What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350751 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Tauranga Rentals Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 5350751?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350751?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350751 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Tauranga Rentals Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 5350751?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350751?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Cook Street, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5350751 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Tauranga Rentals Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management $1,921.31 immediately, calculated as follows: AwardAmount Rent arrears to 23 Sep 20251,790.00 Water charges73.81 Cleaning (end-of-tenancy)201.25 Carpet stain treatment215.00 Rubbish removal408.57 Lawns and garden weeding75.00 Repairs (kitchen wall; aluminium door/frame)960.83 Advertising (Trade Me)228.85 Termination administration (modest, itemised)300.00 Filing fee28.00 Total awarded4,281.31 Minus bond2,360.00 Tenant to pay1,921.31
Bond Centre to pay Tauranga Rentals Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management the full bond of $2,360.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord 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?

The fixed tenancy was to end July 2026. It ended early, by mutual agreement, on or about 23 September 2025. The Landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy: a. $1,790.00 – rent arrears to 23 September 2025 b. $73.81 – water charges
I award these amounts based on the Landlord’s unchallenged business records.

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.
I have reviewed the pre-tenancy inspection photographs and condition report, together with the exit inspection photographs (I have been assisted by the Landlord’s summary providing direct comparisons of the affected areas, before and after), and find that upon the Tenant vacating the premises: a. general cleaning remained outstanding (wiping down the kitchen benches, stovetop/splashback, cabinetry and sink, cleaning bathrooms and toilet, dusting and removing cobwebs, emptying and washing bins, and vacuuming/mopping all floors and surfaces throughout the house); b. rubbish around and under the house required removal; c. lawns and garden weeding were required (the grounds were not left how they were received at the commencement of the tenancy); and d. stained carpets in both bedrooms and small lounge required specialist stain treatment.
The cleaning ($201.25), carpet treatment ($215.00), rubbish removal ($408.57) and lawns and gardens ($75.00) are reasonable and proven. These are reasonable costs directly arising from the Tenants’ failure to meet the s 40(1)(e) obligations and are 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 Landlord says the following damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: a. heat/bubbling damage and chipping to the kitchen wall by the bench/stove; b. coating damage/scratching to aluminium door and frame; and c. scratching to the front door. (These claims could have been particularised more clearly and I have had to piece together bits of information to work out what was damaged and what was repaired.)
The work order/quote details a plausible remediation system (prep, replaster where bubbled, sealer, then two topcoats Resene Kitchen & Bathroom Semi- Gloss; for aluminium frames: sand/prime/enamel undercoat and two enamel topcoats). Photos corroborate the defects, and the entry report does not show them at commencement.
On the balance of probabilities, I find this damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear.
There is no evidence of intentional damage. I treat it as careless damage under s 49B RTA.
The quoted $960.83 is reasonable and well within four weeks’ rent; it is awarded.

Is the Tenant liable to pay fixed-term break-lease fees?

The fixed term tenancy ended July 2026. After family hardship the Tenants sought an early release. There is extensive messages, backwards and forwards between the Tenants and the property manager, about terminating the tenancy early. The property manager’s messages contemporaneously advised that TradeMe advertising (initial ad) would be required to secure a replacement tenant, and the Tenant’s did not dispute this.
The Tenant also did not dispute the property managers general indication of break fees of $1,000.00, which were represented by the property manager as the Landlord’s actual and reasonable, consequential losses. That does not make them recoverable, however.
The Landlord claimed $1,241.14 for a range of re-letting and administration items (including advertising, admin/travel/showings, processing, drafting/sign-up, condition/chattel reports, bond attendance, credit checks x6, final inspection, and meth-testing).
I can see from the file that the Landlord has put a considerable amount of time into managing this tenancy. I would expect the property manager to be properly remunerated for their time in managing this tenancy, which required considerable care and attention.
However, applying [Suppressed] [2021] NZTT 4287829 and the Supreme Court’s proportionality test in 127 Hobson Street v Honey Bees Preschool [2020] NZSC 53, only costs of ending the fixed term (not letting/on-boarding the next tenancy) are recoverable.
The Landlord’s legitimate interest is not being out of pocket for agreeing to end early. It does not extend to shifting routine re-letting work to the outgoing tenants – not that the Landlord has set out to do that intentionally, they are trying to recoup their time, which is understandable.
Tasks like viewings, application processing or credit checks, new-tenancy paperwork, condition/chattel reports, bond administration, and generic admin or travel are ordinary management overhead that would have occurred at rollover and bringing them forward does not make them compensable.
In the end, the recoverable items form a very narrow list. Incremental cash disbursements caused by the early break; e.g., the actual advertising platform fee (TradeMe) to mitigate vacancy and any genuinely triggered compliance outlay (such as a meth test only if absolutely required now, or shown to replace a rollover test), plus, if established, a modest, itemised allowance for true termination paperwork.
On that basis I confine recovery to necessary termination costs and decline the general re-letting or overhead items as disproportionate under Honey Bees.
On the evidence, I allow advertising actually incurred and used to mitigate loss and secure a replacement tenant: $228.85. Any residual “termination admin” is trimmed to a modest allowance reflecting the limited work properly associated with ending the fixed term: $300.00.
Because the Landlord has substantially succeeded with its application I order that their filing fee be reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350751 — Rent arrears at 3B Cook Street, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350751 — Rent arrears at 3B Cook Street, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

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?

Is the Tenant liable to pay fixed-term break-lease fees?

Property management

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?

Is the Tenant liable to pay fixed-term break-lease fees?

Property management