What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421232 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 5421232?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,710.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,600.00 awarded to landlord; Storage And Disposal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421232?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456696-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421232 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 5421232?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,710.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,600.00 awarded to landlord; Storage And Disposal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421232?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456696-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Brodie Lane, Feilding, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421232 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

5 Brodie Lane, Feilding, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421232 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421232 — net $6,355.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,710.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$2,600.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$517.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,400.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$750.00	Lawns and Garden work
Storage and disposal	$500.00	Storage and disposal
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,355.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,355.50

Claims and awards for application 5421232 — net $6,355.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,710.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Rubbish removal

Amount: $2,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $1,400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Storage and disposal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
Marlana Helen West / Keenan and Brett Charles Keenan must pay [The landlord/s] $6,355.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,710.00 Rubbish removal$2,600.00 Carpet Cleaning$517.50 Cleaning$1,400.00 Lawns and Garden work$750.00 Storage and disposal$500.00 Repairs$450.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,455.50 Bond$2,100.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,355.50

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant was served with the landlord’s application and that the notice of hearing was sent to the electronic address for service provided by the tenant in the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed that she had received text messages from the tenant confirming awareness of the application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what they wanted, left everything else including a substantial amount of rubbish and made no attempt to clean or tidy the premises. A text from the tenant to the landlord on 27 July 2025 acknowledged that the tenant had left a “mess” left behind that the landlord would have to clean up.
The landlord was required to identify and dispose of potentially hazardous substances and to store the tenant’s chattels left behind and then dispose of them pursuant to this Order. The cost of this work is included in the amounts awarded.
The tenant had a dog at the property which was allowed under the tenancy agreement. The landlord gave evidence that the carpets smelled strongly of wet dog and its photographic evidence confirmed that the carpets had been soiled.
The landlord submitted a detailed invoice of the time it has spent in attending to these tasks. The Tribunal has awarded sums based on invoices it sees from independent contractors for such work on a regular basis in this area.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant had removed two smoke alarms from the premises.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The tenant had constructed raised gardens around the property which needed to be removed. b. The tenant’s dog had caused extensive damage to the outside area which had destroyed areas of the lawn and included digging holes. c. There were large holes in the toilet and hallway walls which had been inexpertly plastered.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its nature and extent, the damage was intentional.
The Tribunal has considered the amounts claimed by the landlord and evidenced by their invoice and explanations at the hearing. The Tribunal has determined that it is just to award sums that are in line with the invoices from independent contractors which it regularly sees for such work in this area.
The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of the tenant’s goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has repeatedly tried to arrange with the tenant a time to collect the goods but the tenant has failed to co-operate. It is now eight months since the end of the tenancy and the tenant has had more than adequate opportunity to come and collect their goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA. Exemplary damages: removal of smoke alarms.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) RTA. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence that the tenant removed the two smoke alarms in the property. The tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are different from ordinary damages where the object is generally to compensate. The object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter. It is important that tenants be deterred from removing smoke alarms because their removal is a serious safety risk to both the property of the landlord and the lives of the tenants. Their removal may have a negative impact on the landlord’s insurance. The maximum level of the exemplary damages available is evidence of the seriousness of this unlawful act.
It is appropriate that an award of $500.00 of exemplary damages is ordered. Landlord’s further claim for compensation
The landlord claimed two weeks’ rent in compensation for the two weeks it took them to remove the tenant’s rubbish, clean the house and prepare it for reletting. A landlord can reasonably expect there to be a period during which the property is untenanted between tenancies as such preparatory work for a new tenancy is carried out. It is unusual for there to be no break between the end and beginning of a new tenancy and a two-week period is not unusual. It is part of the cost of being in business as the landlord of residential property. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s application included a claim for general damages because of actions taken by the tenant on social media and in text exchanges and in relation to the tenant’s behaviour towards a neighbour. As explained at the hearing, there is no provision in the RTA that gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider such claims and make any award. These claims are dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421232 — net $6,355.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,710.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$2,600.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$517.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,400.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$750.00	Lawns and Garden work
Storage and disposal	$500.00	Storage and disposal
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,355.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,355.50

Claims and awards for application 5421232 — net $6,355.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,710.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Rubbish removal

Amount: $2,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $1,400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Storage and disposal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
Marlana Helen West / Keenan and Brett Charles Keenan must pay [The landlord/s] $6,355.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,710.00 Rubbish removal$2,600.00 Carpet Cleaning$517.50 Cleaning$1,400.00 Lawns and Garden work$750.00 Storage and disposal$500.00 Repairs$450.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,455.50 Bond$2,100.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,355.50

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant was served with the landlord’s application and that the notice of hearing was sent to the electronic address for service provided by the tenant in the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed that she had received text messages from the tenant confirming awareness of the application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what they wanted, left everything else including a substantial amount of rubbish and made no attempt to clean or tidy the premises. A text from the tenant to the landlord on 27 July 2025 acknowledged that the tenant had left a “mess” left behind that the landlord would have to clean up.
The landlord was required to identify and dispose of potentially hazardous substances and to store the tenant’s chattels left behind and then dispose of them pursuant to this Order. The cost of this work is included in the amounts awarded.
The tenant had a dog at the property which was allowed under the tenancy agreement. The landlord gave evidence that the carpets smelled strongly of wet dog and its photographic evidence confirmed that the carpets had been soiled.
The landlord submitted a detailed invoice of the time it has spent in attending to these tasks. The Tribunal has awarded sums based on invoices it sees from independent contractors for such work on a regular basis in this area.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant had removed two smoke alarms from the premises.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The tenant had constructed raised gardens around the property which needed to be removed. b. The tenant’s dog had caused extensive damage to the outside area which had destroyed areas of the lawn and included digging holes. c. There were large holes in the toilet and hallway walls which had been inexpertly plastered.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its nature and extent, the damage was intentional.
The Tribunal has considered the amounts claimed by the landlord and evidenced by their invoice and explanations at the hearing. The Tribunal has determined that it is just to award sums that are in line with the invoices from independent contractors which it regularly sees for such work in this area.
The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of the tenant’s goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has repeatedly tried to arrange with the tenant a time to collect the goods but the tenant has failed to co-operate. It is now eight months since the end of the tenancy and the tenant has had more than adequate opportunity to come and collect their goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA. Exemplary damages: removal of smoke alarms.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) RTA. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence that the tenant removed the two smoke alarms in the property. The tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are different from ordinary damages where the object is generally to compensate. The object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter. It is important that tenants be deterred from removing smoke alarms because their removal is a serious safety risk to both the property of the landlord and the lives of the tenants. Their removal may have a negative impact on the landlord’s insurance. The maximum level of the exemplary damages available is evidence of the seriousness of this unlawful act.
It is appropriate that an award of $500.00 of exemplary damages is ordered. Landlord’s further claim for compensation
The landlord claimed two weeks’ rent in compensation for the two weeks it took them to remove the tenant’s rubbish, clean the house and prepare it for reletting. A landlord can reasonably expect there to be a period during which the property is untenanted between tenancies as such preparatory work for a new tenancy is carried out. It is unusual for there to be no break between the end and beginning of a new tenancy and a two-week period is not unusual. It is part of the cost of being in business as the landlord of residential property. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s application included a claim for general damages because of actions taken by the tenant on social media and in text exchanges and in relation to the tenant’s behaviour towards a neighbour. As explained at the hearing, there is no provision in the RTA that gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider such claims and make any award. These claims are dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421232 — Cleanliness at 5 Brodie Lane, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421232 — Cleanliness at 5 Brodie Lane, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

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

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions