What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423943 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5423943?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Green Waste (Part: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Garden Edging: $79.96 awarded to landlord; Shower Door: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423943?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423943 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5423943?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Green Waste (Part: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Garden Edging: $79.96 awarded to landlord; Shower Door: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423943?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423943 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423943. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$900.00	Rent arrears
Green waste (part	$250.00	Green waste (part
Repairs: Garden edging	$79.96	Repairs: Garden edging
Repairs: Shower door	$150.00	Repairs: Shower door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person present.
[Suppressed] was removed as the second tenant as he had left the tenancy earlier. Any new tenancy agreement from that time has been treated as continuous from the initial commencement on 10 September 2025 to the end of this tenancy on 7 January 2026. This applies for the purposes of this application and with the mutual agreement of the parties.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the compensation claims relating to a fence panel, kitchen blind and under sink plumbing were withdrawn by the landlord. The claim for an internet charger had been resolved by the tenant returning it prior.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 January 2026 after a tenant withdrawal under s 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.
The tenant did not dispute the total. This is awarded.

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 did not remove all rubbish and green waste.
The landlord claimed $620.00 for the cost of rubbish removal and $930.00 for the cost of removal of green waste. Both parties provided evidence, including photos.
Based on the submissions and evidence, it appears more than likely the rubbish removed at the end of the tenancy predated this tenancy. It was collected and loaded into a trailer by the tenants with the mutual understanding the tenants would dispose of it and be compensated for the cost incurred in disposal. Cash flow constraints meant it remained at the premises until it was unloaded by someone other than the tenant as part of a claimed theft of the trailer. Effectively, the rubbish would have been disposed of at the landlord’s expense if the original plan had completed. To now seek recovery from the tenant seems incongruous and I do not consider the landlord has established grounds for the recovery of the cost as sought now. A secondary consideration was the need for the tenants to retrieve the existing rubbish at commencement and load into the trailer without compensation – that being a task more appropriately completed by the landlord at that time.
Having reviewed the photos carefully, I do not consider the rubbish to have been introduced by the tenants during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed
The green waste (mostly) arose from a unilateral decision by the exited tenant to attack areas of overgrown trees and plants. The landlord subsequently accepted the work and paid $100.00 as compensation for the labour. It appears the arrangement for the considerable green waste (some 12 m 3 ) was for the tenants to arrange and be compensated. No actual cost for this was agreed. I heard that the cost to dispose or mulch onsite was not conducted for the same reason as the rubbish – cash flow. The landlord sought $930.00 for the vacated cost of removal. That comprised a skip bin (and part of another) and labour. Both costs were supported by invoices. This is another situation where the agreed intention was for the tenants to manage disposal with the landlord to reimburse later. This did not occur.
The green waste was mostly from the efforts of the exited tenant (some evidence of limited pre-existing green waste was provided). The effort and result were not unwelcome by the landlord, albeit a situation of the person asking for forgiveness rather than permission. I have considered the respective submissions and consider the tenant retains some liability for the later cost incurred. On balance, considering the landlord would likely have incurred disposal costs (of an uncertain amount) and received some benefit from the labour, with the $100.00 paid acknowledged, I award $250.00 towards the green waste disposal costs incurred by the landlord.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Shower door. The exited tenant made a botchy repair to a shower door. This was evidenced and accepted by the tenant. The cost of repair was bundled into an invoice that included work on other non-liable costs. I have considered the respective efforts and material costs and apportioned $150.00 of the $638.25 invoice total as tenant liability for the repair to the shower door. b. Garden edging. The garden edging was removed during the tenancy. That was accepted by the tenant who said it was left at the premises but not reinstated. The landlord claimed it could not be reinstated and she provided an invoice for a cost of $49.96 for a replacement purchased from a hardware store. The landlord suggested an hour of labour at the invoiced rate of $30.00 as fair. I agree. That equates to an award of $79.96 for the reinstatement of the garden edging.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claim for repainting an external wall is dismissed. The evidence indicates the finish of the weatherboard was in a deteriorated state at commencement and it was due repainting, regardless of any removal of flaking or loose paint that might have been dispersed by water blasting.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, sub-section (1A) requires the Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published
The Tribunal orders suppression of all identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423943. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$900.00	Rent arrears
Green waste (part	$250.00	Green waste (part
Repairs: Garden edging	$79.96	Repairs: Garden edging
Repairs: Shower door	$150.00	Repairs: Shower door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person present.
[Suppressed] was removed as the second tenant as he had left the tenancy earlier. Any new tenancy agreement from that time has been treated as continuous from the initial commencement on 10 September 2025 to the end of this tenancy on 7 January 2026. This applies for the purposes of this application and with the mutual agreement of the parties.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the compensation claims relating to a fence panel, kitchen blind and under sink plumbing were withdrawn by the landlord. The claim for an internet charger had been resolved by the tenant returning it prior.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 January 2026 after a tenant withdrawal under s 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.
The tenant did not dispute the total. This is awarded.

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 did not remove all rubbish and green waste.
The landlord claimed $620.00 for the cost of rubbish removal and $930.00 for the cost of removal of green waste. Both parties provided evidence, including photos.
Based on the submissions and evidence, it appears more than likely the rubbish removed at the end of the tenancy predated this tenancy. It was collected and loaded into a trailer by the tenants with the mutual understanding the tenants would dispose of it and be compensated for the cost incurred in disposal. Cash flow constraints meant it remained at the premises until it was unloaded by someone other than the tenant as part of a claimed theft of the trailer. Effectively, the rubbish would have been disposed of at the landlord’s expense if the original plan had completed. To now seek recovery from the tenant seems incongruous and I do not consider the landlord has established grounds for the recovery of the cost as sought now. A secondary consideration was the need for the tenants to retrieve the existing rubbish at commencement and load into the trailer without compensation – that being a task more appropriately completed by the landlord at that time.
Having reviewed the photos carefully, I do not consider the rubbish to have been introduced by the tenants during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed
The green waste (mostly) arose from a unilateral decision by the exited tenant to attack areas of overgrown trees and plants. The landlord subsequently accepted the work and paid $100.00 as compensation for the labour. It appears the arrangement for the considerable green waste (some 12 m 3 ) was for the tenants to arrange and be compensated. No actual cost for this was agreed. I heard that the cost to dispose or mulch onsite was not conducted for the same reason as the rubbish – cash flow. The landlord sought $930.00 for the vacated cost of removal. That comprised a skip bin (and part of another) and labour. Both costs were supported by invoices. This is another situation where the agreed intention was for the tenants to manage disposal with the landlord to reimburse later. This did not occur.
The green waste was mostly from the efforts of the exited tenant (some evidence of limited pre-existing green waste was provided). The effort and result were not unwelcome by the landlord, albeit a situation of the person asking for forgiveness rather than permission. I have considered the respective submissions and consider the tenant retains some liability for the later cost incurred. On balance, considering the landlord would likely have incurred disposal costs (of an uncertain amount) and received some benefit from the labour, with the $100.00 paid acknowledged, I award $250.00 towards the green waste disposal costs incurred by the landlord.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Shower door. The exited tenant made a botchy repair to a shower door. This was evidenced and accepted by the tenant. The cost of repair was bundled into an invoice that included work on other non-liable costs. I have considered the respective efforts and material costs and apportioned $150.00 of the $638.25 invoice total as tenant liability for the repair to the shower door. b. Garden edging. The garden edging was removed during the tenancy. That was accepted by the tenant who said it was left at the premises but not reinstated. The landlord claimed it could not be reinstated and she provided an invoice for a cost of $49.96 for a replacement purchased from a hardware store. The landlord suggested an hour of labour at the invoiced rate of $30.00 as fair. I agree. That equates to an award of $79.96 for the reinstatement of the garden edging.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claim for repainting an external wall is dismissed. The evidence indicates the finish of the weatherboard was in a deteriorated state at commencement and it was due repainting, regardless of any removal of flaking or loose paint that might have been dispersed by water blasting.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, sub-section (1A) requires the Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published
The Tribunal orders suppression of all identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423943 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423943 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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