Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5423632 — Rent arrears at 81B King Street, Rangiora 7400
Decided 13 Apr 2026 · Published 13 Apr 2026 · Application 5423632
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
- Chloe Lisa Woolford must pay [the Applicants] $7240.97 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The landlords’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (bond number suppressed) to [the Applicants] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- This tenancy began on 7 August 2025. The premises, a house, was in near new condition.
- Rent was paid to 10 October 2025.
- The landlords messaged the tenant about the unpaid rent and on 20 October the tenant messaged the landlords and said that someone was harassing her, she was scared for her life and she needed “to leave now but don’t know how”.
- The landlords sent the tenant several messages after that and on 5 November inspected the premises and found them abandoned.
- The landlords made an application for expedited abandonment and 11 November the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy for abandonment.
- The landlords relet the premises from 6 December. Rent
- The landlords provided rent records to prove that the amount owing for rent arrears to 5 December was $4,615.71. The tenant did not dispute that. Other Claims Relevant Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations.
- A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. Cleaning
- The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. There was an odour of dog from the carpet and there were stains on the carpet. The cost of carpet cleaning was proved by the production of an invoice.
- The landlords produced an invoice from a company owned by them for cleaning, moving the tenant’s belongings, hiring a deodoriser, minor repairs and storing the tenant’s belongings. The company is in the motel business and employs its owner cleaners. I find that it is reasonable for the landlords to use the company’s staff and to issue an invoice for their time and expenses.
- I have awarded the cost of cleaning as claimed but I have not allowed the travelling claim of $225 plus GST in full. I find that the rate claimed is excessive and the number of trips is also excessive. I have awarded $50 plus GST for travelling.
- I accept the claim for window cleaning which was supported by an invoice.
- I have also accepted the claim for hiring a deodoriser to remove the dog odour from the premises. Locks and Keys
- The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remote. These claims were supported by invoices.
- I have awarded the claims for keys and locks in full. But the tenant denied that there were three garage remotes. She said that there was only one.
- There was no hard evidence that the tenant was provided with three remotes at the start of the tenancy and so I have awarded the cost of replacing one remote. Goods and Rubbish
- I have awarded the claim for dealing with the tenant’s belongings, including dismantling and moving furniture, left in the premises.
- There are also claims for hiring a skip, loading it and storing the tenant’s belongings for two weeks.
- I reject the claim for storage. The goods were stored at the premises for which the tenant was liable to pay rent. There was no cost to the landlords for storage.
- There was a message from the landlords to the tenant on 18 November stating that the tenant would have until 16 December to remove her belongings from the premises. The tenant said that she contacted the landlords on 8 December to arrange to do so but her belongings had by then been dumped.
- The tenant did not provide her message on 8 December, but the landlords have done so together with other messages around that time. The items that the tenant arranged to collect from the landlords were contained in two boxes that were delivered to the tenant. There was no mention in the messages of the items of furniture that the tenant left at the premises.
- My impression is that the tenant was not concerned about the furniture and that she made no attempt to collect it from the premises after she left. It follows that I do not accept that the tenant would have collected them before 16 December if they been kept available until then.
- I have therefore awarded the claim for loading the skip of $103.05 and the cost of hiring the skip of $495.08 for which there is an invoice. Damage
- There was damage to the premises during the tenancy that exceeded fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted that.
- There was damage to woodwork and walls that needed repair and painting.
- The landlords produce an invoice in the sum of $1,600 which I accept is reasonable and so I have awarded it.
- There were also some minor repairs for the landlords claim $103.50. That is excessive in my view, and I have awarded $51.75.
- There was also some damage to blinds and the landlords produced an invoice for their repair in the sum of $328.33 which I have awarded. Exemplary Damages
- The tenants’ account of what caused her to leave the premises was not well supported. She said that she reported the harassment to Police, but there was no evidence from them.
- She said that the harassment went on for months and it included the other person attempting to drive into her car as she was driving it, following her young children home from school and trying to enter the premises at night. She said that she had met the person socially, but she did not have a relationship with him. That appears to be the reason for the harassment.
- The tenant said that she tried to obtain help from the landlords regarding the situation, but I note that was very late in the piece. The landlords explained that they asked to see a Police report which was a reasonable request.
- The tenant produced a recording of a telephone conversation with the other person which took place after she had left the premises. In it, the other person can be heard admitting that he wanted to drive the tenant off the road.
- I can’t help but have some scepticism towards the tenant’s claim that she had no choice but to leave the premises. I would have expected the Police to intervene if the situation had become as serious as she claims. The absence of any evidence from the Police is a concern.
- In any case, I am willing to accept that something in the tenant’s life precipitated her abrupt departure from the premises. It could have been harassment, something else or a combination of things. I am satisfied that she was not functioning well at that time.
- I therefore find that there was a reasonable excuse for the tenant to abandon the premises and that there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages against her. I note that the consequences of her actions are already very serious for her without the addition of such an award. Filing Fees
- The landlords have been successful and so I have awarded the filing fee for this application. I have also awarded the filing fee for the previous application. Suppression
- Because the landlords have succeeded, I have granted their request for name suppression.