What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343523 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 5343523?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $121.84 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343523?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12596719-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343523 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 5343523?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $121.84 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343523?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12596719-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343523 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343523 — net $2,096.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 September 2025	$2,071.43	Rent arrears to 19 September 2025
Insurance excess	$2,000.00	Insurance excess
Lock/key replacement	$20.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$74.75	Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs	$121.84	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,096.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,096.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Ashleigh-Maree Shadrock and Mariah-Paige Shadrock must pay [The landlord/s] $2,086.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

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.

How much is owed for rent ?

This was a fixed term tenancy. The landlord is claiming rent to 19 September 2025 because on this date the landlord took possession after tenant had left the premises and a relative removed all her belongings.
The tenant originally tried to give notice to end the tenancy on 28 August 2025 because she claimed the rent was too expensive. The landlord reminded her that she could not end a fixed term tenancy by giving notice.
On 27 August 2025 the landlord agreed to end the tenancy if a new tenant could be found. During this process, the landlord found it difficult to get the tenants consent to hold viewings.
When eventually the landlord had access for a viewing on 5 September, they found that the premises smelled damp and tiles were cracked and lifting. They discovered then that the premises had been extensively damaged by water.
A new tenancy could not begin until the damage had been remedied.
The tenant gave a two-day notice on 10 September 2025 terminating the tenancy based on family violence.
Section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA, relates to withdrawals from tenancies following family violence. Section 56B (1) of the RTA says a tenant under a fixed-term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if they give notice in the approved form with qualifying evidence.
Section 56B (2) of the RTA says if there are no other tenants under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenancy terminates.
The landlord requested that the tenant provide the completed approved form with qualifying evidence.
The tenant completed the form selecting as supporting evidence that she would provide a written statement from a prescribed person stating that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the tenant or dependant has been a victim of family violence during the current tenancy.
The tenant provided copies of a text exchange with a friend Ms Heta who worked at Te Rau Ora as a support worker /administrator.
The text exchanges were not specific and did not state that the person had reasonable grounds to suspect the tenant or dependant has been a victim of family violence during the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that this was a written statement from a prescribed person employed or engaged to carry out work for an organisation that receives funding from a Whanau Ora commissioning agency to provide services and support to Whanau.
The landlord said that the message made no sense and called Te Rau Ora to try to establish if they were a person prescribed by the RTA.
The project manager of Te Rau Ora confirmed that they cannot sign authorisations in relation to tenancy withdrawal. A copy of this email was provided including advice about other agencies that were qualified and could help the tenant.
The tenant was given time in the hearing to make contact with other parties who could support her or provide the required supporting information but declined the opportunity.
The tenant did not provide any further written statements to support her withdrawal.
During the hearing the tenant said that she had tried to end the tenancy because it was too expensive and that did not work so she tried the family violence application.
I find that it was not established that the tenancy could be terminated by using provisions under section 56B.There was not sufficient evidence provided that complied with the requirements of the notice because the tenant did not provide a statement from a prescribed person.
I find that the tenant is responsible for the rent arrears to the date claimed by the landlord.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date that they took possession, being 19 September 2025, and this is awarded.

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 lawns had not been recently mowed and photographs from the end of the tenancy were provided. The amount claimed is awarded.
The did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and agreed that she did not return the keys.
The tenancy was extensively damaged, and a large part of the flooring required replacing. The landlord provided a quote to clean the premise before the remediation and some cleaning areas, like the kitchen, will be replaced.
I award a nominal amount for the oven clean as this will be reused when the repairs are finished, and evidence showed that it had not been cleaned. The tenant agreed at the hearing that she had not cleaned the premises before leaving. The amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed the cleaning and the tenancy has ended. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been established.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The premises were damaged by water.
The landlord entered the premises on 5 September to conduct a viewing with a prospective tenant and noticed a bad smell and cracked floor tiles.
The tenant did not dispute that there had been a flood, stating in the hearing that it was caused when hot water overflowed the kitchen sink, which she forgot about. She said that the damage was limited to the kitchen area and cupboards.
The tenant said that she did not believe that it was a big problem as she cleaned it up immediately and did not think that she had to tell the landlord.
In a text dated 5 September 2025 the tenant said the water damage was from a washing machine and that’s why the damage was in the hallway and also from the shower flooding.
I find that this is careless damage where the tenant did not take reasonable care and forgot that the sink was filing. This inattention resulted in damage to the floors. The tenant said that the shower flooded due to a small drain. I do not find that the tenant intended to cause the damage and there was no claim raised that this was intentional damage.
The landlord provided a copy of the pre-inspection report, the insurance assessors photographs showing excess water readings, grout damage and tape areas where the water had spread and a quote from a builder to repair the damage for $34,076.75.
The landlord claimed insurance for the repairs and sought reimbursement of the excess. The name of the landlord’s insurer and insurance excess amount was recorded on the tenancy agreement.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought the costs to repair a broken window and provided photographs establishing the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Guarantor
On 24 June 2025 the guarantor provided a guarantee to the landlord by signing the tenancy agreement as a named guarantor. The agreement specified that the guarantor would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations including breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 during both the tenancy term and any extension of it. It stated that the Guarantor shall indemnify the Landlord for any liability or loss suffered by the Landlord as a result of or arising from any breach.
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $2,086.02 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and award name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343523 — net $2,096.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 September 2025	$2,071.43	Rent arrears to 19 September 2025
Insurance excess	$2,000.00	Insurance excess
Lock/key replacement	$20.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$74.75	Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs	$121.84	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,096.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,096.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Ashleigh-Maree Shadrock and Mariah-Paige Shadrock must pay [The landlord/s] $2,086.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

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.

How much is owed for rent ?

This was a fixed term tenancy. The landlord is claiming rent to 19 September 2025 because on this date the landlord took possession after tenant had left the premises and a relative removed all her belongings.
The tenant originally tried to give notice to end the tenancy on 28 August 2025 because she claimed the rent was too expensive. The landlord reminded her that she could not end a fixed term tenancy by giving notice.
On 27 August 2025 the landlord agreed to end the tenancy if a new tenant could be found. During this process, the landlord found it difficult to get the tenants consent to hold viewings.
When eventually the landlord had access for a viewing on 5 September, they found that the premises smelled damp and tiles were cracked and lifting. They discovered then that the premises had been extensively damaged by water.
A new tenancy could not begin until the damage had been remedied.
The tenant gave a two-day notice on 10 September 2025 terminating the tenancy based on family violence.
Section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA, relates to withdrawals from tenancies following family violence. Section 56B (1) of the RTA says a tenant under a fixed-term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if they give notice in the approved form with qualifying evidence.
Section 56B (2) of the RTA says if there are no other tenants under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenancy terminates.
The landlord requested that the tenant provide the completed approved form with qualifying evidence.
The tenant completed the form selecting as supporting evidence that she would provide a written statement from a prescribed person stating that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the tenant or dependant has been a victim of family violence during the current tenancy.
The tenant provided copies of a text exchange with a friend Ms Heta who worked at Te Rau Ora as a support worker /administrator.
The text exchanges were not specific and did not state that the person had reasonable grounds to suspect the tenant or dependant has been a victim of family violence during the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that this was a written statement from a prescribed person employed or engaged to carry out work for an organisation that receives funding from a Whanau Ora commissioning agency to provide services and support to Whanau.
The landlord said that the message made no sense and called Te Rau Ora to try to establish if they were a person prescribed by the RTA.
The project manager of Te Rau Ora confirmed that they cannot sign authorisations in relation to tenancy withdrawal. A copy of this email was provided including advice about other agencies that were qualified and could help the tenant.
The tenant was given time in the hearing to make contact with other parties who could support her or provide the required supporting information but declined the opportunity.
The tenant did not provide any further written statements to support her withdrawal.
During the hearing the tenant said that she had tried to end the tenancy because it was too expensive and that did not work so she tried the family violence application.
I find that it was not established that the tenancy could be terminated by using provisions under section 56B.There was not sufficient evidence provided that complied with the requirements of the notice because the tenant did not provide a statement from a prescribed person.
I find that the tenant is responsible for the rent arrears to the date claimed by the landlord.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date that they took possession, being 19 September 2025, and this is awarded.

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 lawns had not been recently mowed and photographs from the end of the tenancy were provided. The amount claimed is awarded.
The did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and agreed that she did not return the keys.
The tenancy was extensively damaged, and a large part of the flooring required replacing. The landlord provided a quote to clean the premise before the remediation and some cleaning areas, like the kitchen, will be replaced.
I award a nominal amount for the oven clean as this will be reused when the repairs are finished, and evidence showed that it had not been cleaned. The tenant agreed at the hearing that she had not cleaned the premises before leaving. The amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed the cleaning and the tenancy has ended. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been established.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The premises were damaged by water.
The landlord entered the premises on 5 September to conduct a viewing with a prospective tenant and noticed a bad smell and cracked floor tiles.
The tenant did not dispute that there had been a flood, stating in the hearing that it was caused when hot water overflowed the kitchen sink, which she forgot about. She said that the damage was limited to the kitchen area and cupboards.
The tenant said that she did not believe that it was a big problem as she cleaned it up immediately and did not think that she had to tell the landlord.
In a text dated 5 September 2025 the tenant said the water damage was from a washing machine and that’s why the damage was in the hallway and also from the shower flooding.
I find that this is careless damage where the tenant did not take reasonable care and forgot that the sink was filing. This inattention resulted in damage to the floors. The tenant said that the shower flooded due to a small drain. I do not find that the tenant intended to cause the damage and there was no claim raised that this was intentional damage.
The landlord provided a copy of the pre-inspection report, the insurance assessors photographs showing excess water readings, grout damage and tape areas where the water had spread and a quote from a builder to repair the damage for $34,076.75.
The landlord claimed insurance for the repairs and sought reimbursement of the excess. The name of the landlord’s insurer and insurance excess amount was recorded on the tenancy agreement.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought the costs to repair a broken window and provided photographs establishing the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Guarantor
On 24 June 2025 the guarantor provided a guarantee to the landlord by signing the tenancy agreement as a named guarantor. The agreement specified that the guarantor would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations including breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 during both the tenancy term and any extension of it. It stated that the Guarantor shall indemnify the Landlord for any liability or loss suffered by the Landlord as a result of or arising from any breach.
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $2,086.02 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and award name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343523 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343523 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions