What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396181 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 5396181?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $408.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $270.65 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,657.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,225.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,090.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets 3 X Excess: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $178.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $751.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396181?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377885-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396181 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 5396181?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $408.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $270.65 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,657.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,225.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,090.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets 3 X Excess: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $178.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $751.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396181?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377885-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396181 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396181 — net $26,008.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,657.14	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$751.68	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning: attempted clean/flea treatment	$414.00	Carpet Cleaning: attempted clean/flea treatment
Replace carpets 3 x excess	$1,500.00	Replace carpets 3 x excess
Lock/key replacement	$270.65	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: dog damage to walls, and fences	$4,225.50	Repairs: dog damage to walls, and fences
Cleaning	$408.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$178.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Repairs: casement damage	$325.23	Repairs: casement damage
Repairs: wall/door damage	$3,500.00	Repairs: wall/door damage
Repairs: intentional damage to hardwood floors	$4,090.00	Repairs: intentional damage to hardwood floors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
exemplary damages unlawful use and subletting	$1,100.00	exemplary damages unlawful use and subletting
Net award	$26,008.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$26,008.20

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
Foetusa Kasiano must pay [The landlord/s] (the landlords) $26,008.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. I allowed extra time for the tenant to make an appearance and had the case manager call her. However, the call was unanswered and no attendance was made, therefore I decided to continue in her absence.
The background of the matter is: a. The tenancy was the landlords’ family home, and was in good condition, having been relatively recently renovated before the tenancy began. b. The tenancy began on 12 May 2025. The is evidence that the tenant did not occupy the premises, rather a family member and her children were living there. Soon after it became apparent that more than the maximum number of occupants was living in the premises as another woman and her children had moved in. Shortly after the de facto tenant’s partner moved in, and significantly brought his dog. From mid August 2025, neighbours complained a the out the dog, a large aggressive animal, escaping, barking, and causing issues. c. Rent arrears began to accrue from 19 May 2025. d. A property inspection in September raised concerns about the condition of the property, with rubbish throughout, damage to walls and carpets, and damage caused by the dog. Concerns were raised with the tenant. e. On 28 October 2025, the tenant emailed they wanted to break the lease and would move after 21 days. However, further emails changed the date to 1 December 2025. In these emails the tenant agreed to pay rent until the property was re-tenanted. f. On 3 November 2025, the landlords served 14 day notices on the tenant relating to; unpaid rent, the number of people living in the property, the presence of the dog, and the damage to and uncleanness of the premises. One of the landlords also visited the property on the same day. g. As the tenants had not moved out, the landlords filed this application on 21 November 2025. h. The tenants left the premises on 1 December 2025, and the landlords re- entered on 2 December 2025. On re-entry significant number of issues were found which are discussed below. i. An insurance claim was raised for the damage to the property in a significant amount of work was required to make the premises re- tenantable. j. The premises were re-tenanted on 29 January 2026. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $12,657.14. This is a combination of the arrears which accrued during the tenancy, and the period between 1 December 2025 and 29 January 2026 when the premises were re-tenanted. I note that the tenant in the emails about breaking the lease had agreed to pay rent until the premises were re-tenanted. I also note that the premises could not been re-tenanted earlier due to the large amount of repair work which was necessary for the premises to be in a livable state.
I order that $12,657.14 is paid to the landlord for rent arrears Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy a 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 photos show that the premises were in an untidy and filthy state. Testing for methamphetamine showed that meth had been used, although not at a level where this on its own would have justified cleanup costs. However, the carpets, as well as being in a very grubby stained and damaged state, which is discussed below, were infested with fleas. The landlords thinking that carpets could be cleaned, attempted firstly to deal with the fleas themselves, and secondly engaged a professional pest controller. However, the damage and the extent of the infestation meant that the carpet could not be saved. I award the landlords costs for flea treatment of $414.
The landlords also had to clean up the property including removing personal items which included: a. a damaged barbecue which had been left in the back garden; b. mattresses; c. used sanitary items left in a bag in the bathroom; d. dog faeces and rubbish left in the back garden and under the house; e. children’s toys clothing and personal items were to be left in the bedrooms; f. a French which had been left with no power and was full of decaying food; and g. timber and building materials which were left stacked outside;
The landlords rented a skip and filled it with these items and other rubbish. Three further trailer loads were required to remove the rubbish and left items. The landlords attempted to sell some items on trade me or to donate them to charity stores but were unsuccessful. I award the landlords the costs of $751.68. Locks and keys
the tenant is liable to return keys to the property. This was not done in the landlord was required to replace the locks. The landlord replaced the locks himself, so the costs are simply the purchase of the replacement units. I award $270.65.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord alleges that the tenant caused damage to the premises, including: a. painted walls were dented, scraped, holed, and chipped with a mixture of impact damage, intentional damage and dog damage; b. polished tongue and groove flooring has a mixture of scratches, gouges and holes from dog claws screws having been inserted into the floors, and from items being moved; c. a window casement was damaged by being forced or impacted; d. the gate at the front of the property had been chewed by the dog: e. doors throughout the property were damaged with scrapes, holes, missing handles, broken fixtures, and other damage; f. carpets throughout the premises head holes, stains, and marks; g. the Broadbent box had had cables cut; h. curtains were torn, and pull cords missing off blinds; i. marks, including shoe marks on ceilings.
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 caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess, which is $500 in the present case, or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The supplies for each instance of damage.
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord’s insurer has assessed the damage and paid a claim. One excess has been applied for each instance of wall damage in each instance of carpet damage per room. The evidence suggests that this is a correct approach, and also shows that the damage for which the insurance has been played was more than fair wear and tear. Some damage is excluded this includes the damage caused by the dog, and the intentional damage to walls and floors caused by screws and fixtures being screwed into the walls.
With regard to the carpets comparing the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos there is a mixture of stains holes and other damage. The carpets were new in all but the back bedroom. However, the landlord’s ability to recover is limited to one excess per room. I award $1500.
With regard to the damage to walls, seven excesses were applied. As with the carpets recovery is limited to the excesses, both due to the effect of S 49B (3A) (a) RTA, and that the landlords can only claim damages for the uninsured loss. I award $3500.
The landlords insurance policy excludes damage caused by pets, which is a common feature in landlords indemnity policies. The cost of repairing the damage caused by the dog to walls, floors, and the front fence are uninsured losses which are recoverable in full. I award $4225.50. The same applies for the damage to the hardwood floors in the lounge, which is a mixture of dog damage and intentional damage caused by the tenant screwing blocks of wood into the floor. I award $4090.
The window casement damage was repaired by the landlord and the costs are less than the excess. I award $325.23 Exemplary damages - subletting
[The landlord/s] claim the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On re-entry the landlords discovered personal mail and other items which show that the de facto tenant was not the tenant who signed the lease. This is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. Exemplary damages are intended to dis- incentivise behaviour which Parliament has decided is unlawful. In this instance the parting with possession has resulted in the landlord suffering significant losses. The maximum damages for this are $1500. Practice in the Tribunal is to use a sliding scale for calculating such damages. When a party has been before the Tribunal for the same breach on a number of occasions they can expect a higher level of exemplary damages to be awarded. In this instance this appears to be the first such breach. Therefore, I award $500. Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully. This is due to the fact that drug paraphernalia was found in the premises, and methamphetamine testing shows that myth had been used in the premises. Moreover, it appears that a stolen vehicle had been stored on the property, however this is based on hearsay, which is problematic from an evidentiary point of view.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant have allowed methamphetamine to be used on the premises. I find they have 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. As above this appears to be the first breach of this kind for the tenant. Therefore, I award $600.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396181 — net $26,008.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,657.14	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$751.68	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning: attempted clean/flea treatment	$414.00	Carpet Cleaning: attempted clean/flea treatment
Replace carpets 3 x excess	$1,500.00	Replace carpets 3 x excess
Lock/key replacement	$270.65	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: dog damage to walls, and fences	$4,225.50	Repairs: dog damage to walls, and fences
Cleaning	$408.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$178.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Repairs: casement damage	$325.23	Repairs: casement damage
Repairs: wall/door damage	$3,500.00	Repairs: wall/door damage
Repairs: intentional damage to hardwood floors	$4,090.00	Repairs: intentional damage to hardwood floors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
exemplary damages unlawful use and subletting	$1,100.00	exemplary damages unlawful use and subletting
Net award	$26,008.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$26,008.20

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
Foetusa Kasiano must pay [The landlord/s] (the landlords) $26,008.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. I allowed extra time for the tenant to make an appearance and had the case manager call her. However, the call was unanswered and no attendance was made, therefore I decided to continue in her absence.
The background of the matter is: a. The tenancy was the landlords’ family home, and was in good condition, having been relatively recently renovated before the tenancy began. b. The tenancy began on 12 May 2025. The is evidence that the tenant did not occupy the premises, rather a family member and her children were living there. Soon after it became apparent that more than the maximum number of occupants was living in the premises as another woman and her children had moved in. Shortly after the de facto tenant’s partner moved in, and significantly brought his dog. From mid August 2025, neighbours complained a the out the dog, a large aggressive animal, escaping, barking, and causing issues. c. Rent arrears began to accrue from 19 May 2025. d. A property inspection in September raised concerns about the condition of the property, with rubbish throughout, damage to walls and carpets, and damage caused by the dog. Concerns were raised with the tenant. e. On 28 October 2025, the tenant emailed they wanted to break the lease and would move after 21 days. However, further emails changed the date to 1 December 2025. In these emails the tenant agreed to pay rent until the property was re-tenanted. f. On 3 November 2025, the landlords served 14 day notices on the tenant relating to; unpaid rent, the number of people living in the property, the presence of the dog, and the damage to and uncleanness of the premises. One of the landlords also visited the property on the same day. g. As the tenants had not moved out, the landlords filed this application on 21 November 2025. h. The tenants left the premises on 1 December 2025, and the landlords re- entered on 2 December 2025. On re-entry significant number of issues were found which are discussed below. i. An insurance claim was raised for the damage to the property in a significant amount of work was required to make the premises re- tenantable. j. The premises were re-tenanted on 29 January 2026. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $12,657.14. This is a combination of the arrears which accrued during the tenancy, and the period between 1 December 2025 and 29 January 2026 when the premises were re-tenanted. I note that the tenant in the emails about breaking the lease had agreed to pay rent until the premises were re-tenanted. I also note that the premises could not been re-tenanted earlier due to the large amount of repair work which was necessary for the premises to be in a livable state.
I order that $12,657.14 is paid to the landlord for rent arrears Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy a 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 photos show that the premises were in an untidy and filthy state. Testing for methamphetamine showed that meth had been used, although not at a level where this on its own would have justified cleanup costs. However, the carpets, as well as being in a very grubby stained and damaged state, which is discussed below, were infested with fleas. The landlords thinking that carpets could be cleaned, attempted firstly to deal with the fleas themselves, and secondly engaged a professional pest controller. However, the damage and the extent of the infestation meant that the carpet could not be saved. I award the landlords costs for flea treatment of $414.
The landlords also had to clean up the property including removing personal items which included: a. a damaged barbecue which had been left in the back garden; b. mattresses; c. used sanitary items left in a bag in the bathroom; d. dog faeces and rubbish left in the back garden and under the house; e. children’s toys clothing and personal items were to be left in the bedrooms; f. a French which had been left with no power and was full of decaying food; and g. timber and building materials which were left stacked outside;
The landlords rented a skip and filled it with these items and other rubbish. Three further trailer loads were required to remove the rubbish and left items. The landlords attempted to sell some items on trade me or to donate them to charity stores but were unsuccessful. I award the landlords the costs of $751.68. Locks and keys
the tenant is liable to return keys to the property. This was not done in the landlord was required to replace the locks. The landlord replaced the locks himself, so the costs are simply the purchase of the replacement units. I award $270.65.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord alleges that the tenant caused damage to the premises, including: a. painted walls were dented, scraped, holed, and chipped with a mixture of impact damage, intentional damage and dog damage; b. polished tongue and groove flooring has a mixture of scratches, gouges and holes from dog claws screws having been inserted into the floors, and from items being moved; c. a window casement was damaged by being forced or impacted; d. the gate at the front of the property had been chewed by the dog: e. doors throughout the property were damaged with scrapes, holes, missing handles, broken fixtures, and other damage; f. carpets throughout the premises head holes, stains, and marks; g. the Broadbent box had had cables cut; h. curtains were torn, and pull cords missing off blinds; i. marks, including shoe marks on ceilings.
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 caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess, which is $500 in the present case, or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The supplies for each instance of damage.
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord’s insurer has assessed the damage and paid a claim. One excess has been applied for each instance of wall damage in each instance of carpet damage per room. The evidence suggests that this is a correct approach, and also shows that the damage for which the insurance has been played was more than fair wear and tear. Some damage is excluded this includes the damage caused by the dog, and the intentional damage to walls and floors caused by screws and fixtures being screwed into the walls.
With regard to the carpets comparing the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos there is a mixture of stains holes and other damage. The carpets were new in all but the back bedroom. However, the landlord’s ability to recover is limited to one excess per room. I award $1500.
With regard to the damage to walls, seven excesses were applied. As with the carpets recovery is limited to the excesses, both due to the effect of S 49B (3A) (a) RTA, and that the landlords can only claim damages for the uninsured loss. I award $3500.
The landlords insurance policy excludes damage caused by pets, which is a common feature in landlords indemnity policies. The cost of repairing the damage caused by the dog to walls, floors, and the front fence are uninsured losses which are recoverable in full. I award $4225.50. The same applies for the damage to the hardwood floors in the lounge, which is a mixture of dog damage and intentional damage caused by the tenant screwing blocks of wood into the floor. I award $4090.
The window casement damage was repaired by the landlord and the costs are less than the excess. I award $325.23 Exemplary damages - subletting
[The landlord/s] claim the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On re-entry the landlords discovered personal mail and other items which show that the de facto tenant was not the tenant who signed the lease. This is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. Exemplary damages are intended to dis- incentivise behaviour which Parliament has decided is unlawful. In this instance the parting with possession has resulted in the landlord suffering significant losses. The maximum damages for this are $1500. Practice in the Tribunal is to use a sliding scale for calculating such damages. When a party has been before the Tribunal for the same breach on a number of occasions they can expect a higher level of exemplary damages to be awarded. In this instance this appears to be the first such breach. Therefore, I award $500. Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully. This is due to the fact that drug paraphernalia was found in the premises, and methamphetamine testing shows that myth had been used in the premises. Moreover, it appears that a stolen vehicle had been stored on the property, however this is based on hearsay, which is problematic from an evidentiary point of view.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant have allowed methamphetamine to be used on the premises. I find they have 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. As above this appears to be the first breach of this kind for the tenant. Therefore, I award $600.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396181 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396181 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions