What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387046 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5387046?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387046?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387046?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13597562-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387046 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5387046?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387046?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387046?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13597562-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1a, 49A Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387046 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited $4,820.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the rescheduled hearing.
Although the tenant did not appear I am satisfied that he was served with notice of the hearing to his email address for service on the latest tenancy agreement.
On 18/11/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation exemplary damages for abandonment, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Originally the tenancy began on 1/1/2021 and was renewed annually until 31/12/2025 at a weekly rent then of $285.00.
The property consists of two bedrooms with shared facilities and is let on a room by room basis. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Were the premises abandoned?

The landlord submitted that the tenant intentionally abandoned the premises after failing to pay the rent after 15/8/2025.
After giving notice, the landlord entered the premises on 2/10/2025 and found the tenant’s possessions had been removed leaving the premises unclean and damaged.
Due to the state of the room, lack of communication and failure to pay rent the landlord believed the tenant intentionally abandoned the premises.
Under section 61(5) a tenant commits an unlawful act if, without reasonable excuse, they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence is not enough to persuade me that the tenant abandoned the premises without a reasonable excuse.
Other than the fact that the rent was in arrears, which was the case over all the five fixed terms there is simply no evidence about why the tenant vacated.
I find the tenant has not committed an unlawful act.
Exemplary damages are not available to the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

The term of the tenancy ended on 31/12/2025.
The landlord provided rent records to support the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied, just, from the records the amount owing by the tenant as at 31/12/2025.
An award of rent arrears of $5,520.70, less the bond of $800.00 has been made.

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 landlord claimed compensation of $1,006.32 as follows: a. $36.00 for a mattress protector, b. $2.68 for a missing toilet roll holder, c. $3.89 for a sponge for a mop-o-matic, d. $321.25 for cleaning of a mattress and rugs, e. $30.00 for replacement toilet seat, f. $612.50 for moving furniture, cleaning and changing light bulbs.
In support of the claim the landlord provided receipts, an initial property inspection report signed by the tenant on 1/1/2021 and photographs taken in October 2025.
Although the evidence is enough to persuade me, just, that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy I find the tenant is not liable to pay compensation.
The reason for this is that I consider the landlord is estopped from claiming compensation because she re-took possession of the premises before the end of the term, without first obtaining termination of the tenancy.
Under section 61(6) the process for dealing with termination applications under subsection (1) within 10 working days and without a hearing is set out in section 91AA.
While the landlord wished to re-let the premises as soon as possible and therefore mitigate her loss, which she is not obliged to do under section 49(4), I consider it would be inequitable to award both rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and compensation for the period the landlord had possession.
The claim for compensation fails.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation of $234.12 as follows: a. $125.00 for labour and materials to repaint a stained wall, b. $109.12 for replacement of missing shower door wheels.
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 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.
The landlord does not have insurance for the premises.
I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the bedroom wall and shower door.
However, I consider, taking into account the total length of all five tenancies that the damage is fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation fails. Note
For the avoidance of doubt, I consider that the landlord’s interpretation of section 48(7) which she believes allows her the right of entry, without notice, to the shared areas of premises let on a room by room basis, is incorrect.
Under section 48(7) premises does not include land or facilities.
My reason for this is that the definition of facilities in section 2 only includes facilities provided for the non-exclusive use of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises which are the subject of the agreement.
While a landlord is not prevented from knocking on the door or entering the grounds for legitimate purposes, the landlord cannot enter the house without consent to inspect facilities which are part of the premises.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful with the claim.
Suppression is not available as the landlord did not largely succeed with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387046 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1a, 49A Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387046 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1a, 49A Heriot Row, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

Order

Reasons

Were the premises abandoned?

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?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Were the premises abandoned?

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?

Property management