Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5369423 — Rent arrears at 27 Marne Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410
Decided 25 Mar 2026 · Published 25 Mar 2026 · Application 5369423
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- [Tenant 1]’s name is suppressed.
- The tenants are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for $2,324.85 being made up as follows: a. Rent arrears to 13 October 2025 $1,020.00 b. Rubbish removal$366.85 c. Gardening and spraying$250.00 d. Lock and key replacement$288.00 e. Lawnmower replacement$400.00
- Lochlan Warwood is liable to the landlord for $854.29 being rent arrears to the end of the tenancy.
- The total amount owing by the tenants to the landlord is $3,179.14 to be paid by the Bond Centre paying the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agents For Philip Mansfield immediately and Lochlan Warwood being liable for the balance owing of $459.14.
- Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agents For Philip Mansfield are liable to Lochlan Warwood for $250.00 being exemplary damages which is to be deducted from the $459.14 owing by Lochlan Warwood leaving a balance owing by Lochlan Warwood of $209.14 to the landlord which is to be paid immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
- Lochlan Warwood has applied for exemplary damages because the landlord changed the lock on the front door without his consent by changing the code.
How much is owed for rent?
- The parties agreed that one of the tenant’s ([Tenant 1]) tenancy ended on 13 October 2025 and that Lochlan Warwood’s tenancy continued to 12 November 2025. The tenants are jointly and severally liable for the amount owing to 13 October 2025 and Lochlan Warwood is liable for the amount owing to the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amounts owing at the end of the relevant periods.
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 (“RTA”).
- The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant left behind several items outside the property and provided an invoice from a third party for the work completed.
- As it was the joint responsibility of the tenants to remove these items, they are jointly and severally liable for the reasonable costs claimed. The amount ordered is proven.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence that the property required weeding and gardening at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that this was required to leave the premises reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy. It does not accept the amount claimed which equated to two eight-hour days at $70.00 per hour. Nor was a receipt or proof the amount claimed to transport and dispose of the green waste was provided.
- Having considered invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for work of this type in this area, it considers a sum of $250.00 an appropriate amount of compensation.
- The Tribunal does not accept that the weeds arose just during the last month of the tenancy as asserted by S. It is fair that the tenants have joint and several liability for the amount awarded as the weeds grew throughout the period of the tenancy.
- The tenant did not return all the keys. How that came to occur is not the concern of the Tribunal or the landlord. For security reasons and bearing in mind the landlord’s obligations under section 46(1) RTA to provide the premises in a secure condition to a new tenant, it is appropriate that the tenants are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for the reasonable sum claimed.
- The parties agreed that a reasonably modern lawnmower was provided by the landlord for the tenant’s use and that it went missing during the tenancy. Once again, it is neither the Tribunal’s nor the landlord’s concern how the lawnmower went missing. The tenants are jointly and severally liable for the loss.
- The landlord was unable to provide evidence of how old the mower was, but it is clear from the photographic evidence that it was less than four years old and in good condition. The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. Having considered the information provided by both parties of the replacement cost for a new mower, the Tribunal has awarded a sum to reflect the fact that the lawn mower was not new and that the Inland Revenue Department’s IR 265 indicates that a lawn mower has an estimated life of four years.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Lochlan’s claim for exemplary damages
- On the last day of the tenancy, Lochlan gave evidence that he went to the premises to attend to some final matters and found that the code for the front door lock had been changed. He could not access the property as the only other entrance was locked by deadlocks accessible only from inside.
- The landlord accepted that the lock code was changed by the owner on the last day of the tenancy.
- A landlord may not alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Just as the tenant was liable for rent to the end of the last day of the tenancy, he was entitled to have access to the premises for the whole of that last day. The landlord/owner has altered the lock without the tenant’s consent during the tenancy and has committed an unlawful 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.
- The landlord altered the lock intentionally. The effect was to deprive Lochlan of access to the premises and not allow him a final opportunity to remove any further items inside. It is in the public interest that landlords be dissuaded from unilaterally altering locks and depriving tenants of their right to access their home.
- In this case, the tenancy was almost at an end. Changing the code did not deprive Lochlan of a place to sleep or to enjoy the last evening in his home. It was an inconvenience and no doubt frustrating. It is therefore appropriate to award Lochlan exemplary damages at the lower end of the amount available. Tenants’ liability and suppression
- Because of the manner in which [Tenant 1]’s tenancy ended, the Tribunal must suppress her name.
- This Order records the apportionment of liability for the sums awarded against the tenants as both are liable for some amounts, while Lochlan is solely liable for rent during his sole occupation. As only Lochlan was affected by the changing of the door code and made an application for exemplary damages, it is appropriate that the exemplary damages be awarded to him.