What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406628 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 5406628?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $357.95 awarded to landlord; LPG Gas And Bottles: $865.38 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5388061 D…: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406628?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13374106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406628 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 5406628?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $357.95 awarded to landlord; LPG Gas And Bottles: $865.38 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5388061 D…: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406628?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13374106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406628 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406628 — net $1,529.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5388061 dated 03/12/2025	$28.00	Previous order application 5388061 dated 03/12/2025
Lawns and Garden work	$357.95	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
LPG gas and bottles	$865.38	LPG gas and bottles
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,529.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,529.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details including the address of the premises.
Jorja Maree Margret Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $1,529.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 December 2025 under application 5388061.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. A previous Tenancy Tribunal order has been incorporated into this order.
The tenancy commenced on 17 October 2025. The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 4 December 2025 due to rent arrears.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy. The grass was very long. The length of the grass was in keeping with the landlord’s view that it was likely that the tenant had not mown the lawns since the start of the tenancy.
The length of the lawns created a fire hazard. The landlord was informed by its insurer the lawns had to be mown as soon as possible. The landlord was unable to get a contractor in Turangi to carry out the work needed quickly. I am satisfied that the landlord’s actions in having a Taupo contractor carry out the work was reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly I am also satisfied that the cost claimed, including the travel cost, is reasonable and is awarded.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not response to requests by the landlord for them to collect the furniture and other goods left at the premises after te tenancy ended. I find the amount claimed is reasonable for the work required to carry out the work.
The tenancy agreement included that the landlord would supply 2x full gas bottles at the start of the tenancy and that the tenant was responsible to leave 2 full bottles at the end of the tenancy. Prior to 19 November the tenant advised the landlord that both gas cylinders had been stolen, several days apart. The landlord supplied 2x new gas bottles, one of which they paid to be filled with LPG gas. After the replacement bottles and gas were delivered and before the end of the tenancy the tenant advised that the new gas bottle that had been refilled had been stolen.
The landlord claims the cost of the 2 replacement gas bottles and the cost of filling a gas bottle in November ($683.84). The landlord also claims the cost to fill a gas bottle after the November, which resulted from the second incidence of the loss of a 3 rd gas bottle. This is on the basis that the tenant had not left 2 full gas bottles at the end of the tenancy as required under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord claims this from the tenant on the basis that they are not convinced the bottles and gas were stolen. They went to the premises after the 2 gas bottles were taken in November. Their evidence is that the padlock and chain that secured the gas bottles had no sign of being tampered with. The chain was not cut or damaged in anyway and the padlock was closed and had to be opened with the key. The padlock had not been forced open in any way. Likewise the chain and padlock were in the same condition after the third bottle was taken. The tenant had the key to the padlock throughout the tenancy.
The tenant had not reported the burglary to the police until the landlord asked that she do so. The landlord was convinced there was a more than likely chance that the tenant had disposed of the bottles, rather than them being stolen.
I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the padlock was in good condition and that neither it, nor the chain, were damaged or showed any signs of being forced as a result of any of the episodes when the 3 bottles were removed. In my view I cannot see how the bottles could be removed without the chain and padlock being damaged unless the key was used to open the padlock and the chain. On that basis, and given that the tenant held the key for the padlock, I find the tenant is responsible for the cost to replace the gas bottles and gas.
The amounts ordered are proved. Other matters
Incorporation of the previous order: On 3 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 4 December 2025 and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was awarded to the landlord and exactly covered the rent arrears owing. The filing fee ($28.00) was awarded to the landlord and has not yet been paid. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the landlord has been wholly successful in their claim I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord has applied for suppression. As the landlord has been successful in their application, suppression of the landlord’s name and the identifying details, including the address of the tenancy, is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406628 — net $1,529.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5388061 dated 03/12/2025	$28.00	Previous order application 5388061 dated 03/12/2025
Lawns and Garden work	$357.95	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
LPG gas and bottles	$865.38	LPG gas and bottles
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,529.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,529.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details including the address of the premises.
Jorja Maree Margret Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $1,529.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 December 2025 under application 5388061.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. A previous Tenancy Tribunal order has been incorporated into this order.
The tenancy commenced on 17 October 2025. The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 4 December 2025 due to rent arrears.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy. The grass was very long. The length of the grass was in keeping with the landlord’s view that it was likely that the tenant had not mown the lawns since the start of the tenancy.
The length of the lawns created a fire hazard. The landlord was informed by its insurer the lawns had to be mown as soon as possible. The landlord was unable to get a contractor in Turangi to carry out the work needed quickly. I am satisfied that the landlord’s actions in having a Taupo contractor carry out the work was reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly I am also satisfied that the cost claimed, including the travel cost, is reasonable and is awarded.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not response to requests by the landlord for them to collect the furniture and other goods left at the premises after te tenancy ended. I find the amount claimed is reasonable for the work required to carry out the work.
The tenancy agreement included that the landlord would supply 2x full gas bottles at the start of the tenancy and that the tenant was responsible to leave 2 full bottles at the end of the tenancy. Prior to 19 November the tenant advised the landlord that both gas cylinders had been stolen, several days apart. The landlord supplied 2x new gas bottles, one of which they paid to be filled with LPG gas. After the replacement bottles and gas were delivered and before the end of the tenancy the tenant advised that the new gas bottle that had been refilled had been stolen.
The landlord claims the cost of the 2 replacement gas bottles and the cost of filling a gas bottle in November ($683.84). The landlord also claims the cost to fill a gas bottle after the November, which resulted from the second incidence of the loss of a 3 rd gas bottle. This is on the basis that the tenant had not left 2 full gas bottles at the end of the tenancy as required under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord claims this from the tenant on the basis that they are not convinced the bottles and gas were stolen. They went to the premises after the 2 gas bottles were taken in November. Their evidence is that the padlock and chain that secured the gas bottles had no sign of being tampered with. The chain was not cut or damaged in anyway and the padlock was closed and had to be opened with the key. The padlock had not been forced open in any way. Likewise the chain and padlock were in the same condition after the third bottle was taken. The tenant had the key to the padlock throughout the tenancy.
The tenant had not reported the burglary to the police until the landlord asked that she do so. The landlord was convinced there was a more than likely chance that the tenant had disposed of the bottles, rather than them being stolen.
I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the padlock was in good condition and that neither it, nor the chain, were damaged or showed any signs of being forced as a result of any of the episodes when the 3 bottles were removed. In my view I cannot see how the bottles could be removed without the chain and padlock being damaged unless the key was used to open the padlock and the chain. On that basis, and given that the tenant held the key for the padlock, I find the tenant is responsible for the cost to replace the gas bottles and gas.
The amounts ordered are proved. Other matters
Incorporation of the previous order: On 3 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 4 December 2025 and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was awarded to the landlord and exactly covered the rent arrears owing. The filing fee ($28.00) was awarded to the landlord and has not yet been paid. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the landlord has been wholly successful in their claim I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord has applied for suppression. As the landlord has been successful in their application, suppression of the landlord’s name and the identifying details, including the address of the tenancy, is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406628 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406628 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions