What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5410491 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 5410491?

6 Days (By Consent: $497.14 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $279.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.69 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Letting Fee Paid By…: $2,139.65 awarded to tenant; Removing Green Waste (By Consent: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,405.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $97.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5410491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5410491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13412844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5410491 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 5410491?

6 Days (By Consent: $497.14 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $279.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.69 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Letting Fee Paid By…: $2,139.65 awarded to tenant; Removing Green Waste (By Consent: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,405.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $97.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5410491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5410491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13412844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5410491 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5410491 — net $709.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 December 2025 being four weeks and	$4,405.71		Rent arrears to 25 December 2025 being four weeks and
6 days (by consent	$497.14		6 days (by consent
Cleaning	$135.00		Cleaning
Garden work (by consent	$270.00		Garden work (by consent
Removing green waste (by consent	$310.00		Removing green waste (by consent
Lock/key replacement (by consent	$115.00		Lock/key replacement (by consent
Carpet Cleaning (by consent	$279.00		Carpet Cleaning (by consent
Carpet replacement (by consent) depreciated	$499.69		Carpet replacement (by consent) depreciated
Water rates (last two invoices	$97.96		Water rates (last two invoices
Reimbursement of letting fee paid by tenant		$2,139.65	Reimbursement of letting fee paid by tenant
Total award	$6,609.50	$2,139.65
Net award	$709.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$709.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $709.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This was a fixed-term tenancy of a four-bedroom property on the outskirts of Auckland.
A dispute has arisen following the conclusion of this previously amicable tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal, replacement keys, garden work and garden waste removal, damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond and reimbursement of a letting fee paid to the landlord. The tenant had included other claims in her application but advised at the start of the hearing that she did not intend to pursue those other claims.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 29 June 2024 and was for a fixed term until 21 February 2026.
The tenant said that she had to move out due to her son’s serious medical condition. The landlord agreed that the tenancy could end when new tenants were found, and new tenants moved in on 26 December 2025. The tenant, meanwhile, moved out on 9 November 2025.
The landlord provided a rent summary showing rent owing to the end of the tenancy (on 25 December 2025) of $4,405.71. The tenant had initially thought that she would pay for the cost of advertising for a new tenant and would not be liable for ongoing rent, but at the hearing she accepted that the tenancy continued until a new tenancy began. The tenant agreed that the amount claimed was owing. I make this order by consent.
The landlord said that although the property was re-tenanted, the rent had to be reduced by $60 per week to secure the new tenants. The tenant agreed that the landlord was entitled to an additional award for the loss of rent during this period, which I calculated to be $497.14.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord sought the sum of $868.71 for water rates (less fixed charges) and provided a copy of all water rates invoices. He explained that he did not invoice the first and last month of the tenancy due to the complication of invoicing for only part of the month.
The tenant agreed that the invoices were all in order in terms of the amounts claimed but said that she was not provided with water rates invoices during the tenancy and instead was given all of the invoices at the end of the tenancy and was asked to pay them. The landlord did not dispute this.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made.
In that decision Judge McElrea stated:
The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to provide invoices to the tenant within a reasonable time frame, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
This decision has been applied in the District Court in Braganza v Saia, DC Auckland CIV-2010-009-002024, 1 November 2010 and in Nordon 3202 Ltd v Nair [2018] NZDC 17499. These decisions are binding on the Tribunal and have been applied in numerous Tribunal cases.
In both Braganza and Nordon water rates were invoiced on a monthly basis, and the Court ordered payments of the final two months of the tenancy only.
In the case of this 21-month tenancy, water rates were invoiced to the landlord monthly. The landlord should have passed those invoices on to the tenant within a reasonable time frame (several weeks at the longest) to allow her to review the invoices, adjust her usage if need be, and to budget accordingly.
I therefore order the sum of $97.96 which I calculate to be the last two invoices claimed by the landlord (less fixed charges).

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 said that she was overseas at the end of the tenancy dealing with the death of a close family member. She explained that she arranged for professional cleaners to attend the property and for the gardens to be done.
The landlord said that the cleaners did not do a very good job as the oven had not been cleaned and a pan was left inside, they left rubbish piled up in the garage, the windows were dirty and the hardwood floors did not appear to have been mopped. The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the property.
The landlord said that he did the cleaning and disposed of the rubbish himself in an effort to keep costs down and sought the sum of $135.00 for doing so.
The tenant did not accept the landlord’s claim but having reviewed the evidence I am satisfied that further cleaning was required for the property to be up to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard and that rubbish had to be removed. I consider the amount claimed to be reasonable and order compensation as claimed.
The tenant accepted that two keys and the garage door remote were missing at the end of the tenancy and that the landlord is entitled to compensation as claimed in the amount of $115.00. This order is made by consent.
The tenant also accepted that the gardens were not done that that the landlord’s claim for gardening in the amount of $270.00 was reasonable together with greenwaste removal in the amount of $310.00. This order is made by consent.
The tenant accepted further that carpet cleaning was required ($279.00). This order is made by consent.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
The tenant accepted that the carpet in one bedroom had to be replaced due to staining. The landlord claimed the sum of $799.50 (and produced an invoice) but I have ordered compensation in the amount of $499.69 on that the basis that the Tribunal is required to take into account depreciation when making awards for replacement items. The Inland Revenue Department IR265 (Residential Chattels) provides that carpet has an estimated useful life of 8 years. As the carpet was 3 years old at the end of the tenancy I have reduced compensation accordingly.
The landlord also claimed for various marks and scrapes on the walls. The landlord did repairs himself and sought compensation of $400.00. The landlord produced photos at the hearing of the areas claimed and some photos from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said the damage was very minor and fair wear and tear.
Having reviewed the photos at the hearing I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Smalls marks and scrapes are common during tenancies as people go about their lives. In this case the marks and scrapes are fairly minor. It is common for landlords to have to see to such matters in between tenancies. I am not persuaded that there has been a breach by the tenant.

Is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the letting fee?

Section 44A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a landlord consents to release the tenant from a fixed term tenancy early 1 the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the release from the tenancy.
Section 44A(2) provides that a landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with section 44A(1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
In this case the landlord engaged the services of a professional property manager to find a new tenant. That property manager indicated that they would charge Trademe advertising fees together with a “letting fee” that would be two weeks’ rent, a total sum of $2,334.00.
On that basis the landlord sought payment from the tenant. The tenant paid this amount. She said that she had not understood that she would be charged rent until new tenants were found and so paid this amount thinking she would be released from the tenancy.
The tenant said that it was only after she paid the amount and discussed with others that she was told that the amount charged was very high, particularly if she continued to be liable for rent. She said that she was not given an invoice prior to payment, but when an invoice was finally provided in December, the invoice was for a lower amount, $2,218.35. She said that she accepts and is prepared to pay the advertising costs ($169.00 plus GST) but not the letting fee.
The landlord said that the invoice was provided later because it could not be issued until the new rental was known.
When a tenant is released from the fixed term well before the end of a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal will usually award the landlord all of the expenses 1 This is one of the ways that the landlord can agree to the tenant “parting with possession” pursuant to section 44 RTA claimed (as long as they are reasonable, and an itemised invoice is provided prior 2 ) on the basis that all of the costs were incurred in respect of the release from the fixed term tenancy.
Where a tenant is released from the fixed term only a very short time before the end of a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal will usually only award the landlord a small percentage of the amount claimed (if any), on the basis that the expenses would have been incurred anyway when the fixed term came to a natural end. In such circumstances the expenses do not relate, or only partially relate, to the release from the fixed term tenancy.
In this case the fixed term was for 21 months. The tenant was released from the fixed term two months early.
In the circumstances, as the landlord was soon going to have to find new tenants anyway, and no itemised invoice was provided to the tenant as required, I do not consider that the tenant should have to pay the letting fee. I therefore refund the amount paid by the tenant (less advertising plus GST, a total of $2139.65). Filing fee and name suppression.
Most of the orders set out above made were made by consent, and on the remaining issues both parties have had some success. In the circumstances I have exercised my discretion under section 95A RTA to suppress both parties’ names (and the tenancy address).
As both parties have had some success I have not reimbursed the filing fees paid.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5410491 — net $709.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 December 2025 being four weeks and	$4,405.71		Rent arrears to 25 December 2025 being four weeks and
6 days (by consent	$497.14		6 days (by consent
Cleaning	$135.00		Cleaning
Garden work (by consent	$270.00		Garden work (by consent
Removing green waste (by consent	$310.00		Removing green waste (by consent
Lock/key replacement (by consent	$115.00		Lock/key replacement (by consent
Carpet Cleaning (by consent	$279.00		Carpet Cleaning (by consent
Carpet replacement (by consent) depreciated	$499.69		Carpet replacement (by consent) depreciated
Water rates (last two invoices	$97.96		Water rates (last two invoices
Reimbursement of letting fee paid by tenant		$2,139.65	Reimbursement of letting fee paid by tenant
Total award	$6,609.50	$2,139.65
Net award	$709.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$709.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $709.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This was a fixed-term tenancy of a four-bedroom property on the outskirts of Auckland.
A dispute has arisen following the conclusion of this previously amicable tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal, replacement keys, garden work and garden waste removal, damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond and reimbursement of a letting fee paid to the landlord. The tenant had included other claims in her application but advised at the start of the hearing that she did not intend to pursue those other claims.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 29 June 2024 and was for a fixed term until 21 February 2026.
The tenant said that she had to move out due to her son’s serious medical condition. The landlord agreed that the tenancy could end when new tenants were found, and new tenants moved in on 26 December 2025. The tenant, meanwhile, moved out on 9 November 2025.
The landlord provided a rent summary showing rent owing to the end of the tenancy (on 25 December 2025) of $4,405.71. The tenant had initially thought that she would pay for the cost of advertising for a new tenant and would not be liable for ongoing rent, but at the hearing she accepted that the tenancy continued until a new tenancy began. The tenant agreed that the amount claimed was owing. I make this order by consent.
The landlord said that although the property was re-tenanted, the rent had to be reduced by $60 per week to secure the new tenants. The tenant agreed that the landlord was entitled to an additional award for the loss of rent during this period, which I calculated to be $497.14.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord sought the sum of $868.71 for water rates (less fixed charges) and provided a copy of all water rates invoices. He explained that he did not invoice the first and last month of the tenancy due to the complication of invoicing for only part of the month.
The tenant agreed that the invoices were all in order in terms of the amounts claimed but said that she was not provided with water rates invoices during the tenancy and instead was given all of the invoices at the end of the tenancy and was asked to pay them. The landlord did not dispute this.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made.
In that decision Judge McElrea stated:
The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to provide invoices to the tenant within a reasonable time frame, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
This decision has been applied in the District Court in Braganza v Saia, DC Auckland CIV-2010-009-002024, 1 November 2010 and in Nordon 3202 Ltd v Nair [2018] NZDC 17499. These decisions are binding on the Tribunal and have been applied in numerous Tribunal cases.
In both Braganza and Nordon water rates were invoiced on a monthly basis, and the Court ordered payments of the final two months of the tenancy only.
In the case of this 21-month tenancy, water rates were invoiced to the landlord monthly. The landlord should have passed those invoices on to the tenant within a reasonable time frame (several weeks at the longest) to allow her to review the invoices, adjust her usage if need be, and to budget accordingly.
I therefore order the sum of $97.96 which I calculate to be the last two invoices claimed by the landlord (less fixed charges).

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 said that she was overseas at the end of the tenancy dealing with the death of a close family member. She explained that she arranged for professional cleaners to attend the property and for the gardens to be done.
The landlord said that the cleaners did not do a very good job as the oven had not been cleaned and a pan was left inside, they left rubbish piled up in the garage, the windows were dirty and the hardwood floors did not appear to have been mopped. The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the property.
The landlord said that he did the cleaning and disposed of the rubbish himself in an effort to keep costs down and sought the sum of $135.00 for doing so.
The tenant did not accept the landlord’s claim but having reviewed the evidence I am satisfied that further cleaning was required for the property to be up to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard and that rubbish had to be removed. I consider the amount claimed to be reasonable and order compensation as claimed.
The tenant accepted that two keys and the garage door remote were missing at the end of the tenancy and that the landlord is entitled to compensation as claimed in the amount of $115.00. This order is made by consent.
The tenant also accepted that the gardens were not done that that the landlord’s claim for gardening in the amount of $270.00 was reasonable together with greenwaste removal in the amount of $310.00. This order is made by consent.
The tenant accepted further that carpet cleaning was required ($279.00). This order is made by consent.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
The tenant accepted that the carpet in one bedroom had to be replaced due to staining. The landlord claimed the sum of $799.50 (and produced an invoice) but I have ordered compensation in the amount of $499.69 on that the basis that the Tribunal is required to take into account depreciation when making awards for replacement items. The Inland Revenue Department IR265 (Residential Chattels) provides that carpet has an estimated useful life of 8 years. As the carpet was 3 years old at the end of the tenancy I have reduced compensation accordingly.
The landlord also claimed for various marks and scrapes on the walls. The landlord did repairs himself and sought compensation of $400.00. The landlord produced photos at the hearing of the areas claimed and some photos from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said the damage was very minor and fair wear and tear.
Having reviewed the photos at the hearing I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Smalls marks and scrapes are common during tenancies as people go about their lives. In this case the marks and scrapes are fairly minor. It is common for landlords to have to see to such matters in between tenancies. I am not persuaded that there has been a breach by the tenant.

Is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the letting fee?

Section 44A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a landlord consents to release the tenant from a fixed term tenancy early 1 the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the release from the tenancy.
Section 44A(2) provides that a landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with section 44A(1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
In this case the landlord engaged the services of a professional property manager to find a new tenant. That property manager indicated that they would charge Trademe advertising fees together with a “letting fee” that would be two weeks’ rent, a total sum of $2,334.00.
On that basis the landlord sought payment from the tenant. The tenant paid this amount. She said that she had not understood that she would be charged rent until new tenants were found and so paid this amount thinking she would be released from the tenancy.
The tenant said that it was only after she paid the amount and discussed with others that she was told that the amount charged was very high, particularly if she continued to be liable for rent. She said that she was not given an invoice prior to payment, but when an invoice was finally provided in December, the invoice was for a lower amount, $2,218.35. She said that she accepts and is prepared to pay the advertising costs ($169.00 plus GST) but not the letting fee.
The landlord said that the invoice was provided later because it could not be issued until the new rental was known.
When a tenant is released from the fixed term well before the end of a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal will usually award the landlord all of the expenses 1 This is one of the ways that the landlord can agree to the tenant “parting with possession” pursuant to section 44 RTA claimed (as long as they are reasonable, and an itemised invoice is provided prior 2 ) on the basis that all of the costs were incurred in respect of the release from the fixed term tenancy.
Where a tenant is released from the fixed term only a very short time before the end of a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal will usually only award the landlord a small percentage of the amount claimed (if any), on the basis that the expenses would have been incurred anyway when the fixed term came to a natural end. In such circumstances the expenses do not relate, or only partially relate, to the release from the fixed term tenancy.
In this case the fixed term was for 21 months. The tenant was released from the fixed term two months early.
In the circumstances, as the landlord was soon going to have to find new tenants anyway, and no itemised invoice was provided to the tenant as required, I do not consider that the tenant should have to pay the letting fee. I therefore refund the amount paid by the tenant (less advertising plus GST, a total of $2139.65). Filing fee and name suppression.
Most of the orders set out above made were made by consent, and on the remaining issues both parties have had some success. In the circumstances I have exercised my discretion under section 95A RTA to suppress both parties’ names (and the tenancy address).
As both parties have had some success I have not reimbursed the filing fees paid.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5410491 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5410491 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the letting fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the letting fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions