What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343692 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 5343692?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.86 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $472.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343692?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343692 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 5343692?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.86 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $472.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343692?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343692 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343692 — net $6,237.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 September 2025	$5,400.00	Rent arrears to 6 September 2025
Rubbish removal	$472.22	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$161.86	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,237.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,237.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Joe Schroder must pay [the landlord] $6,237.08 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing this morning which began at 9.30am and which was conducted by telephone. Adjournment
The tenant applied yesterday for an adjournment of today’s hearing. That was refused and he was given permission to attend the hearing by telephone, which he did.
The tenant renewed had application for an adjournment at the hearing this morning and it was again refused.
This application was filed on 26 September 2025, and it was scheduled for a mediation on 6 October. The tenant contacted Tenancy Services on the morning of the mediation and stated that he could not attend because he had a doctor’s appointment.
The application was then scheduled for a hearing on 11 November.
The tenant suffered a serious foot injury on 23 October, and he has provided evidence of that.
On 5 November the tenant requested and was granted an adjournment of the 11 November hearing. He asked for an adjournment of at least three weeks so that he could “gather his defence material and put in a counterclaim”. I note that three weeks from the date of the hearing would be the beginning of December.
On 1 December, the Tribunal sent notices of today’s hearing to the parties. The notice was sent to the tenant’s email address, and he was also sent text reminders.
This morning, the tenant said that he has been away for a week staying at Piraki Bay on Banks Peninsula where he said there was no internet or mobile telephone coverage. He said that he had been waiting for notice of the hearing, but it had not come promptly and that he had not been able to prepare for the hearing today.
He also said that he had arranged for someone to pick him up at 9.45 this morning and take him to do his food shopping. He said that if he did not go, he would have no food for the week.
I refused the adjournment because the tenant has had ample time to prepare for the hearing. He asked for an adjournment of at least three weeks, and he was given four weeks. He should have used that time to gather his evidence and provide it to the Tribunal. He did not do so instead, according to him, he went away for a week at the time when he could expect there to be the adjourned hearing, to a place where he was, apparently, uncontactable.
The tenant’s explanation is convenient for him but not for the landlord and not for the Tribunal. I have my doubts about its veracity but even if it is true, it is not an acceptable explanation or a good reason to adjourn the hearing.
As to the tenant’s shopping trip, I suggested that he wait until his ride to do the shopping turned up and, in the meantime, we would proceed with the hearing. The tenant then participated fully in the hearing until 10.30, when it ended, uninterrupted by anyone arriving to pick him up.
I explained to the tenant that he could make his cross claim at any time. I also explained that if he had evidence that was relevant to the landlord’s claims, he could apply for a rehearing and that would be considered on its merits.
The tenant said that he had evidence that he has made rent payments that have not been recorded on the landlord’s rent statement. If he produces compelling evidence of that with a rehearing application, it is likely that he will be granted a rehearing. Relevant Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices. Claims Withdrawn
The landlord withdrew several of her claims seemingly because she was most concerned about the rent arrears, and she did not want to spend time arguing over the disputed claims.
The withdrawn claims were for carpet cleaning – the carpet has been replaced, replacing uplifted carpet at door entrance, repairing water damage in the laundry, removing vinyl laid by the tenant and restoring wooden flooring and repairing a window. Rent
The tenancy began on 22 July 2023 and ended on 6 September 2025. The tenant queried why I should accept the start date of the tenancy, but he did not suggest an alternative start date. There is no written tenancy agreement, but I note that the landlord has produced communications between the parties that suggest that the start date is likely to be correct.
The landlord provided a rent statement to prove the rent claim. The Tribunal does not normally expect to see bank statements unless the rent claim has been disputed. Raising a dispute at the hearing without anything to substantiate it is not sufficient.
The tenant said that the landlord has been in breach of her obligations by not informing him of the arrears at the relevant time. He said that if he had been made aware that arrears were accumulating, he could and would have cleared them.
The landlord does not have an obligation to inform a tenant that arrears are accumulating although it is plainly sensible to do so. The tenant has an obligation to pay rent as it falls due. The tenant was or should have been aware that he was not paying his rent and arrears were therefore accumulating. He cannot blame the landlord for not alerting him to the fact.
In any case, there is evidence that the landlord did chase the tenant for rent arrears during the tenancy.
I accept the landlord’s rent statement and so I have awarded the rent arrears as claimed. Rubbish
The landlord claims her time of 10 hours at $35 per hour for removing the tenant’s rubbish from the premises and dump fees in the sum of $122.22. Dump fee receipts were provided.
The landlord’s photographs show a considerable amount of rubbish left at the premises when the tenancy ended. The landlord’s claim is reasonable and so I have awarded it.
The tenant said that the landlord should have allowed him more time to remove the rubbish. But the tenant ended the tenancy by giving notice and he then sought an earlier termination date which the landlord accepted. If he had wanted more time to remove the rubbish and comply with his other end-of- tenancy obligations, he should have given longer notice. The landlord had no obligation to allow the tenant back onto the premises after the tenancy ended although she did do so.
I also do not accept that the tenant’s brother made it difficult for the tenant to remove his rubbish and belongings by putting garden waste over it. There was no evidence to support that, and it seems inherently unlikely. Cleaning
The landlord claims $350 for her own time spent cleaning the premises after the tenancy ended.
The tenant accepted that the oven was not left reasonably clean but otherwise he said that he left the premises cleaner than it was at the start of the tenancy. I note that the landlord stated in a message that the tenant left the hours “relatively clean”.
The landlord’s photographs did not support a claim of $350 for her time spent cleaning. I accept that the garage needed some cleaning, and I find that a total award of $175 is reasonable for cleaning and so I awarded it. Back Door Lock
The landlord claims $161.86 for the cost of changing the lock on the back door. The tenant did not return the key for the lock at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that the lock was from Musgroves in Christchurch and that the landlord should have sourced a new key for the lock There was some discussion about the whether the lock was new given that Musgroves specialise in architectural salvage.
In any case, where keys are not returned, a landlord is generally entitled to change the lock. I see no reason why this case should be an exception and so I have awarded the sum claimed. I note as well that a landlord is required to act reasonably to keep their loss to a minimum. A landlord is not necessarily required to adopt the cheapest possible option. The landlord acted reasonably in this case in my view. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded her the filing fee and granted her request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343692 — net $6,237.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 September 2025	$5,400.00	Rent arrears to 6 September 2025
Rubbish removal	$472.22	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$161.86	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,237.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,237.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Joe Schroder must pay [the landlord] $6,237.08 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing this morning which began at 9.30am and which was conducted by telephone. Adjournment
The tenant applied yesterday for an adjournment of today’s hearing. That was refused and he was given permission to attend the hearing by telephone, which he did.
The tenant renewed had application for an adjournment at the hearing this morning and it was again refused.
This application was filed on 26 September 2025, and it was scheduled for a mediation on 6 October. The tenant contacted Tenancy Services on the morning of the mediation and stated that he could not attend because he had a doctor’s appointment.
The application was then scheduled for a hearing on 11 November.
The tenant suffered a serious foot injury on 23 October, and he has provided evidence of that.
On 5 November the tenant requested and was granted an adjournment of the 11 November hearing. He asked for an adjournment of at least three weeks so that he could “gather his defence material and put in a counterclaim”. I note that three weeks from the date of the hearing would be the beginning of December.
On 1 December, the Tribunal sent notices of today’s hearing to the parties. The notice was sent to the tenant’s email address, and he was also sent text reminders.
This morning, the tenant said that he has been away for a week staying at Piraki Bay on Banks Peninsula where he said there was no internet or mobile telephone coverage. He said that he had been waiting for notice of the hearing, but it had not come promptly and that he had not been able to prepare for the hearing today.
He also said that he had arranged for someone to pick him up at 9.45 this morning and take him to do his food shopping. He said that if he did not go, he would have no food for the week.
I refused the adjournment because the tenant has had ample time to prepare for the hearing. He asked for an adjournment of at least three weeks, and he was given four weeks. He should have used that time to gather his evidence and provide it to the Tribunal. He did not do so instead, according to him, he went away for a week at the time when he could expect there to be the adjourned hearing, to a place where he was, apparently, uncontactable.
The tenant’s explanation is convenient for him but not for the landlord and not for the Tribunal. I have my doubts about its veracity but even if it is true, it is not an acceptable explanation or a good reason to adjourn the hearing.
As to the tenant’s shopping trip, I suggested that he wait until his ride to do the shopping turned up and, in the meantime, we would proceed with the hearing. The tenant then participated fully in the hearing until 10.30, when it ended, uninterrupted by anyone arriving to pick him up.
I explained to the tenant that he could make his cross claim at any time. I also explained that if he had evidence that was relevant to the landlord’s claims, he could apply for a rehearing and that would be considered on its merits.
The tenant said that he had evidence that he has made rent payments that have not been recorded on the landlord’s rent statement. If he produces compelling evidence of that with a rehearing application, it is likely that he will be granted a rehearing. Relevant Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices. Claims Withdrawn
The landlord withdrew several of her claims seemingly because she was most concerned about the rent arrears, and she did not want to spend time arguing over the disputed claims.
The withdrawn claims were for carpet cleaning – the carpet has been replaced, replacing uplifted carpet at door entrance, repairing water damage in the laundry, removing vinyl laid by the tenant and restoring wooden flooring and repairing a window. Rent
The tenancy began on 22 July 2023 and ended on 6 September 2025. The tenant queried why I should accept the start date of the tenancy, but he did not suggest an alternative start date. There is no written tenancy agreement, but I note that the landlord has produced communications between the parties that suggest that the start date is likely to be correct.
The landlord provided a rent statement to prove the rent claim. The Tribunal does not normally expect to see bank statements unless the rent claim has been disputed. Raising a dispute at the hearing without anything to substantiate it is not sufficient.
The tenant said that the landlord has been in breach of her obligations by not informing him of the arrears at the relevant time. He said that if he had been made aware that arrears were accumulating, he could and would have cleared them.
The landlord does not have an obligation to inform a tenant that arrears are accumulating although it is plainly sensible to do so. The tenant has an obligation to pay rent as it falls due. The tenant was or should have been aware that he was not paying his rent and arrears were therefore accumulating. He cannot blame the landlord for not alerting him to the fact.
In any case, there is evidence that the landlord did chase the tenant for rent arrears during the tenancy.
I accept the landlord’s rent statement and so I have awarded the rent arrears as claimed. Rubbish
The landlord claims her time of 10 hours at $35 per hour for removing the tenant’s rubbish from the premises and dump fees in the sum of $122.22. Dump fee receipts were provided.
The landlord’s photographs show a considerable amount of rubbish left at the premises when the tenancy ended. The landlord’s claim is reasonable and so I have awarded it.
The tenant said that the landlord should have allowed him more time to remove the rubbish. But the tenant ended the tenancy by giving notice and he then sought an earlier termination date which the landlord accepted. If he had wanted more time to remove the rubbish and comply with his other end-of- tenancy obligations, he should have given longer notice. The landlord had no obligation to allow the tenant back onto the premises after the tenancy ended although she did do so.
I also do not accept that the tenant’s brother made it difficult for the tenant to remove his rubbish and belongings by putting garden waste over it. There was no evidence to support that, and it seems inherently unlikely. Cleaning
The landlord claims $350 for her own time spent cleaning the premises after the tenancy ended.
The tenant accepted that the oven was not left reasonably clean but otherwise he said that he left the premises cleaner than it was at the start of the tenancy. I note that the landlord stated in a message that the tenant left the hours “relatively clean”.
The landlord’s photographs did not support a claim of $350 for her time spent cleaning. I accept that the garage needed some cleaning, and I find that a total award of $175 is reasonable for cleaning and so I awarded it. Back Door Lock
The landlord claims $161.86 for the cost of changing the lock on the back door. The tenant did not return the key for the lock at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that the lock was from Musgroves in Christchurch and that the landlord should have sourced a new key for the lock There was some discussion about the whether the lock was new given that Musgroves specialise in architectural salvage.
In any case, where keys are not returned, a landlord is generally entitled to change the lock. I see no reason why this case should be an exception and so I have awarded the sum claimed. I note as well that a landlord is required to act reasonably to keep their loss to a minimum. A landlord is not necessarily required to adopt the cheapest possible option. The landlord acted reasonably in this case in my view. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded her the filing fee and granted her request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343692 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343692 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions