What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5424689?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (5889497-004) to Zhi (Lisa)

How much money was awarded in case 5424689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424689?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13394426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5424689?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (5889497-004) to Zhi (Lisa)

How much money was awarded in case 5424689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424689?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13394426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Preston Crescent, Belleknowes, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424689 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy started on 17/10/2022 for a fixed term of two years and was renewed for a further fixed term to end on 30/12/2026 at $650.00 per week.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant returned the keys on 29/10/2025.

The landlord sought rent arrears of $5,199.99 calculated as follows: a. $1,578.57 from 13/10/2025 when the rent was paid up to, until 29/10/2025, b. $3,621.42 from 30/10/2025 until 7/12/2025, the premises having been re- let on 8/12/2025.

The landlord provided rent records for the 2025 tenancy period.

In addition, the landlord claimed the advertising fee for re-letting the premises of $241.50, with an invoice.

While the tenant did not dispute that her last rent payment was made on 2/10/2025, she submitted that she had taken steps to mitigate the loss of the landlord by requesting release as early as possible due to family considerations and offering to find replacement tenants.

I find the tenant is liable for the arrears of $1,578.57 to 29/10/2025 and a proportion of the rent to the date of re-letting.

Under section 44A a landlord who, among other matters, consents to assignment of a tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment.

The landlord must provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.

I am satisfied from the evidence that the advertising costs sought are reasonable and supported by an account.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claimed $1,000.00 for cleaning and deodourising the carpet.

Although she had not made a claim for cleaning the landlord suggested she took 28 hours to clean the premises after the tenancy ended.

The landlord submitted that despite the no pet clause in the tenancy agreement, the tenant had kept at least one dog.

In support of her claim the landlord provided exit photographs dated 29/10/2025 and 8/11/2025, and an invoice for carpet cleaning.

On the other hand, the tenant disagreed that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and in particular disputed the need for deodorising of the carpet.

The tenant provided a declaration from the owner of the dog supporting that the animal was only at the premises for a short period of time.

I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and the carpet needed cleaning.

While it is possible that the tenant did not clean the clean the carpet as well as she might have the evidence of one UV light photograph is simply not enough to move this to a probability to support the amount claimed for both cleaning and deodorising.

Further the evidence provided by the landlord about the length of time a dog resided in the premises was, at best, circumstantial.

Although the landlord confirmed there was an initial property inspection report at the beginning of the tenancy this was not made available to the Tribunal. This meant that the Tribunal had no baseline with which to address the state of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, which the tenant suggested was worn.

The landlord declined the opportunity for an adjournment to allow further evidence to be provided.

I find the tenant is liable for the $250.00 costs of the carpet clean, but not the $750.00 deodorising. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that her claim is more likely than not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.

The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claim. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.

The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

I have made awards totalling $2,070.07 as follows: a. $1,578.57 for rent arrears, b. $241.50 for advertising costs, c. $250.00 for carpet cleaning.

I consider an award only of the bond to the landlord is reasonable in the circumstances of this case.

First because the landlord has failed to prove the amount of compensation claimed for the carpet cleaning.

Second, and despite the fact that the tenant did not file a cross application the landlord agreed that she had been out of the country from 24/8/2025 to 28/10/2025, that is 65 consecutive days without appointing an agent.

A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I consider the delay caused by the landlord waiting until she returned to New Zealand to actively pursue re-letting the premises significantly inflated the rent arrears owing until the premises were re-let.

By awarding the bond to the landlord the contribution by the tenant to the rent until re-letting is $449.93.

No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful with the claims.

Suppression is not granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because she did not succeed in full with the proceedings.

Reasons