What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373350 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 5373350?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $959.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $309.97 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,595.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373350?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12882409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373350 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 5373350?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $959.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $309.97 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,595.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373350?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12882409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5373350 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373350 — net $1,032.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 September 2025	$2,595.71	Rent arrears to 30 September 2025
Lock/key replacement	$959.14	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Repairs to hole in wall	$309.97	Repairs to hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,032.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,032.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to New Zealand Property Managers Limited as agents for Frank Brown immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay New Zealand Property Managers Limited as agents Ffor Frank Brown $1,004.82 immediately:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The landlord was represented by Ms Merrilees.
The named tenant is an employee of a company that employs seasonal workers and provides accommodation for those workers. The tenancy agreement records his name personally as the tenant but he says that he was acting as agent for the company and has never even been to the property.
The tenant has applied for refund of his bond.
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 tenancy began on 9 December 2024 and was a fixed term ending on 9 July 2025.
The landlord wrote to the tenant on 21 May 2025 asking if he wished to renew the fixed term. The tenant said that he no longer needed the property so the parties agreed that the tenancy would end on 9 July 2025. The landlord advertised the property for rent and arranged for an inspection to occur on the last day.
However, on the last day of the tenancy the tenant contacted the landlord to ask if they could extend the tenancy.
The tenant said that they extended the tenancy to 9 September 2025 and are liable for rent up to that day, although the company’s employees vacated earlier on 31 August 2025. They accept that rent of $790 is owing up to 9 September 2025.
The landlord said that they tried to accommodate the tenant’s request for an extension and had discussions about extending the term but in the end no date was agreed. They said that the tenant then asked if the tenancy could become periodic, and that they contacted the owner, but that no final position was reached.
They say that they only received notice on 10 September 202 which is the date that the tenant contacted them to seek the refund of the bond. The landlord said that they had no prior warning and so treated this communication as 21 days’ notice. They therefore seek rent to 30 September 2025. They produced a rent summary showing that rent of $2,595.71 is owing to that date.
Section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out what happens at the end of a fixed term tenancy as follows:
I have carefully analysed the email communication between the parties. In my view there was an initial discussion about extending the tenancy but various time frames were referred to including dates and time frames.
As a new fixed term was not agreed the tenancy became periodic as a matter of law. The tenants were therefore required to give 21 days’ notice.
I consider that the landlord was correct to accept the tenant’s notification that they had moved out as notice, and so rent is owing up to 30 September 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved.

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.
It is accepted that the tenant did not return the keys. The tenant had thought that the employees had left the keys inside the tenancy property but this was not the case.
The tenant accepted that the landlord had incurred the sum of $959.14 changing the locks (as proved by invoice).
This amount is proved.
The landlord also said that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and claimed the sum of $520 for cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal.
After reviewing the photos I am satisfied that some items were left behind, the lawns needed mowing and some additional cleaning was required. However tenants do need to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. They only need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. It is expected that landlords will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies.
I consider that the sum of $300.00 represents the portion of the invoice required to return the property to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard.
This claim is proved in part.

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.
The landlord proved that there was a hole in the wall in the upstairs hallway that had not been present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord claimed the sum of $309.97 as proved by invoice.
The tenant accepted this amount. Filing fee and name suppression
Because New Zealand Property Managers Limited As Agents For Frank Brown has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has not been the successful party but I consider that it is appropriate to make an order for name suppression as the tenant has contracted personally when in fact the Tenancy Agreement should have been made in the name of his employer. There is no public interest in publication of his name as this order does not reflect on him personally.
The tenant should ensure that any future tenancies record the tenant as the employer company.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373350 — net $1,032.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 September 2025	$2,595.71	Rent arrears to 30 September 2025
Lock/key replacement	$959.14	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Repairs to hole in wall	$309.97	Repairs to hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,032.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,032.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to New Zealand Property Managers Limited as agents for Frank Brown immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay New Zealand Property Managers Limited as agents Ffor Frank Brown $1,004.82 immediately:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The landlord was represented by Ms Merrilees.
The named tenant is an employee of a company that employs seasonal workers and provides accommodation for those workers. The tenancy agreement records his name personally as the tenant but he says that he was acting as agent for the company and has never even been to the property.
The tenant has applied for refund of his bond.
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 tenancy began on 9 December 2024 and was a fixed term ending on 9 July 2025.
The landlord wrote to the tenant on 21 May 2025 asking if he wished to renew the fixed term. The tenant said that he no longer needed the property so the parties agreed that the tenancy would end on 9 July 2025. The landlord advertised the property for rent and arranged for an inspection to occur on the last day.
However, on the last day of the tenancy the tenant contacted the landlord to ask if they could extend the tenancy.
The tenant said that they extended the tenancy to 9 September 2025 and are liable for rent up to that day, although the company’s employees vacated earlier on 31 August 2025. They accept that rent of $790 is owing up to 9 September 2025.
The landlord said that they tried to accommodate the tenant’s request for an extension and had discussions about extending the term but in the end no date was agreed. They said that the tenant then asked if the tenancy could become periodic, and that they contacted the owner, but that no final position was reached.
They say that they only received notice on 10 September 202 which is the date that the tenant contacted them to seek the refund of the bond. The landlord said that they had no prior warning and so treated this communication as 21 days’ notice. They therefore seek rent to 30 September 2025. They produced a rent summary showing that rent of $2,595.71 is owing to that date.
Section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out what happens at the end of a fixed term tenancy as follows:
I have carefully analysed the email communication between the parties. In my view there was an initial discussion about extending the tenancy but various time frames were referred to including dates and time frames.
As a new fixed term was not agreed the tenancy became periodic as a matter of law. The tenants were therefore required to give 21 days’ notice.
I consider that the landlord was correct to accept the tenant’s notification that they had moved out as notice, and so rent is owing up to 30 September 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved.

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.
It is accepted that the tenant did not return the keys. The tenant had thought that the employees had left the keys inside the tenancy property but this was not the case.
The tenant accepted that the landlord had incurred the sum of $959.14 changing the locks (as proved by invoice).
This amount is proved.
The landlord also said that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and claimed the sum of $520 for cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal.
After reviewing the photos I am satisfied that some items were left behind, the lawns needed mowing and some additional cleaning was required. However tenants do need to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. They only need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. It is expected that landlords will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies.
I consider that the sum of $300.00 represents the portion of the invoice required to return the property to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard.
This claim is proved in part.

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.
The landlord proved that there was a hole in the wall in the upstairs hallway that had not been present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord claimed the sum of $309.97 as proved by invoice.
The tenant accepted this amount. Filing fee and name suppression
Because New Zealand Property Managers Limited As Agents For Frank Brown has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has not been the successful party but I consider that it is appropriate to make an order for name suppression as the tenant has contracted personally when in fact the Tenancy Agreement should have been made in the name of his employer. There is no public interest in publication of his name as this order does not reflect on him personally.
The tenant should ensure that any future tenancies record the tenant as the employer company.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373350 — Rent arrears at 16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373350 — Rent arrears at 16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

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