What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362323 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 5362323?

Cleaning: $488.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.71 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,367.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,374.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362323?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13102324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362323 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 5362323?

Cleaning: $488.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.71 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,367.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,374.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362323?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13102324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362323 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362323 — net $3,279.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,367.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$488.81	Cleaning
Repairs	$48.71	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$1,374.99	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,279.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,279.51

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,279.51 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 June 2025.

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 arrears?

The tenancy ended on 4 June 2025 and the Landlord took possession of the property on 23 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant said that he did not leave the property by choice. He stated that his family was at risk from gangs and that this forced him to leave. The Landlord said that they received the Tenant’s notice to end the tenancy on 19 June 2025.
Section 40(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides the Tenant shall pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided a rent summary showing the amount of rent owed. While the Tenant was facing difficult circumstances, these circumstances are not relevant when determining the rent owing.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord stated there were fly marks on the walls and the property required a heavy duty clean. There was seven cubic metres of rubbish left behind. The Landlord provided an exit inspection report and invoice summary showing a large amount of rubbish, mainly outside the property. They submitted a lot of this appeared to have been rubbish that may have come from in the house. This included clothing, a spa, and mattresses spread across the backyard. Inside the house, there were additional mattresses, clothing, and some furniture left behind.
The Tenant said that after he vacated the property, squatters moved in, the house was ransacked, and gang members left the door open, allowing homeless people to enter the property. He stated that about a quarter of the rubbish outside was his and it was stored at the back. He did not leave any rubbish up the front of the house. it was mainly what was stored in the tin shed that was broken into and trashed.
The Landlord noted there was no evidence of a police report provided by the Tenant to support his claim that third parties ransacked the property. they did support a reduction in the costs for rubbish of twenty percent because of the Tenants inability to take total control over the situation and the challenging time he experienced.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord’s exit inspection showed that a significant amount of rubbish remained at the property and that it was not left in a clean and tidy condition. The exit inspection was conducted on 14 August 2025, at which time the property had been boarded up and the locks changed. Although almost two months had passed between the Tenant vacating the property and the exit inspection, I find it more likely than not that the rubbish was left by the Tenant rather than being dumped by squatters or other people. The rubbish was spread across the backyard, and there was no evidence to support the Tenant’s claim that the property was left clean and tidy or of third parties leaving the rubbish behind. I accept the reduced costs for rubbish removal as submitted by the Landlord.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: hole in the wall. The Tenant was not aware of this hole which appeared to be knee height and caused intentionally. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided to show this was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tenant has sought name suppression, which is supported by the Landlord. There are safety concerns arising from the Tenant’s evidence that gang involvement was the reason he was required to terminate the tenancy. In these circumstances, publication of the Tenant’s name could expose him and his family to further risk. There is no identified public interest in publication, nor is there any conduct that would justify refusing suppression. Name suppression is granted to the Tenant. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362323 — net $3,279.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,367.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$488.81	Cleaning
Repairs	$48.71	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$1,374.99	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,279.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,279.51

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,279.51 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 June 2025.

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 arrears?

The tenancy ended on 4 June 2025 and the Landlord took possession of the property on 23 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant said that he did not leave the property by choice. He stated that his family was at risk from gangs and that this forced him to leave. The Landlord said that they received the Tenant’s notice to end the tenancy on 19 June 2025.
Section 40(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides the Tenant shall pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided a rent summary showing the amount of rent owed. While the Tenant was facing difficult circumstances, these circumstances are not relevant when determining the rent owing.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord stated there were fly marks on the walls and the property required a heavy duty clean. There was seven cubic metres of rubbish left behind. The Landlord provided an exit inspection report and invoice summary showing a large amount of rubbish, mainly outside the property. They submitted a lot of this appeared to have been rubbish that may have come from in the house. This included clothing, a spa, and mattresses spread across the backyard. Inside the house, there were additional mattresses, clothing, and some furniture left behind.
The Tenant said that after he vacated the property, squatters moved in, the house was ransacked, and gang members left the door open, allowing homeless people to enter the property. He stated that about a quarter of the rubbish outside was his and it was stored at the back. He did not leave any rubbish up the front of the house. it was mainly what was stored in the tin shed that was broken into and trashed.
The Landlord noted there was no evidence of a police report provided by the Tenant to support his claim that third parties ransacked the property. they did support a reduction in the costs for rubbish of twenty percent because of the Tenants inability to take total control over the situation and the challenging time he experienced.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord’s exit inspection showed that a significant amount of rubbish remained at the property and that it was not left in a clean and tidy condition. The exit inspection was conducted on 14 August 2025, at which time the property had been boarded up and the locks changed. Although almost two months had passed between the Tenant vacating the property and the exit inspection, I find it more likely than not that the rubbish was left by the Tenant rather than being dumped by squatters or other people. The rubbish was spread across the backyard, and there was no evidence to support the Tenant’s claim that the property was left clean and tidy or of third parties leaving the rubbish behind. I accept the reduced costs for rubbish removal as submitted by the Landlord.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: hole in the wall. The Tenant was not aware of this hole which appeared to be knee height and caused intentionally. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided to show this was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tenant has sought name suppression, which is supported by the Landlord. There are safety concerns arising from the Tenant’s evidence that gang involvement was the reason he was required to terminate the tenancy. In these circumstances, publication of the Tenant’s name could expose him and his family to further risk. There is no identified public interest in publication, nor is there any conduct that would justify refusing suppression. Name suppression is granted to the Tenant. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362323 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362323 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions