What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396389 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 5396389?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $411.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396389?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13293946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396389 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 5396389?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $411.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396389?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13293946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396389 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396389 — net $439.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: 28 March to 22 August 2025 (discounted by 1/8 th	$411.14	Water rates: 28 March to 22 August 2025 (discounted by 1/8 th
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$439.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$439.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396389 — net $439.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: 28 March to 22 August 2025 (discounted by 1/8 th	$411.14	Water rates: 28 March to 22 August 2025 (discounted by 1/8 th
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$439.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$439.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant] owes [The landlord] $439.14 (the debt), calculated as shown in table below.

[The tenant] must repay the debt as follows: a. By 5 monthly payments of $80.00 to be made on the following dates: i. Monday 6 April 2026; ii. Monday 4 May 2026; iii. Monday 8 June 2026; iv. Monday 6 July 2026; v. Monday 3 August 2026 ; and b. A final payment of $11.14, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Monday 7 September 2026; and c. Where the tenant’s financial circumstances improve, the tenant has agreed to contact the landlord to make arrangements to increase the monthly amounts payable or to make lump sum payments. d. If [The tenant] fails to pay the debt repayments within 2 working days of the due dates, the full amount of the remaining debt will fall due immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 March 2026.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 August 2026. The landlord provided water rates invoices on 26 August 2025, which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that she would have paid the water rates each month, had she received the water rates bills, but she did not. She stated that her receipt of the water rates bills was sporadic throughout the tenancy and that in the last five months of the tenancy she did not receive a water rates bill, so assumed that she had overpaid in prior months and must be in credit. She was shocked to receive such a large final water rates bill on 26 August 2025, after her tenancy had ended.
The tenant raised her concern about receiving a $469.87 bill after the tenancy ended, when she did not have the financial capacity to pay such a large bill in one lump sum. She queries the legality of the landlord’s tardiness in providing the bills to her for 5 months.
The landlord confirmed it had been tardy in providing the water bills to the tenant for this five-month period, stated it apologised to the tenant for this administrative error and confirmed it was open to letting the tenant pay the sum off in instalments.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states; Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
A landlord must provide tenants with regular invoices for their consumption of any utilities in a timely manner to ensure both parties are spared the cost, stress and inconvenience of having to come to the Tribunal to try to recover such debts that would not have been incurred, but for the landlord’s failure to provide regular invoices.
I am satisfied the property management company breached it obligation to provide regular and timely water bills to the tenant and in doing so have created an unnecessary debt for the owners of the premise and the tenant, that the tenant could have paid at the time the debt was incurred if she had been given invoices at the same time as the bills were received by it. It could have mitigated any potential loss by issuing the invoices in a timelier manner.
I find that it would be just in all the circumstances to award the tenant a rebate on the water rates debt of $58.73, being one eighth of the total debt, as compensation for the late receipt of the water rates bills from March to August 2025. The property management company has sat on its laurels for five months and failed to take steps that would have mitigated the owner’s loss from the tenant’s breach of her statutory obligations to pay for her water consumption.
The tenant agreed to pay the remaining $411.14 debt back in $80.00 per month instalments.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord also claims the tenant did not return the garage remote.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The landlord provided entry and inspection photographs that show the house was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. It was not in perfect condition and may have required some additional cleaning to bring it to a condition where it could be re-let or sold. Additionally, the landlord could not point the Tribunal to any specific photographs that proved, on the balance of probability, the premise was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim and because it has failed to provide evidence that proves the tenant’s liability for this cost as the exit inspection photographs show the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.
There was much discussion about the garage remote control. The landlord says the tenant signed a document at the beginning of the tenancy acknowledging receipt of the keys and the garage remote control pictured.
The tenant denies ever receiving the garage remote and says the receptionist got her to sign the document before receiving the keys or the remote and that after she signed the document the receptionist informed the tenant the remote was missing and that she would contact the property manager and get her to locate it and bring it to the tenant. Further, the tenant says that the property manager [property manager name suppressed] confirmed to her in a phone call that the receptionist had told her about the issue with the remote and she would check with the owners and come back to the tenant. The tenant says the property manager never came back to her. Additionally, the tenant claims that she then raised the issue about the remote at every routine property inspection and in calls with the property manager. The first time this issue was raised in writing by the tenant was on 16 October 2025, after the tenancy had ended. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The tenant is adamant she never received the garage remote and did not agree to settle matters at mediation because she felt so strongly about this claim.
The landlord relies solely on what it says are “its usual administrative processes” and the fact the tenant did not raise her concerns in writing with the property manager during the tenancy. I find the tenant’s evidence and her conviction to get justice on this one issue to be compelling. The evidence suggests that the property management company did have some issues with its usual administrative procedures/processes not being adhered too, such as the regular provision of water ates invoices to tenants. This means there could have also been an administrative error when getting the tenant to sign the key/remote acceptance form that did not have the keys and remote on it as pictured. The evidence also supports the tenant’s claim that she communicated with the property manager via telephone calls and during the regular routine property inspections and did not resort to text and email often.
I am satisfied that more likely than not, there was an administrative error and that the tenant signed a form that did not have the keys and remote on it and that I cannot rely on the tenant having received the garage remote in the pictured position. Once the tenant was informed the receptionist could not locate the remote, I accept she did not make an amendment to the acknowledgement form, as she believed in good faith the property manager would find and deliver it to her. After a while, the tenant says she got used to having to go inside and use the internal button to access the garage, so gave up following up the property manager. The landlord did not provide a statement from the receptionist, that allegedly gave the tenant the remote control, nor a statement from the property manager at that time to say whether she and the tenant had discussed this issue.
I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant received the garage remote control for the reasons set out above and dismiss the claim accordingly. Reimbursement of application fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim I dismiss its claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not substantially or wholly succeeded in his proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am also using the Tribunal’s discretion to grant the tenants name suppression, as their tenancy will end in 90 days and publication of their names and identifying details may make it difficult for them to obtain a new tenancy.
Non-publication of the landlord and the tenant’s names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396389 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396389 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions