What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5385870 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 5385870?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.68 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $503.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $11.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,224.28 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $342.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385870?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13441830-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5385870 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 5385870?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.68 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $503.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $11.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,224.28 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $342.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385870?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13441830-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5385870 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5385870 — net $2,868.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$25.68	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50	Carpet Cleaning
Garage door remote replacement	$503.70	Garage door remote replacement
Repairs: Dishwasher	$342.99	Repairs: Dishwasher
Lock/key replacement	$11.05	Lock/key replacement
Rent arrears to 24 August 2025	$4,224.28	Rent arrears to 24 August 2025
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,868.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,868.20

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5385870 — net $2,868.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$25.68	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50	Carpet Cleaning
Garage door remote replacement	$503.70	Garage door remote replacement
Repairs: Dishwasher	$342.99	Repairs: Dishwasher
Lock/key replacement	$11.05	Lock/key replacement
Rent arrears to 24 August 2025	$4,224.28	Rent arrears to 24 August 2025
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,868.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,868.20

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,868.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 14 April 2026. No representative of the tenant’s estate attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 16 September 2023. The tenant fell into rent arrears in June 2025, which was unusual. The landlord was unable to contact the tenant and became concerned for their wellbeing. Therefore, they called the Police and asked them to complete a welfare check. The Police attended the premises and unfortunately found the tenant deceased.
I am told the tenant has no family in New Zealand and there has been difficulty ascertaining who the administrator or executor of the tenant’s estate is. In an order dated 19 February 2026, the Tribunal outlined certain steps to be taken to achieve service on the tenant’s estate. Those steps have occurred and service on the tenant’s estate is deemed to have occurred.
The landlord seeks an order for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The law

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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 2 Therefore, the tenant’s obligations relate to the inside and outside of the premises.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 Cleaning and carpet cleaning
The landlord gave evidence the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims no attempt to vacuum or mop the floors was made. The landlord also claims the kitchen and bathroom were not clean. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. One photograph shows some debris on the carpet. Another photograph shows the toilet in a very unclean condition. The landlord gave evidence the carpet had not been professionally cleaned, which the landlord submits was required given the circumstances surrounding the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. I agree with the landlord that professional cleaning of the carpets was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This is because the tenant died in the premises and their body was not discovered immediately.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Carpet cleaning: $172.50 b. Cleaning: $25.68
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Garage door remote
The landlord gave evidence that a garage door remote was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end. The tenancy agreement lists “garage door opener” as one of the chattels provided by the landlord. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant was provided with a garage door remote at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the remote was not returned at the end.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $503.70 to replace the remote. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Microwave oven
The landlord claims a Gaggenau combination microwave/oven was provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end.
The tenancy agreement does not list a microwave oven as a chattel provided by the landlord. No photographs of the microwave oven in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. No invoice for the purchase of the microwave oven was submitted, nor was an invoice for the purchase of a replacement microwave oven submitted either.
There is insufficient evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord provided a microwave oven to the tenant as a chattel at the beginning of the tenancy. For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed. Dishwasher remote
The landlord gave evidence the dishwasher was in good working condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims a remote for the dishwasher was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end.
The dishwasher remote is not recorded as a chattel on the tenancy agreement however, a photograph of the remote taken during the tenancy was submitted. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord provided the tenant with a remote for the dishwasher at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence the dishwasher is controlled by the remote, which was missing at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence and find the remote was not returned at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $342.99 from Fisher & Paykel who had to visit the premises and reset the dishwasher with a new remote. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Keys
The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return one set of keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $11.05 to replace the keys is granted. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Lightbulbs and doorbell batteries
The landlord claims some lightbulbs did not work at the end of the tenancy and needed to be replaced. They also claim the batteries for the doorbell needed to be replaced.
A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 8 Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 9
Overtime, it is foreseeable that lightbulbs and doorbell batteries may run out and require replacement due to ordinary use. This tenancy was approximately two years long. No evidence was submitted by the landlord to suggest unreasonable use of the lights or doorbell by the tenant. For these reasons, I find the fact that some lightbulbs and the doorbell batteries were flat at the end of the tenancy to be the result of fair wear and tear. A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $25.85 to replace the lightbulbs and $13.00 to replace the doorbell batteries is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law
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 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i). 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 10
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 11 Glass
The Police broke glass panes in the back door to gain access to the premises when they completed the welfare check. The landlord’s insurer accepted the landlord’s claim to repair the glass panes. The landlord paid an excess of $500.00. The landlord seeks to recover this cost, as well as $180.00, which represents the shortfall between the insurer’s cash settlement and actual repair costs for the glass.
The tenant is only responsible for damage caused by them personally or people at the premises with their permission. The Police were not at the premises with the tenant’s permission. They were at the premises with the landlord’s permission. Therefore, the tenant is not responsible for the Police’s actions and any resulting damage to the glass panes in the back door.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation totalling $680.00 is dismissed. Curtains
The landlord claims the curtains were damaged during the tenancy. They submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show some blue marks on the curtains. The landlord claims these marks were not present at the beginning of the tenancy however, no photographs of the curtains taken at the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. In the absence of photographs of the curtains taken at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the marks occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven that the curtains were damaged during the tenancy, on the balance of probabilities. For this reason, their claim for compensation of $177.94 to replace the curtains is dismissed.
All of the amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 11 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

A tenancy ends following the death of a sole tenant where the landlord gives the personal representative of the tenant or the tenant’s next of kin, 21 days’ written notice to vacate the premises. 12
Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated, their obligation to pay rent continues until they stop occupying the premises. 13
The term “tenant” includes “the personal representative of a deceased tenant.” 14 Analysis
The landlord sent an email to the tenant’s sister on 20 July 2025 giving 21 days’ notice to vacate the premises. 10 August 2025 is the date that is 21 days after 20 July 2025. Therefore, I find the tenancy ended on 10 August 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant’s representatives, being an auctioneer instructed by the lawyer for the tenant’s estate, did not return possession of the premises to the landlord until 24 August 2025. The landlord claims they were denied access to the premises until an auction selling the tenant’s possessions had been completed. The landlord gave evidence possession was returned to them on 24 August 2025.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence. I find the lawyer acting for the tenant’s estate and the auctioneer were personal representatives of the deceased tenant at the time. I find they ceased to occupy the premises on 24 August 2025 when possession was returned to the landlord. Therefore, rent arrears must be calculated up to this date.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears up to 24 August 2025 are $5,664.28. The landlord’s insurer has paid $1,940.00 towards the arrears however, they have also charged the landlord an excess of $500.00. The tenant must bear the cost of the excess, because it is a cost the landlord incurred when filing a claim with their insurer due the tenant’s breach. This means that the total amount paid by the insurer towards the arrears is $1,440.00. I must 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50A(1)(b). 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60(1). 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. deduct this figure from the rent arrears of $5,664.28, which brings the total amount to $4,224.28.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,224,28. Should the tenant pay the landlord $2,352.78 in lost rent from 25 August 2025 – 20 September 2025?
The landlord claims it took until 20 September 2025 for the premises to be returned to a state where they could be advertised for rent. The landlord claims the delay between 25 August 2025 – 20 September 2025, contributed to a delay in advertising the premises for rent, which in turn contributed to a delay in re- tenanting the premises. The landlord gave evidence the premises were re- tenanted at the end of October 2025.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, I am not convinced the breaches committed by the tenant contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises for the following reasons: a. The tenant is not responsible for the damage to the back door. Any delay in repairing the glass panes is not attributable to the tenant. b. The nature and extent of the breaches committed by the tenant fall towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. Whilst cleaning and carpet cleaning were required, these things can generally be completed within a short timeframe. Similarly, replacing the garage door remote and fixing the dishwasher are not matters that take a significant amount of time. c. There is usually an inevitable delay in re-tenanting premises after a tenancy has ended. This is because it takes time to advertise the premises and vet prospective tenants. In some cases, tenants also need to give 21 days’ notice to end their current tenancy before beginning a new one.
For all of these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that any delay in re-tenanting the premises is able to be attributed to the tenant’s breaches.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $2,352.78 in lost rent is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I have granted their request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
This case discusses sensitive, personal information regarding the tenant and the circumstances of their death. Publication of their name might cause unnecessary distress or harm to their family. There is little public interest in publication, because the facts of the case can be understood without publishing the tenant’s name. For obvious reasons, there is no interest in prospective landlords knowing the rental history of the tenant. Considering all of these matters, I find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public interest in publication. For this reason, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385870 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385870 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions