What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343282 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343282?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,185.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $406.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343282?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343282 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343282?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,185.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $406.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343282?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343282 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343282 — net $4,150.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 29 September 2025	$5,185.71	Rent arrears (to 29 September 2025
Rubbish removal	$406.85	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,150.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,150.56

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343282 — net $4,150.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 29 September 2025	$5,185.71	Rent arrears (to 29 September 2025
Rubbish removal	$406.85	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,150.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,150.56

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Natalie Danita Grace Camen Edwards must pay [The landlord/s] $4,150.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,470.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 12 September 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded in person. The landlord appeared. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal
Section 77(5) of the Act states the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to require any party to pay any sum, or to do any work to a value, or otherwise incur any expenditure, in excess of $100,000.00.
The landlord’s claims include: a. Rent arrears - $4,950.00 b. Compensation for damage - $97,283.59 c. Exemplary damages $2,800.00
These total of these claims exceeds the jurisdictional maximum the Tribunal can order.
In accordance with section 77(c) of the Act, the landlord elected to abandon a portion of their claim in order to bring the claim within the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 6 December 2021 and was periodic.
On 29 September 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for abandonment under section 91AA of the Act.

How much is owed for rent?

The Tribunal determined the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) the tenant abandoned the premises on 8 September 2025 and the tenancy was terminated 1 .
In accordance with section 61(3)(a)(i) of the Act, the tenant is liable to pay rent up to and including 21 days after the Tribunal determined the property was abandoned.
The landlord provided rent records proving the amount owed to 26 September 2025 totalled $4,950.00.
In accordance with section 61(3)(a)(i) of the Act the landlord is entitled to rent arrears to 29 September 2025. The Tribunal calculated the total amount of rent owed to 29 September 2025 was $5,185.71, and that is what is ordered.

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. Condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy
The hearing was adjourned for short period of time to provide the landlord with the opportunity to obtain a copy of their application and additional evidence in support of their claims. Following the adjournment the Tribunal was provided 1 Jeshica Miryam Vargas Serrato v Natalie Danita Grace Camen Edwards [2025] NZTT 5343361, 5343282 at para [4] with a with a copy of an unsigned and undated pre-tenancy inspection report. The pre-tenancy inspection report did not disclose the address or identifying particulars of the property to which is related. The landlord relies on this document to prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The report identified the following issues with the property: a. Lounge – small ding behind the door, marks and stains on the floor coverings. b. Kitchen – refrigerator contained a slight smell. c. Bathroom – marks in the corner ceiling. d. Laundry – no blind over the window. e. Bedroom one – marks on the floor covering. f. Bedroom two – “lock no good” and marks on the floor covering. g. Bedroom three – marks on the walls/door, flooring and the curtain condition was described as medium.
The report listed the following items as chattels of the tenancy: a. Fridge. b. Square glass coffee table. c. Microwave. d. Stove
During the hearing the landlord provided photographs showing the condition of the property at the time of purchase. The landlord was unable to identify the photographer or when these photographs were taken. The Tribunal was not told when the landlord purchased the property. However, the landlord indicated the property had been occupied by at least one other person before this tenancy commenced.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs after paying to remove and dump three skip bins of rubbish they say was left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was unable to specify the amounts of compensation sought but, following the hearing filed a receipt from Purpose Fill Limited – a skip bin hire company, in the amount of $406.85.
No exit inspection report was completed. However, the landlord did provide a selection of poor-quality photographs they say proved the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the following items remaining at the end of the tenancy: a. In the kitchen - a push chair, a black sack of rubbish and a wire container. b. In the entrance – a red foot stool, cup, candle, and side table. c. In the lounge – household rubbish on the floor, a metal bar, and an overturned item of wooden furniture d. In the bedrooms – one headboard and mattress, bedding, a shoe rack and plastic container.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish , as specified in paragraph [25 a-d], at the end of the tenancy. The property was abandoned and contained items consistent with normal family living. The receipt from Purpose Fill Limited does not provide any specificity about the number of skip bins or volume of rubbish collected. The Tribunal routinely makes orders for rubbish removal costs. Given the volume of rubbish shown in the photographs and average cost of skip bin hire, the Tribunal determines the amount claimed in the provided invoice is appropriate and is ordered.

Did the tenant leave behind all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation to replace the following chattels they say were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Refrigerator - $1,257.00 b. Microwave - $289.00 c. Three large outdoor pavers – $104.37 ( 3 x $34.79)
The pre-tenancy inspection report records the property came furnished with a refrigerator and a microwave oven. The age of the appliances were unknown by the landlord. The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the items were missing and that at no point during the tenancy did the tenant report an issue with their operation or function.
The large outdoor pavers were not recorded on the pre-tenancy inspection report. The landlord relied on the marketing photographs to show they were present when the property was purchased. The Tribunal was shown a video taken by a contractor showing the pavers were missing at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the refrigerator, microwave and pavers were missing at the end of the tenancy. a. There was no pre-tenancy or routine inspection photographs showing the chattels in situ at the commencement or during tenancy. The pre-tenancy inspection report was unsigned, undated and did not include details identifying the property to which it pertained. As a consequence the Tribunal cannot be certain the pre-tenancy inspection report relates to the tenant’s property. The unsigned inspection report fails to establish and agreed base line for the condition of the property and the chattels provided. And, an undated report makes it impossible to verify when the inspection took place, meaning the Tribunal cannot rely on accuracy of the reported condition of the property. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the items were present at the commencement of the tenancy and were therefore missing at the end of the tenancy. The claim for compensation 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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage in the following amounts: a. Wall and floor remediation – labour $20,332.00, plastering $15,000.00 ($17,480.00 but limited to remain within the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal) and painting $20,700.00. b. Door repairs and replacement - labour $3,312.00. c. Glazing repairs - $1,696.38. d. Electrical repairs - $6,000.00 (claim limited during hearing after landlord accepted tenant was not liable to pay for upgrades to the switchboard and earth bar). e. Replace one broken and one missing heat pump - $4,299.88. f. Replace missing and damaged carpet - $5,000.00 (original amount claimed $7,203.57 but limited to remain within the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal). g. Replace missing and damaged vinyl - $2,517.51. h. Refurbish bathroom and reinstate the hot water cylinder – building labour $2,760.00 + hot water cylinder $2,051.19 6 + plumbing costs $1,312.49. i. Replace damaged and missing curtains - $4,866.57.
The landlord told the Tribunal that the only work that had been undertaken at the property were repairs to the electrics to make the property safe and replacing the hot water cylinder to stop the leak. No invoices were provided for the work completed. The landlord provided one quote for each compensation claim.
The landlord stated that almost every wall in the property was damaged with holes at eye level or lower. The landlord provided photographs showing holes in the walls in the dining room, toilet, bathroom, lounge, hallway, hobby rooms and bedrooms. The photographs were blurred and did not show the scale of the problem. In addition the landlord was unable to confidently identify the location of all of the holes.
The landlord said the tenant had asked for permission to paint the interior of the property which was declined. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered one of the walls had been wallpapered over to disguise a large area of broken plaster board.
The landlord states the whole property needed to be plastered and repainted. The plastering quote records: “Strong odour and surface staining consistent with narcotic use and biological fluids (urine like smell). Multiple holes, damage, and penetrations across plasterboard surfaces. Surfaces considered contaminated, require full remediation and reskim.” The landlord confirmed no pre-tenancy or end of tenancy drug testing was undertaken at the property. The person who prepared the quote did not give evidence about their qualifications or how they determined the property had surface staining consistent with narcotic use.
The landlord said that nine doors in the property needed to be either repaired or replaced. The landlord said that from memory three doors need to be replaced and five door need to be repaired. The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which showed: a. Damage to the ground floor bedroom door (repair). b. Damage to the bottom and middle panels of the front door (replace). c. Peeling paint and damage on the hallway door (repair). d. Peeling paint and damage on the first-floor door (repair). e. The bathroom door was split (replace). f. The hobby room door was damaged with gouge marks (repair). g. A door frame had a large chunk missing (repair). h. A door had a handle missing (repair). i. Another door handle was missing and the door was scratched and marked (repair). j. The hobby room door was missing a door handle, there was a hole and splits (repair). k. The door at the top of stairs were split (repair).
The landlord told the Tribunal that after discovering the property was abandoned the glazing was repaired to secure the property. The landlord provided photographs showing the following damage: a. Ranch slider in bedroom – top fixed pane was broken and covered by a clear plastic sheet and the bottom fixed pane was broken and held together by tape. The ranch slider needed to be realigned in its frame. b. Kitchen window – broken and covered by a wooden board. c. Hobby room window – broken and replaced by plastic sheeting. d. Hobby room window – painted red and a cracked glass pane.
The landlord provided a quote to repair the electrics and replace two heat pump at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs showing that some of the electrical fittings had been pulled from the ceiling and cut, the light switches had been pulled out of the wall and the heat lamps had been removed from the bathroom.
The landlord said the tenant removed or damaged the carpet throughout the property including: a. Removing the carpet from the stairs exposing the painted wooden floor; b. Left blood stains on the lounge floor; and c. Caused a large burn mark on the hobby room carpet.
The landlord seeks vinyl replacement costs for the kitchen, bathroom and toilet claiming the tenant removed the vinyl from all of these rooms. The landlord further alleges the tenant damaged the bathroom floor when they removed the hot water cylinder causing a leak.
The landlord seeks the full cost of refurbishing the bathroom and reinstating the hot water cylinder. The landlord alleges the tenant caused the following damage: a. The shower door was smashed. b. The area about the shower was water damaged. c. The vanity had been painted. d. The hot water cylinder had been removed from the property causing a leak. e. The floor was damaged in the bathroom and toilet as a result of the hot water cylinder being removed.
The landlord seeks the cost of replacing all of the curtains in the property saying they were either torn, damaged, covered in blood or missing at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord confirmed the property was insured, but said they choose not to pursue an insurance claim after their insurer told them their policy excluded wilful damage. They said their insurer also told them that if the damage was covered then the insurance excess would be charge for each room. It was on that basis that a formal insurance claim was not lodged. The tenancy agreement records the insurance excess for the property was $750.00.
The Tribunal heard from the landlord that property inspections were undertaken annually and that they could not recall when the last one was complete. However, the landlord recalled during the most recent inspection the property was messy with children’s clothing but not damaged. Analysis and decision
For the Tribunal to make an award for compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
In this case the landlord has provided the Tribunal with the following evidence to prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy: a. An unsigned and undated pre-tenancy inspection report which did not stipulate the address of the property to which it pertained. b. Undated photographs showing the condition of the property at the time of purchase. The landlord relies on this evidence to prove the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord relies on the following evidence to prove the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy: a. A series of quotes some of which record the property was damaged. b. A short video of the property taken by a contractor discussing the remediation work required. c. A series of poor-quality photographs showing areas of damage.
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy under the abandonment provisions of the Act, see section 91AA. The Tribunal determined that on 8 September 2025 the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises after entering the property and finding it to be uninhabitable. No services were connected, there was no hot water cylinder, rubbish was left inside, there were no general furnishings or appliances and the property was damaged including windows and doors.
The Tribunal heard the landlord conducted infrequent property inspections; the date of the most recent inspection was unknown but the landlord.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the property and the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs are unreliable because of they are unsigned, undated and lack specificity about the property to which it relates. The landlord has failed to establish an agreed base line for the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The property was discovered abandoned and damaged with windows and doors broken, blood on the curtains and flooring and a heat pump and hot water cylinder missing. The Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that an unknown third party or parties are responsible for the damage and theft of chattels after the tenant abandoned the premises. On that basis the landlord’s claim for compensation must be dismissed. Was the maximum number of people allowed under the tenancy agreement exceeded?
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenancy agreement did not specify the maximum number of people allowed to live in the premises during the tenancy. The claim is not proved and is dismissed.

Did the tenant use the property for an unlawful purpose?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by consuming illicit drugs in breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and dealing in stolen vehicles in breach of the Crimes Act 1961.
The landlord relied on the following evidence to prove their claim: a. A pair of number plates and a single number plate was found in the garage of the property. b. The neighbours told the landlord the property was a “hot house” and the tenant’s brother was “doing something with cars at the property”. c. A person was taken into custody from the property. d. A burnt knife was found at the property which the landlord was told was used for spotting cannabis. e. The plaster mentioned the property could have been used for cooking methamphetamine as the door were peeling. f. A community services card, in the name of the landlord’s former tenant, was found in the kitchen at the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the property has been used for any unlawful acts for the following reasons: a. There was no pre-tenancy or post tenancy drugs testing of the property to prove the premises were used for cooking or consuming illicit drugs. b. There was no evidence provided proving the knife was covered in illicit drug residue. The Tribunal can think of many reasonable explanations for why a knife could be burnt. c. There was no evidence provided proving the number plates were connected to stolen vehicles, or Police reports (or similar) proving the property had been used for dealing in stolen vehicles. d. No evidence was provided proving the property or its occupants was subject to a criminal investigation in the form or Police reports or similar. e. There was no evidence provided proving the former tenants community services card was connected with criminal activity.
The claim is not proved and dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343282 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343282 — Rent arrears

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?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave behind all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant use the property for an unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave behind all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant use the property for an unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions