What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377721 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5377721?

Callout Charge: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $362.01 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,064.29 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $368.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377721?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13056432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377721 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5377721?

Callout Charge: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $362.01 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,064.29 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $368.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377721?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13056432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5377721 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377721 — net $2,493.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,064.29	Rent arrears
Callout charge	$86.25	Callout charge
Cleaning	$253.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet	$368.00	Repairs: Carpet
Power	$362.01	Power
Net award	$2,493.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,493.55

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,493.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre must release the bond of $1,640 to the Landlord.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 27 November 2025. The Landlord has now applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties attended the hearing. Rent arrears
The Landlord provided rent records which prove the rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,064.29. The Tenant accepts that she owes that amount. I order that the Tenant must therefore pay $3,064.29 to the Landlord. The callout charges
Under clause 35 of the tenancy agreement, the Tenant agreed to pay the cost of any callout due to a lost or missing key. The Landlord seeks to recover the cost of two such callouts. It says that on 15 May 2025 and about 14 September 2025, the Tenant contacted Matrix Security (the Landlord’s security provider) to ask to be let into the premises. The callout charge was $86.25 for each occasion.
The Tenant agrees that she called Matrix Security in May 2025. She had locked herself out of her apartment. She is therefore liable for that cost.
The Tenant denies calling Matrix Security in September 2025. She says that the call was made by her abusive ex-partner, who did not live with her at that time and was no longer welcome at the premises. She says that Matrix Security nonetheless let her ex-partner into her apartment without her permission.
The Landlord’s representative submitted that Matrix Security has strict policies that it will only always confirm the Tenant’s identity before letting the Tenant into premises. I understood the Landlord to say that Matrix Security would have done so in this case and that it was therefore the Tenant who requested the callout.
Because the Tenant disputes this charge, the Landlord was required to prove that the Tenant, or someone with the Tenant’s permission, called Matrix Security. I am not satisfied that it has done so. The Landlord provided no evidence from Matrix Security as to who made the call, or who the Matrix Security employee then let into the apartment. The fact that the Tenant may not have disputed the callout charge before the hearing is not evidence that she made the call. I therefore find that the Tenant is not liable for the second callout charge. The cleaning charges
The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. 1 She did not do so.
The Landlord has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy, which show that the oven was dirty and required cleaning, wooden shelving units were dirty and required cleaning and the floors needed cleaning.
The Landlord paid $253 to Selltech Ltd to clean the premises. That was a reasonable amount for the work required, and I order that the Tenant is to pay that amount to the Landlord. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(iii). The carpet repair charge
There is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 2 However, a tenant can be liable where: (a)the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and (b)the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 3
Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 4
The carpet in the premises was stained during the tenancy. The Landlord has produced a photograph showing a large red stain. The Tenant agrees that happened during the tenancy. She says her ex-partner spilled Raro on the carpet.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused carelessly. It was not intentional, but I consider that the Tenant’s ex-partner (who was on the premises with her permission at that stage) was nonetheless careless in dropping Raro on the carpet.
The Landlord has paid $368 to Selltech Ltd to replace the damaged carpet. Again, that was a reasonable amount given the damage, and I order that the Tenant is to pay that amount to the Landlord. The power charges
The Tenant was liable for all power charges for the premises. 5 The Landlord seeks to recover $362.01 for power used between May and November 2025. It invoiced the Tenant each month for those charges, but she has not paid the invoices in full.
I must admit I have found the Landlord’s method for calculating and invoicing power charges to be confusing. The Landlord does not rely solely on the invoice provided by the power retailer. Instead, it does its own readings of the meter at the premises and calculates the power charges based on those readings. As a result, there is no direct corelation between the Landlord’s invoices and the power retailer’s invoices.
Nonetheless, having closely assessed the power retailer and Landlord’s invoices, I am satisfied that the Landlord’s invoices are a reasonable reflection of the power 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B 4 Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3) and (4), under which a tenant is liable for all outgoings attributable to their occupation of the premises, including power. used by the Tenant. I also note that, despite having the opportunity to do so, the Tenant has not challenged the power charges.
I therefore find that the Landlord is entitled to recover power charges of $362.01. Filing fee and name suppression
The Landlord has been successful in its claim, so it is entitled to recover the filing fee and to name suppression. I also order that the Tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed. Many of the issues in this case arose from the Tenant being the victim of domestic violence, and I consider it to be in the public interest to suppress her identity.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377721 — net $2,493.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,064.29	Rent arrears
Callout charge	$86.25	Callout charge
Cleaning	$253.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet	$368.00	Repairs: Carpet
Power	$362.01	Power
Net award	$2,493.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,493.55

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,493.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre must release the bond of $1,640 to the Landlord.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 27 November 2025. The Landlord has now applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties attended the hearing. Rent arrears
The Landlord provided rent records which prove the rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,064.29. The Tenant accepts that she owes that amount. I order that the Tenant must therefore pay $3,064.29 to the Landlord. The callout charges
Under clause 35 of the tenancy agreement, the Tenant agreed to pay the cost of any callout due to a lost or missing key. The Landlord seeks to recover the cost of two such callouts. It says that on 15 May 2025 and about 14 September 2025, the Tenant contacted Matrix Security (the Landlord’s security provider) to ask to be let into the premises. The callout charge was $86.25 for each occasion.
The Tenant agrees that she called Matrix Security in May 2025. She had locked herself out of her apartment. She is therefore liable for that cost.
The Tenant denies calling Matrix Security in September 2025. She says that the call was made by her abusive ex-partner, who did not live with her at that time and was no longer welcome at the premises. She says that Matrix Security nonetheless let her ex-partner into her apartment without her permission.
The Landlord’s representative submitted that Matrix Security has strict policies that it will only always confirm the Tenant’s identity before letting the Tenant into premises. I understood the Landlord to say that Matrix Security would have done so in this case and that it was therefore the Tenant who requested the callout.
Because the Tenant disputes this charge, the Landlord was required to prove that the Tenant, or someone with the Tenant’s permission, called Matrix Security. I am not satisfied that it has done so. The Landlord provided no evidence from Matrix Security as to who made the call, or who the Matrix Security employee then let into the apartment. The fact that the Tenant may not have disputed the callout charge before the hearing is not evidence that she made the call. I therefore find that the Tenant is not liable for the second callout charge. The cleaning charges
The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. 1 She did not do so.
The Landlord has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy, which show that the oven was dirty and required cleaning, wooden shelving units were dirty and required cleaning and the floors needed cleaning.
The Landlord paid $253 to Selltech Ltd to clean the premises. That was a reasonable amount for the work required, and I order that the Tenant is to pay that amount to the Landlord. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(iii). The carpet repair charge
There is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 2 However, a tenant can be liable where: (a)the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and (b)the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 3
Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 4
The carpet in the premises was stained during the tenancy. The Landlord has produced a photograph showing a large red stain. The Tenant agrees that happened during the tenancy. She says her ex-partner spilled Raro on the carpet.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused carelessly. It was not intentional, but I consider that the Tenant’s ex-partner (who was on the premises with her permission at that stage) was nonetheless careless in dropping Raro on the carpet.
The Landlord has paid $368 to Selltech Ltd to replace the damaged carpet. Again, that was a reasonable amount given the damage, and I order that the Tenant is to pay that amount to the Landlord. The power charges
The Tenant was liable for all power charges for the premises. 5 The Landlord seeks to recover $362.01 for power used between May and November 2025. It invoiced the Tenant each month for those charges, but she has not paid the invoices in full.
I must admit I have found the Landlord’s method for calculating and invoicing power charges to be confusing. The Landlord does not rely solely on the invoice provided by the power retailer. Instead, it does its own readings of the meter at the premises and calculates the power charges based on those readings. As a result, there is no direct corelation between the Landlord’s invoices and the power retailer’s invoices.
Nonetheless, having closely assessed the power retailer and Landlord’s invoices, I am satisfied that the Landlord’s invoices are a reasonable reflection of the power 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B 4 Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3) and (4), under which a tenant is liable for all outgoings attributable to their occupation of the premises, including power. used by the Tenant. I also note that, despite having the opportunity to do so, the Tenant has not challenged the power charges.
I therefore find that the Landlord is entitled to recover power charges of $362.01. Filing fee and name suppression
The Landlord has been successful in its claim, so it is entitled to recover the filing fee and to name suppression. I also order that the Tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed. Many of the issues in this case arose from the Tenant being the victim of domestic violence, and I consider it to be in the public interest to suppress her identity.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377721 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377721 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions