What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409048 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 5409048?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Door: $72.65 awarded to landlord; Power: $483.12 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409048?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13309772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409048 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 5409048?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Door: $72.65 awarded to landlord; Power: $483.12 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409048?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13309772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409048 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409048 — net $623.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 November 2025	$1,840.00		Rent arrears to 17 November 2025
Power	$483.12		Power
Cleaning	$100.00		The claim for $100.00 of cleaning is proven, and is fair and reasonable. Paint door
Paint door	$72.65		Paint door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond released to landlord		$1,900.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$2,523.77	$1,900.00
Net award	$623.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$623.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 19 December 2023 and ended on 17 November 2025.
The landlords’ application seeks rent and power arrears, cleaning, and repair costs.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to rodents and mould.
The hearing took place by video conference on 17 March 2026. [The landlord/s] attended the hearing.
The day before the hearing, [The tenant/s] contacted the Tribunal and advised that she would not be able to attend the hearing due to work commitments. [The tenant/s] sought an adjournment if possible, but also stated “I’m happy for the hearing to go ahead if necessary, I will ensure my information is sent through if it does”. [The tenant/s] sent through some additional information on the morning of 17 March.
At the beginning of the hearing [The tenant/s] did not join by video link. I attempted to call her on mobile to confirm my intention to proceed with the hearing. There was no answer.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] provided information setting out her position on the issues in dispute. [The tenant/s] written information mentions her severe anxiety, which is exacerbated by interactions with the landlord. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that she is comfortable with the hearing continuing in her absence. Landlord application Rent and power
The original agreement was rent of $475 per week including power.
The property has two tenanted dwellings, the cottage that [The tenant/s] rented, and a ‘homestay’.
[The landlord/s] said that they ceased the homestay side of the business, which meant that the only power consumed was by the cottage.
[The landlord/s] said that she sent [The tenant/s] an email proposing a change of the agreement, whereby the rent would reduce by $20 per week and [The tenant/s] would begin paying for power.
The rent record shows that [The tenant/s] reduced her rent payments to $455 per week from the week beginning 4 March 2025, and she continued to pay $455 per week until the end of the tenancy.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. Parties to a contract can agree to vary its terms.
[The tenant/s] was entitled to reject [The landlord/s] suggested variation, but the reduction of her weekly rent payment shows that she accepted it. Variations to a tenancy agreement must be in writing 1 , but an email meets this requirement.
Tenants must pay for outgoings that they consume during the tenancy, including power. 2
Therefore, I find that the agreement was varied in March 2025. The rent was reduced from $475 per week to $455 per week. [The tenant/s] was liable to pay for power in addition to the rent.
The rent record shows that [The tenant/s] missed four rent payments during the tenancy – one in July 2024 ($475) and three near the end of the tenancy. The proven rent arrears total $1,840.00.
The proven power arrears total $483.12 per the table below. [The landlord/s] provided copies of the [power company] invoices to evidence these amounts. [The landlord/s] charged [The tenant/s] half of the fixed daily charge on the basis that the power was available to the cottage and the homestay (albeit that the homestay was vacant from March onwards). I agree that this is fair and reasonable.
In terms of the invoice for the final period, my calculation differs slightly from [The landlord/s]. [The landlord/s] figure is $35.97. I agree that [The tenant/s] should pay the consumption charges on that invoice and a pro rata of the fixed charges, based on 10 days of the 29. The difference in our figures is that for the Network Services Fixed Daily charge, [The landlord/s] has calculated 10 days at $0.75c per day totalling $7.50. Per the previous invoices, as discussed above, [The tenant/s] should only pay half of this cost, which is $3.75. Period Amount
7.25 – 8.8.25$154.99
8.25 – 6.9.25$107.15
9.25 – 6.10.25$80.10
10.25 – 7.11.25$107.05
11.25 – 17.11.25$33.83 Total:$483.12 Cleaning 1 Section 13B(1) RTA 2 Section 39(3) RTA
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3
[The landlord/s] provided a selection of photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.
Some parts of the property fell short of the reasonably clean and tidy standard, in particular the oven.
The claim for $100.00 of cleaning is proven, and is fair and reasonable. Paint door
There was some minor damage to a door during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] attempted to repair it, but the paint that she used was a poor match.
The claim seeks $72.65 to re-paint the door.
The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable. Other damage
[The landlord/s] mentioned that there was other damage to the premises that she considered [The tenant/s] was responsible for.
[The landlord/s] does not have details of the cost of repair.
The tenancy ended four months ago.
I am unable to make orders for unproven repair costs. Tenant application Introduction
Part of [The tenant/s] application relates to the power / rent issue discussed above.
The parts of her application that potentially relate to legal duties owed by landlords are: a. Mice; and b. Mould Mice 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
[The tenant/s] states that the premises were “infested with mice”. She states that she told [The landlord/s] about this problem but [The landlord/s] “would brush me off and told me to buy baits and traps”.
[The landlord/s] said that the premises are in the bush so there are mice around. She said that there was no evidence of an ‘infestation’ or of damage caused by mice.
Pests are part of the environment. The extent of pests at a property varies significantly depending on its location and setting.
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 4 Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 5
Day to day management of ‘normal’ pests falls to the tenant. In terms of mice, this can mean putting out a few traps.
If a property has a severe infestation, landlords must become involved.
In this instance: a. The property is in the bush, so it is vulnerable to pests such as mice and spiders. b. It is not proven that there were any unaddressed maintenance issues that caused / contributed to the mouse problem. c. There is not sufficient evidence to show that [The tenant/s] experienced a severe infestation of mice. Mould
[The tenant/s] states that there was “constant mold” and that “my son and I were sick majority of the time being in the house”.
Again, there are many environmental factors that can cause / contribute to the presence of mould.
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises and to meet the healthy homes standards. 6
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
[The tenant/s] did not provide any evidence to support her argument that the premises were mouldy.
There is no evidence to show that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard. 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA
The claim is not proven. Outcome, filing fee, bond, name suppression
The bond was released to the landlords at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is to pay the landlords $623.77 per the calculation above.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlords were successful in their application and I must award the landlords the filing fee of $28.00. 7
The landlords sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlords were “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 8
[The tenant/s] did not indicate that she sought name suppression in her application. The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to grant name suppression “on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. 9
This decision includes some private information about [The tenant/s]. The issues addressed in the decision are relatively mundane and of limited public interest. Having regard to those factors my finding is that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409048 — net $623.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 November 2025	$1,840.00		Rent arrears to 17 November 2025
Power	$483.12		Power
Cleaning	$100.00		The claim for $100.00 of cleaning is proven, and is fair and reasonable. Paint door
Paint door	$72.65		Paint door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond released to landlord		$1,900.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$2,523.77	$1,900.00
Net award	$623.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$623.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 19 December 2023 and ended on 17 November 2025.
The landlords’ application seeks rent and power arrears, cleaning, and repair costs.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to rodents and mould.
The hearing took place by video conference on 17 March 2026. [The landlord/s] attended the hearing.
The day before the hearing, [The tenant/s] contacted the Tribunal and advised that she would not be able to attend the hearing due to work commitments. [The tenant/s] sought an adjournment if possible, but also stated “I’m happy for the hearing to go ahead if necessary, I will ensure my information is sent through if it does”. [The tenant/s] sent through some additional information on the morning of 17 March.
At the beginning of the hearing [The tenant/s] did not join by video link. I attempted to call her on mobile to confirm my intention to proceed with the hearing. There was no answer.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] provided information setting out her position on the issues in dispute. [The tenant/s] written information mentions her severe anxiety, which is exacerbated by interactions with the landlord. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that she is comfortable with the hearing continuing in her absence. Landlord application Rent and power
The original agreement was rent of $475 per week including power.
The property has two tenanted dwellings, the cottage that [The tenant/s] rented, and a ‘homestay’.
[The landlord/s] said that they ceased the homestay side of the business, which meant that the only power consumed was by the cottage.
[The landlord/s] said that she sent [The tenant/s] an email proposing a change of the agreement, whereby the rent would reduce by $20 per week and [The tenant/s] would begin paying for power.
The rent record shows that [The tenant/s] reduced her rent payments to $455 per week from the week beginning 4 March 2025, and she continued to pay $455 per week until the end of the tenancy.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. Parties to a contract can agree to vary its terms.
[The tenant/s] was entitled to reject [The landlord/s] suggested variation, but the reduction of her weekly rent payment shows that she accepted it. Variations to a tenancy agreement must be in writing 1 , but an email meets this requirement.
Tenants must pay for outgoings that they consume during the tenancy, including power. 2
Therefore, I find that the agreement was varied in March 2025. The rent was reduced from $475 per week to $455 per week. [The tenant/s] was liable to pay for power in addition to the rent.
The rent record shows that [The tenant/s] missed four rent payments during the tenancy – one in July 2024 ($475) and three near the end of the tenancy. The proven rent arrears total $1,840.00.
The proven power arrears total $483.12 per the table below. [The landlord/s] provided copies of the [power company] invoices to evidence these amounts. [The landlord/s] charged [The tenant/s] half of the fixed daily charge on the basis that the power was available to the cottage and the homestay (albeit that the homestay was vacant from March onwards). I agree that this is fair and reasonable.
In terms of the invoice for the final period, my calculation differs slightly from [The landlord/s]. [The landlord/s] figure is $35.97. I agree that [The tenant/s] should pay the consumption charges on that invoice and a pro rata of the fixed charges, based on 10 days of the 29. The difference in our figures is that for the Network Services Fixed Daily charge, [The landlord/s] has calculated 10 days at $0.75c per day totalling $7.50. Per the previous invoices, as discussed above, [The tenant/s] should only pay half of this cost, which is $3.75. Period Amount
7.25 – 8.8.25$154.99
8.25 – 6.9.25$107.15
9.25 – 6.10.25$80.10
10.25 – 7.11.25$107.05
11.25 – 17.11.25$33.83 Total:$483.12 Cleaning 1 Section 13B(1) RTA 2 Section 39(3) RTA
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3
[The landlord/s] provided a selection of photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.
Some parts of the property fell short of the reasonably clean and tidy standard, in particular the oven.
The claim for $100.00 of cleaning is proven, and is fair and reasonable. Paint door
There was some minor damage to a door during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] attempted to repair it, but the paint that she used was a poor match.
The claim seeks $72.65 to re-paint the door.
The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable. Other damage
[The landlord/s] mentioned that there was other damage to the premises that she considered [The tenant/s] was responsible for.
[The landlord/s] does not have details of the cost of repair.
The tenancy ended four months ago.
I am unable to make orders for unproven repair costs. Tenant application Introduction
Part of [The tenant/s] application relates to the power / rent issue discussed above.
The parts of her application that potentially relate to legal duties owed by landlords are: a. Mice; and b. Mould Mice 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
[The tenant/s] states that the premises were “infested with mice”. She states that she told [The landlord/s] about this problem but [The landlord/s] “would brush me off and told me to buy baits and traps”.
[The landlord/s] said that the premises are in the bush so there are mice around. She said that there was no evidence of an ‘infestation’ or of damage caused by mice.
Pests are part of the environment. The extent of pests at a property varies significantly depending on its location and setting.
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 4 Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 5
Day to day management of ‘normal’ pests falls to the tenant. In terms of mice, this can mean putting out a few traps.
If a property has a severe infestation, landlords must become involved.
In this instance: a. The property is in the bush, so it is vulnerable to pests such as mice and spiders. b. It is not proven that there were any unaddressed maintenance issues that caused / contributed to the mouse problem. c. There is not sufficient evidence to show that [The tenant/s] experienced a severe infestation of mice. Mould
[The tenant/s] states that there was “constant mold” and that “my son and I were sick majority of the time being in the house”.
Again, there are many environmental factors that can cause / contribute to the presence of mould.
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises and to meet the healthy homes standards. 6
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
[The tenant/s] did not provide any evidence to support her argument that the premises were mouldy.
There is no evidence to show that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard. 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA
The claim is not proven. Outcome, filing fee, bond, name suppression
The bond was released to the landlords at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is to pay the landlords $623.77 per the calculation above.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlords were successful in their application and I must award the landlords the filing fee of $28.00. 7
The landlords sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlords were “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 8
[The tenant/s] did not indicate that she sought name suppression in her application. The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to grant name suppression “on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. 9
This decision includes some private information about [The tenant/s]. The issues addressed in the decision are relatively mundane and of limited public interest. Having regard to those factors my finding is that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409048 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409048 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions