timely manner any leak once appropriately advised. Guttering

The tenants provided photos of a section of guttering overflowing and a disconnected downpipe.

The landlord countered with photos of the downpipe correctly in place. I heard from the contractor who stated all downpipes were intact.

This claim suffers from competing evidence. There is insufficient evidence of any ongoing, related, stormwater problem and any appropriate notice to the landlord.

As such, the evidential burden on the applicant has not been satisfied and the claim must be dismissed. Fence

A section of boundary fence was removed by the landlord (who owns the neighbouring property as well) after it fell down. This meant the previous dog- secure back area of the premises was compromised and the tenants’ dogs could not be left to roam in a secure outdoor area.

The tenants claim the dogs were restrained outside. Other evidence suggests they were at time indoors for extended periods. This has some bearing on later landlord claims regarding internal scratching on surfaces by the dogs.

There is no evidence of the tenants raising their concerns with the landlord or requesting reinstatement. That noted, the damage will have been obvious and known to the landlord.

I accept the removal of the fence, with no temporary fencing provided, was a loss of amenity for the tenants. This is discussed later in the landlord claim regarding dog scratching. No written tenancy agreement

The lack of a written tenancy agreement has been a problem.

Previous tenancies had been agency managed but the landlord stated this tenancy was arranged directly, with agency fees avoided, for the benefit of the tenants given the prior relationship.

There were inconsistencies with the landlord recounting of previous tenancies. As the tenancy prior was supposedly agency managed, I had requested any exit report or photos, in lieu of any entry equivalents for this tenancy. I was later advised that in fact the prior tenancy was not agency managed and no exit report or photos were available.

I consider the landlord should have been aware of the requirement for a written tenancy agreement. A full tenancy agreement would have clearly established HHS conditions and other compliance matters later disputed.

It is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure a written tenancy agreement is competed (see s 13 RTA). It is unlawful not to do so. This potential for exemplary damages after anu such unlawful act confirms Parliament’s weighting of the importance of a written agreement. No claim for exemplary damages was made. Even if it was, consideration of intent would have been a careful consideration. That said, the consequential impact on the tenants of the failure to have a written agreement with the requisite information is apparent and I consider compensation of $200.00 for the resultant confusion is appropriate (the equally disadvantageous impact on aspects of the landlord’s experience of the tenancy and subsequent claims notwithstanding). Smoke alarms

The placement and operation of smoke alarms was disputed. The tenants claim no smoke alarms existed from commencement. They provided photos of ceiling areas without any smoke alarms. The landlord countered, after possession returned, with comparative photos that they claimed showed one existed in the place the tenants stated a sensor for a light was installed. Manufacturers photos of the claimed model were provided for comparative purposes.

Photos of other areas showed some ceiling repairs or markings that the landlord claimed were legacy from smoke alarm installations.

The landlord is obligated to ensure they comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed by regulations.

This claim is one where I consider someone is lying rather than confused. The respective evidence and submissions effectively negate the other. I do not find the tenants have been able to evidence any landlord failure here.

The landlord should have established a better documented basis for this tenancy from commencement. That would have better clarified what is now disputed. Previous tenant and agent statements are historic and not of any real evidential strength here. Landlord claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 December 2026 after a delayed tenant vacate. The commencement date differed between applications. I consider this was due in part to an initial “rent holiday”.

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $600.00, after downwards adjustments as discussed and confirmed at the hearing. These arrears accrued at the end of the tenancy as the tenants delayed their exit but stopped paying rent. Rent payment was not an issue during the tenancy.

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 RTA does not require the vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).

The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

Having reviewed the photographs and further considered the respective submissions, I accept further cleaning was required of the shower and vanity units. The deeper cleaning inside as claimed required is not proven, acknowledging smell is likely the most difficult sense to evidence in these claims.

Further cleaning outside was required to remove used cat litter dumped in areas as well as dog waste. The cat litter dumping was accepted by the tenants but the dog waste was disputed given the unfettered access from other neighbouring dogs to the area due to the missing section of fence. I do not consider the dog mess could reasonably be totally the result of other dogs. I have determined an award of $120.00 for the internal and external cleaning efforts (non-invoiced as it was family labour) balances the evidence and respective submissions.

The landlord had to remove a large amount of indoor furniture items abandoned at the end of the tenancy. The tenants claim that these were from a prior tenant, and not their responsibility, blurred when they acknowledged the beneficial use and acceptance of them from the previous tenant. Some items were sold or given away by the tenants which suggest a presumption or confirmation of ownership that flows into a later obligation to remove any remaining items at the end of the tenancy. I consider the landlord incurred labour and disposal costs. Photos showed the exterior had a number of items left that the tenants accepted, being the crayfish pot/cage, buoys and chest freezer. Other items were claimed as preexisting by the tenant and in the absence of entry photos or other suitable evidence, I do not find disposal of any other items to be proven as a tenant liability. I have considered the dumping cost of $215.50 and allowed in addition six hours labour (at $30.00 per hour), totalling $395.50 to be awarded.

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 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.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

The landlord had a considerable challenge to establish tenant liability given the lack of any entry evidence, the aged condition overall, and prior tenancies also with pets. The house was at best dated. This is apparent in photos provided by both parties.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy. a. Two cracked windows. The tenants claim these were pre-existing. The photos do not establish either crack as more than likely recent or from this tenancy. The claim is unproven b. Curtains. A set of curtains in one bedroom were replaced due to considerable pet hair stuck on the inner. The landlord claimed a strong smell of pet urine was also present. A photo confirms the extensive hair. The curtains were approximately 3.5 years old and I consider the evidence here supports tenancy liability. Depreciation needs to be considered and I award $100.00 towards the replacement the bedroom curtains (based on the invoice of curtains purchased) and the cost of installation. The other curtains purchased and installed are left as landlord costs as there is insufficient evidence to establish any tenant liability. c. Window handle. A window handle was snapped. Photos were provided of both sections. The tenants claim to have raised a problem with landlord regarding the difficulty in the window closing, some 18 months earlier. Having reviewed the photos, I do not find the landlord has established the damage as more than fair tear and the claim is dismissed. d. Wall damage. A number of walls showed both damage. The tenants claimed this was pre-existing damage. Without entry photos, the aged state of the premises walls need to be factored as well. The tenant claims are not obviously without some possible basis. The landlord has failed to evidence the damage shown occurred during this tenancy. Even if so, the age and condition of the walls was such that some decent depreciation for any costs for repair would have been likely. e. Door damage. Significant dog scratches are obvious on several doors. The tenants had pets, both dogs and cats. In response, the tenants claim previous tenants have also had dogs and the damage was pre-existing. The evidential burden is with the landlord initially and the lack of entry condition or any subsequent inspection reports as evidence means the claims are not proven as tenant liability. The loss of a secure outdoor area after the fencing section failed, and the possible increased indoor presence of the dogs due to this would also have been a consideration if better entry evidence existed that more strongly linked the damage to this tenancy. f. An external cat door was blocked off by the tenants. The door in general looks aged beyond any specific block and I do not have sufficient evidence of cause, nor any later loss, to make any specific award in favour of the landlord.

The curtain damage is proven as more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

If need be, I would have taken into account betterment and depreciation. I would have taken into account the age and condition at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespans. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have not been substantially successful across the applications, no suppression is ordered. While lost in this order, the tenants remained after a notice to terminate ended the tenancy and the landlord was forced to seek a possession order.

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

The final monetary order, on balance, feels a reasonable reflection after a number of mutual failures during this tenancy.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336382 — net $680.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$600.00		Rent arrears
Reinstate gate	$15.00		Reinstate gate
Rubbish removal	$395.50		Rubbish removal
Curtains (50% depreciation	$100.00		Curtains (50% depreciation
Cleaning (shower and vanity drawers – external cat litter	$120.00		Cleaning (shower and vanity drawers – external cat litter
Compensation: Loss of amenity (fence		$350.00	Loss of amenity (fence
Compensation: No written tenancy agreement/HHS		$200.00	No written tenancy agreement/HHS
Total award	$1,230.50	$550.00
Net award	$680.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$680.50