How much money was awarded in case 5341081?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,253.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341081?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12982242-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5341081?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,253.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341081?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12982242-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341081 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341081 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341081 — net $881.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Moving tenant items, padlock/lockbox, rubbish removal	$2,253.75	Moving tenant items, padlock/lockbox, rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$881.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$881.75

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,244.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, and [The tenant’s representative], the tenant, both attended the hearing, by video conference and phone conference respectively.

The landlord has applied for disposal of goods, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. At the start of the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for disposal of goods, as all the tenant’s goods have been dealt with already. Background

The tenancy ended on 4 August 2025. The landlord said the tenant had been issued a 90-day termination notice but refused to leave and so had to be evicted from the property with the bailiff’s assistance on 4 August 2025. The tenant said he had nowhere to go and was in a difficult position at the time, especially as he had a dog, and it was more difficult to find rentals that allowed pets. The landlord said the house was vacated so it could be demolished for a further large building project. The demolishment of the house was underway shortly after the tenancy ended, according to the evidence.

The tenant said he had no vehicle, as his car was stolen, and was homeless at the time. He explained WINZ stopped his payments as of 4 August 2025, creating financial hardship for him. Whilst he applied for emergency assistance from WINZ, it took him some time to secure funding for a storage unit after multiple attempts working with WINZ about this. The tenant reported he was told his belongings would be stored for 35 days, to be collected by 7 September 2025.

The parties differed in their evidence about whether the tenant was given only one date initially on which to collect all his belongings, or two, given his storage unit was about 20 minutes from the container on site. Ultimately, the parties acknowledged that, on the first occasion that the landlord arranged a security guard to accompany the tenant to the container to collect what the landlord described as “essential” items, as the tenant had left with nothing but a backpack at the time of eviction, the security guard could not obtain the lockbox code to access the container and so no access occurred on the first arranged date for collection. The tenant had hired and paid for a trailer and his brother had come from [redacted] to assist with the move, but the tenant then lost out on the trailer hire cost and his brother had to return home, so his assistance was also lost.

The parties agreed that the tenant had two further occasions on which to collect his belongings from the container. The landlord initially only allowed for 2 hours for this to occur then extended it to two occasions when learning of the distance the tenant would have to transport his items.

Despite this, the evidence showed the landlord allowed the tenant only limited access to the container to collect his belongings, with only a short time permitted by the security guard on 7 September 2025 for the tenant to collect essentials, and then, according to a handwritten timesheet provided by the landlord from the security guard assigned on 2 October 2025, a further 3.5 hours on 2 October 2025, which the landlord agreed was an extended time and longer than the first collection occasion in September 2025.

The tenant explained that he again hired a standard size trailer, had to load it up by himself, drive it to his new storage unit, unpack the items into the storage unit, then return to the container to load up again and repeat the process. The tenant said the security guard, when they understood this, was not happy to remain for him to return for a second load, given the time they would have to wait for his return and so he was only allowed to remove one trailer load on each occasion, and he said he had to strategically decide what he could take on the second occasion as he had been told he could not return after one trailer load. The tenant indicated he would have taken everything from the container, even the items he did not want, to avoid having to incur any rubbish removal costs, but he was essentially not able to do so because of the security guard’s approach. He said he did not ask the landlord for any further collection visits as they had been very clear and firm with him about limiting the time for his collection visits.

The landlord said that, whilst the container was initially moved onto the property site, the demolition crew said the container could not remain on site during the demolition process and so the container was moved into a paddock next to the property. This had to be accessed, according to the tenant, using a key for the gate held by a woman [redacted] who had horses nearby.

The landlord, who is not based in [Tenancy address suppressed], attended with the bailiff at the eviction on 4 August 2025. The tenant was not permitted to be present once the bailiff was onsite. The landlord said their contractor packed up the tenant’s goods and moved them into a container which was moved onto the site and told the tenant they would only be stored for 35 days and arrangements would need to be made for the tenant to remove his belongings. The landlord said the container was used for storage of the tenant’s belongings, as it was more cost-effective. The landlord did not seek the cost of the container rental.

The tenant said that, prior to the eviction, he packed up almost all his belongings into boxes, which he put out on the back porch, thinking he could retrieve them later, that he left a few larger items near the front door and a few things in the lounge. The tenant said the ‘weapons’ referred to in one of the landlord’s contractor’s invoices were sickles used to cut the weeds, which had belonged to his grandparents, and which he had used regularly during the tenancy without issue.

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 landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish and did not remove his belongings.

The landlord provided an invoice dated 8 August 2925 for work done by their contractor on 4 August 2025 in the amount of $3,494.49. This invoice claimed

75 hours of work @ $75.00/hour for not only packing up and moving the tenant’s items into the container but also things like replacing the front door lock, checking other locks and windows, installing a lockbox, checking security system, screwing shut kitchen windows and shed door, removing ‘weapons’ and going to the police to have them disposed then disposing of them when the police would not take them, removing chain and locks from the front gate, turning off water and power and taking rubbish to the transfer station. The invoice also had a charge of $663.44 before GST for dumping, getting a heavy duty padlock, deadbolt for the front door, boxes and wrapping and travel time to collect and return with the padlock and lockbox and brining a trailer to site and taking it to the transfer station, in the amount of $69.00 before GST.

The landlord said all the work done by the contractor took place in one day on 4 August 2025 and, when asked, said they did not know how many people’s work was included in the invoice. Given the lack of this information, it is difficult to assess how reasonable it is for the contractor to be charging for 30.75 hours, which I find an excessive number of hours for only one day’s work, and so requires explanation.

In the circumstances and given the evidence discussed between the parties about most of the items already being packed in boxes by the tenant, that the rubbish removal and dumping here likely involved some perishable food (the tenant said there was nothing left in the fridge though), bedding covered with pests that had to be disposed off, some plastic bottles, disposal of the sickles, and some items left in the garage, as per the landlord’s evidence, which I accept, I make the following findings about this invoice: a. I do not allow compensation for the costs of replacing the front door lock or putting a deadbolt on the front door, or for boxes and wrapping, as the house was to be demolished, and the landlord said all the tenant’s belongings were moved into the container on 4 August 2025. Further, the tenant said everything that required boxes had already been packed into boxes by him. As the house was being demolished and had been emptied, there was no requirement for any front door lock or deadbolt from there, in my view, especially as the demolition crew were on site shortly after the eviction from the evidence provided. Aside from this, there was insufficient evidence provided by the landlord of the requirement for these costs to be incurred. b. I find the hourly rate charged by the contractor of $75.00/hour to be excessive to pack up and move items and remove rubbish. There was no evidence of the landlord obtaining other quotes for this work, which would likely have been much cheaper. The landlord is under an obligation to mitigate its losses pursuant to section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I find a more reasonable hourly rate for rubbish removal to be $45.00/hour and so use this rate throughout. c. I find the following charges to be reasonable for work completed by the landlord’s contractor on 4 August 2025: i. Packing up and moving all the tenant’s belongings into the container on site, using 2 people for 16 hours (one whole day of 8 hours, in which the landlord said this work had been completed, x 2 people) @ $45.00/hour = $720.00. ii. Rubbish removal and dumping for perishables, bedding, plastic bottles, some garage items, sickles and so on - $300.00. iii. Cost of a padlock and lockbox for the container- $100.00.

Thus, I find a reasonable total amount for packing up and moving items into the container, removing inside and garage rubbish and dumping it, and for the padlock and lockbox to secure the container to be $1,120.00.

The landlord submitted a second invoice dated 18 August 2025 for work carried out by their contractor on 12 August 2025, which involved removing and disposing of 2 loads of bikes, moving an old car body to where a Hiab could access it and emptying the old car of rubbish and collecting and dumping general rubbish found outside. The disposal of the bikes, which were recycled, and the car, were free. The invoice was in the amount of $2,190.20, where the contractors had charged for 15.75 hours @ $75.00/hour.

In the circumstances and given the evidence of the tenant acknowledging bikes were left and there was some rubbish left in the empty car and some corrugated iron sheets left outside and some other items, and the landlord’s photographs of items left outside the property, I allow 15 hours of time for removing and disposing of this outside rubbish (which did not include the garage) but at a more reasonable rate of $45.00/hour for a sub-total of $675.00. I then allow what I believe to be a reasonable dumping fee, given no dumping receipt was provided by the landlord here, to dump the general rubbish from outside and the rubbish from inside the car, which would have been the only dump fee remaining, which is $200.00. Therefore, I find a more reasonable amount for removing and disposing of this outside rubbish to be a total of $875.00.

The tenant collected the last of his belongings that he told the landlord he would take on 2 October 2025, after also attending the container on one earlier occasion to take another trailer load, as per the above evidence.

On 3 October 2025, the landlord arranged for another contractor to collect and dispose of the remaining items that the tenant did not take after his last collection on 2 October 2025. The invoice for this dated 13 October 2025 was in the amount of $731.11 and included $204.50 plus GST for “materials”. The landlord did not know what the “materials” would have been, and guessed it could be for gloves or trailer hire but was not sure. As this could not be explained adequately by the landlord, and so there was insufficient evidence about this cost claimed, I do not allow for the “materials” charge on this invoice but I only the 5.75 hours claimed to remove and dispose of the remaining items, of which the landlord provided a photograph, but at a more reasonable rate of $45.00/hour, for a total of $258.75.

The amounts ordered are proved. Security guard time claim

The landlord also claimed $807.88 for the time of security guards that they arranged to escort the tenant to the container to remove his belongings, as the landlord is not based in [Tenancy address suppressed]. In my view, this is a business cost of the landlord that should not be passed onto the tenant, as they choose not to be based in [Tenancy address suppressed] or have a local agent managing their tenancies in the area. Had they done so, the landlord could have attended with the tenant at the container themselves and not incurred the cost of a security guard. There was no evidence of any safety concerns relating to the tenant, no alleged violence by the tenant and there was evidence that the tenant engaged in communication with the landlord after the tenancy ended, to try to arrange to collect his belongings, in good faith. Further, the tenant’s belongings were held in a container in a paddock, not even on the property’s site, so there was no risk of the tenant entering a house and then refusing to leave again, for example. As such, the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of the requirement to incur this cost.

As such, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for security guard costs. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Both parties requested name suppression. As both parties have had some measure of success in these proceedings, I grant name suppression to both parties. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341081 — net $881.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Moving tenant items, padlock/lockbox, rubbish removal	$2,253.75	Moving tenant items, padlock/lockbox, rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$881.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$881.75

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,244.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, and [The tenant’s representative], the tenant, both attended the hearing, by video conference and phone conference respectively.

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

The landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish and did not remove his belongings.

The landlord provided an invoice dated 8 August 2925 for work done by their contractor on 4 August 2025 in the amount of $3,494.49. This invoice claimed

The amounts ordered are proved. Security guard time claim

As such, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for security guard costs. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341081 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341081 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions