What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421987 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 5421987?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.91 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,571.43 awarded to landlord; Water: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421987?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421987?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13138189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421987 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 5421987?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.91 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,571.43 awarded to landlord; Water: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421987?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421987?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13138189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

277 Kaimatarau Road, Rongotea, RD 3, Rongotea 4473 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421987 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421987 — net $964.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,571.43	Rent arrears
Water	$240.00	Water
Window repairs	$287.91	Window repairs
Cleaning: curtains	$150.00	Cleaning: curtains
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$964.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$964.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tamara Paige Mcentee and Allan Trow must pay [The landlord/s] $964.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,571.43 Water$240.00 Window repairs$287.91 Cleaning: curtains$150.00 Carpet Cleaning$115.00 Total award$3,364.34 Bond$2,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$964.34

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 26 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that the landlord had purchased water for them and that the amount claimed was due to the landlord.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepted that the curtains in the sleepout were left in a dirty condition and that the carpets in the sleepout required cleaning.
The tenant explained that the spa pool was not in a clean condition at the start of the tenancy and that the tenant had drained the spa pool at the end of the tenancy. The tenant believes that the spa poll was left in no worse condition than at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord had no evidence of the condition of the spa at the start of the tenancy and only a self-calculated estimate of the cost of cleaning. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant had left the spa pool in a less clean condition than it was in at the start of the tenancy and has failed to prove the amount of the landlord’s claim for cleaning. The landlord’s claim for spa pool cleaning is dismissed.
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 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 claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A window in an outbuilding was broken. b. The wires to a security camera were broken. c. A clothes dryer was removed from the property. d. Cleaning the carpet did not remove a smell and so the carpet will need to be replaced and the landlord claimed the insurance excess. The property has been relet with the carpet in place and the landlord has not made an insurance claim.
The tenant gave the following evidence: a. The window was broken during the tenancy when the window was forced open and the glass fell out. b. They were not aware that there was a security camera. They did not use and did not damage the wires. c. The clothes dryer was not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. The owner told them that it was an older dryer that she would leave for their use. The owner told the tenant that she would not repair it if it broke and that the tenant should dispose of it if it did break. This is what happened. d. One of the tenants was in the sleepout after the carpet was cleaned and no smell was evident.
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal determines: a. The window was broken carelessly by the tenant during the tenancy and the damage was not fair wear and tear. The tenant is liable for the cost of repair. b. As there is no evidence of the state of the security camera at the start of the tenancy, nor any evidence of the cost of repair, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. c. There was no evidence of the age of the dryer, nor evidence that it had been replaced by the landlord and so there was no evidence of loss incurred by the landlord. The tenant’s explanation was not refuted by the owner herself as she was not at the hearing and the landlord’s property manager was unable to do so as she had no knowledge of any discussion, although she confirmed that the dryer was not included as a chattel because the landlord wanted no responsibility for its repair. This lends credence to the tenant’s explanation. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. d. The landlord did not supply any evidence supporting its claim that the carpets still smelled after cleaning and that they required replacement. Nor is there any evidence of an insurance company claim or that the excess has been paid. The landlord has not proven the damage on the balance of probabilities nor proven that it has suffered any loss. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421987 — net $964.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,571.43	Rent arrears
Water	$240.00	Water
Window repairs	$287.91	Window repairs
Cleaning: curtains	$150.00	Cleaning: curtains
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$964.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$964.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tamara Paige Mcentee and Allan Trow must pay [The landlord/s] $964.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,571.43 Water$240.00 Window repairs$287.91 Cleaning: curtains$150.00 Carpet Cleaning$115.00 Total award$3,364.34 Bond$2,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$964.34

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 26 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that the landlord had purchased water for them and that the amount claimed was due to the landlord.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepted that the curtains in the sleepout were left in a dirty condition and that the carpets in the sleepout required cleaning.
The tenant explained that the spa pool was not in a clean condition at the start of the tenancy and that the tenant had drained the spa pool at the end of the tenancy. The tenant believes that the spa poll was left in no worse condition than at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord had no evidence of the condition of the spa at the start of the tenancy and only a self-calculated estimate of the cost of cleaning. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant had left the spa pool in a less clean condition than it was in at the start of the tenancy and has failed to prove the amount of the landlord’s claim for cleaning. The landlord’s claim for spa pool cleaning is dismissed.
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 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 claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A window in an outbuilding was broken. b. The wires to a security camera were broken. c. A clothes dryer was removed from the property. d. Cleaning the carpet did not remove a smell and so the carpet will need to be replaced and the landlord claimed the insurance excess. The property has been relet with the carpet in place and the landlord has not made an insurance claim.
The tenant gave the following evidence: a. The window was broken during the tenancy when the window was forced open and the glass fell out. b. They were not aware that there was a security camera. They did not use and did not damage the wires. c. The clothes dryer was not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. The owner told them that it was an older dryer that she would leave for their use. The owner told the tenant that she would not repair it if it broke and that the tenant should dispose of it if it did break. This is what happened. d. One of the tenants was in the sleepout after the carpet was cleaned and no smell was evident.
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal determines: a. The window was broken carelessly by the tenant during the tenancy and the damage was not fair wear and tear. The tenant is liable for the cost of repair. b. As there is no evidence of the state of the security camera at the start of the tenancy, nor any evidence of the cost of repair, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. c. There was no evidence of the age of the dryer, nor evidence that it had been replaced by the landlord and so there was no evidence of loss incurred by the landlord. The tenant’s explanation was not refuted by the owner herself as she was not at the hearing and the landlord’s property manager was unable to do so as she had no knowledge of any discussion, although she confirmed that the dryer was not included as a chattel because the landlord wanted no responsibility for its repair. This lends credence to the tenant’s explanation. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. d. The landlord did not supply any evidence supporting its claim that the carpets still smelled after cleaning and that they required replacement. Nor is there any evidence of an insurance company claim or that the excess has been paid. The landlord has not proven the damage on the balance of probabilities nor proven that it has suffered any loss. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421987 — Rent arrears at 277 Kaimatarau Road, Rongotea, RD 3, Rongotea 4473

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421987 — Rent arrears at 277 Kaimatarau Road, Rongotea, RD 3, Rongotea 4473

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

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