What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431540?

The tribunal order states: Mia Lu must pay Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5431540?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,841.43 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Mattress protec…: $98.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13369825-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431540?

The tribunal order states: Mia Lu must pay Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5431540?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,841.43 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Mattress protec…: $98.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13369825-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit G03, 245 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431540 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431540 — net $2,499.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,841.43	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Mattress protector	$98.00	Replace furnishings: Mattress protector
Exemplary damages - subletting without consent	$800.00	Exemplary damages - subletting without consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,499.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,499.93

Order

Mia Lu must pay Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham $2,499.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,755.00 (BN-00027140) to Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Sullivan attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $2,841.43.
The tenant told the landlord that she would be leaving the tenancy at the end of the fixed term period. She advised this within the 21-day notice period. The landlord accepted the tenant’s notice but advised that she must give 21 days and that would take her to 5 February 2026.
The tenant disputed this, but the Act is clear that 21 days’ notice is required to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term (see section 60A) or after.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The tenant provided evidence that she had paid a cleaner and handyman to complete cleaning and gardening work.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged that some effort had been made to clean the property, the photographs indicate that not all areas of the house were left reasonably clean and tidy, and the gardens were not weeded.
The property manager did the cleaning and gardening work herself as she was unable to get a tradesperson to complete it in the timeframe required.
Given the photographic evidence provided, I consider that additional work was necessary to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard and the amount claimed for additional cleaning and garden work ($200.00) is very reasonable.
The landlord also provided evidence that the floors had not been adequately cleaned.
There were marks on the hard floors and stains on the carpet. This was more than would usually be expected in a reasonably short tenancy. Vacuuming was required throughout but some stains were unable to be removed without professional cleaning.
The carpets and hard floors were professionally cleaned at a cost of $287.50. This cleaning removed most of the staining and marks to the floors and carpet.
The ingoing inspection report referred to brand new mattress protectors being provided at the commencement of the tenancy. These were not present at the end of the tenancy and were replaced at a cost of $98.00.
The tenant said that her associate, who had collected keys at the beginning of the tenancy, purchased all bed linen for the property including the mattress protectors.
The tenant was permitted to provide an invoice to confirm this after the hearing was concluded but she was unable to do so. She acknowledged this in an email but disputed the amount being claimed, suggesting that the landlord could have purchased more cost-effective protectors.
As the tenant denied liability for the protectors at the hearing no discussion was held as related to the cost of the replacement protectors, but the landlord provided an invoice to confirm the amount paid.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant listed the property on a number of short-term accommodation sites and rented it out accordingly without the prior written consent of the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal by the landlord included photographs of written signs at the property consistent with holiday rental use (labelled bedrooms (“A” and “B”), storage cupboard including linen shelves assigned for each bedroom, extra items such as toiletries, tea, and sugar, bathroom cupboard labelled “first aid”, exterior labels identifying the unit and the gate, a lock box on the exterior of the premises, unknown occupants with suitcases and on one occasion suitcases but no visible occupants.
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was displeased to find that the kitchen was not fully equipped with cutlery and crockery and so on. The landlord purchased these items at the request of this tenant and provided them as part of the tenancy although they had not expected to have to do so.
By the tenant’s own admission, her colleague, who accepted the keys at the beginning of the tenancy on her behalf, also immediately purchased all required linen for the property and other items, seemingly without consulting the tenant herself as to the suitability or otherwise of these items.
The landlord provided evidence of various listings on a number of property rental websites (including Booking.com) showing this property listed as a holiday rental during the tenancy.
The landlord also provided evidence from a temporary occupier’s phone showing that they had booked another property in the same complex and been diverted to this property at the last minute. This occurred after the tenant had been asked to desist from advertising the property as a holiday rental.
The landlord said that she had been contacted on a number of occasions early in the tenancy by the Body Corporate Manager in relation to various violations of Body Corporate rules including incorrect rubbish disposal and drying sheets on railings (frequently).
Due to ill health, the property manager was not able to investigate these issues within the first five or so months of the tenancy. The first inspection was completed in July and the property manager immediately confirmed the Body Corporate Manager’s suspicions that the property was being used as a holiday rental and issued a 14-day notice to the tenant to cease doing so.
The tenant responded that she was away and was unaware that the property was being used in this way. She told the manager that she would check with the person she had left in charge of the property.
During the hearing the tenant acknowledged that she had rented the property on a short-term basis on a few occasions when she was out of town. She was not immediately forthcoming with details of the frequency of this but when pushed, she said that she had rented the property out through an Air BNB manager on two occasions for one night each. She said she had not been paid for one other occasion as the landlord had made the occupiers leave the address. She said that she had been paid a total of $360.00 being $180 per night.
She acknowledged that it was a coincidence that these two occasions were on the same dates as the property manager inspected the premises.
There were no inspections completed between the commencement of the tenancy (25 January 2025) and the July inspection. The tenant said that she had been present in the property at this time herself and had not rented it out at all.
Some of the short-term holiday listings provided by the landlord are still available to view online and these show 15 reviews of the property as short term rental accommodation between April and June 2025, with at least 10 of these for stays in May. Given that not all holiday makers leave reviews and most of the sites used by the tenant are no longer showing this property, it is likely that there were considerably more stays during this period.
Given the above, I cannot find the tenant’s evidence reliable. The property was clearly intended, from early in the tenancy, if not from its commencement, to be used by the tenant as short-term accommodation for holidaymakers.
The tenant also said that she ceased advertising the property from the initial receipt of the 14-day notice (in July) and did not use it as a holiday rental after that except on the one further occasion (when the property manager again inspected the property) in late October. She explained that this was a one off as another property was damaged and her Air BNB manager had asked if they could use this property so that the holidaymakers still had somewhere to stay.
The tenant’s explanation for all of the landlord’s supporting evidence was unconvincing and the tenant provided no evidence to support her version of events.
The tenant said she had not been aware that she was not able to let the property until the landlord had told her after the July inspection. I do not accept this. The tenancy agreement is clear that using the property for these purposes without landlord approval is not permitted. This reflects the requirements of the Act.
Additionally, the tenant denied knowledge of the use for short-term rental when first confronted by the landlord but accepted in the hearing that she had intentionally listed the property thinking she was allowed to do so. This is contradictory.
The photographs show that the property is clearly set up for short term rental and the Body Corp manager was complaining about such use from early in the tenancy.
By her own admission the tenant had an Air BNB property manager for the property.
The tenant’s personal knowledge of the property seemed limited.
Additionally, the wear and tear shown in the photographs is significantly greater than would be expected from a small rental property used for normal residential purposes only.
Post the first 14-day notice, the tenant removed the listing for this property, but she continued to rent it our via other listings (with very similar wording but different photographs) on at least one occasion that the landlord is aware of.
The evidence supports the landlord’s contention that the tenant rented the property for this purpose and used it in this way for at least some, if not all, of the tenancy.
The property owners, according to landlord evidence, are now contemplating selling the property as they no longer feel they can trust tenants to be honest and to care for their property or pay rent in a timely way. The tenant’s behaviour has caused financial and emotional stress to the owners and the property manager.
For all of the reasons above I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. I also consider that it is the public interest to dissuade tenant’s from breaching the Act in this way.
Although it is quite possible that the property was never occupied by the tenant at all, there is no evidence either way in that regard so I have set exemplary damages somewhat lower than I may have otherwise on the basis that the tenant may have lived in the property herself at times.
The amount ordered for exemplary damages is $800.00.
As Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431540 — net $2,499.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,841.43	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Mattress protector	$98.00	Replace furnishings: Mattress protector
Exemplary damages - subletting without consent	$800.00	Exemplary damages - subletting without consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,499.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,499.93

Order

Mia Lu must pay Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham $2,499.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,755.00 (BN-00027140) to Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Sullivan attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $2,841.43.
The tenant told the landlord that she would be leaving the tenancy at the end of the fixed term period. She advised this within the 21-day notice period. The landlord accepted the tenant’s notice but advised that she must give 21 days and that would take her to 5 February 2026.
The tenant disputed this, but the Act is clear that 21 days’ notice is required to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term (see section 60A) or after.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The tenant provided evidence that she had paid a cleaner and handyman to complete cleaning and gardening work.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged that some effort had been made to clean the property, the photographs indicate that not all areas of the house were left reasonably clean and tidy, and the gardens were not weeded.
The property manager did the cleaning and gardening work herself as she was unable to get a tradesperson to complete it in the timeframe required.
Given the photographic evidence provided, I consider that additional work was necessary to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard and the amount claimed for additional cleaning and garden work ($200.00) is very reasonable.
The landlord also provided evidence that the floors had not been adequately cleaned.
There were marks on the hard floors and stains on the carpet. This was more than would usually be expected in a reasonably short tenancy. Vacuuming was required throughout but some stains were unable to be removed without professional cleaning.
The carpets and hard floors were professionally cleaned at a cost of $287.50. This cleaning removed most of the staining and marks to the floors and carpet.
The ingoing inspection report referred to brand new mattress protectors being provided at the commencement of the tenancy. These were not present at the end of the tenancy and were replaced at a cost of $98.00.
The tenant said that her associate, who had collected keys at the beginning of the tenancy, purchased all bed linen for the property including the mattress protectors.
The tenant was permitted to provide an invoice to confirm this after the hearing was concluded but she was unable to do so. She acknowledged this in an email but disputed the amount being claimed, suggesting that the landlord could have purchased more cost-effective protectors.
As the tenant denied liability for the protectors at the hearing no discussion was held as related to the cost of the replacement protectors, but the landlord provided an invoice to confirm the amount paid.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant listed the property on a number of short-term accommodation sites and rented it out accordingly without the prior written consent of the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal by the landlord included photographs of written signs at the property consistent with holiday rental use (labelled bedrooms (“A” and “B”), storage cupboard including linen shelves assigned for each bedroom, extra items such as toiletries, tea, and sugar, bathroom cupboard labelled “first aid”, exterior labels identifying the unit and the gate, a lock box on the exterior of the premises, unknown occupants with suitcases and on one occasion suitcases but no visible occupants.
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was displeased to find that the kitchen was not fully equipped with cutlery and crockery and so on. The landlord purchased these items at the request of this tenant and provided them as part of the tenancy although they had not expected to have to do so.
By the tenant’s own admission, her colleague, who accepted the keys at the beginning of the tenancy on her behalf, also immediately purchased all required linen for the property and other items, seemingly without consulting the tenant herself as to the suitability or otherwise of these items.
The landlord provided evidence of various listings on a number of property rental websites (including Booking.com) showing this property listed as a holiday rental during the tenancy.
The landlord also provided evidence from a temporary occupier’s phone showing that they had booked another property in the same complex and been diverted to this property at the last minute. This occurred after the tenant had been asked to desist from advertising the property as a holiday rental.
The landlord said that she had been contacted on a number of occasions early in the tenancy by the Body Corporate Manager in relation to various violations of Body Corporate rules including incorrect rubbish disposal and drying sheets on railings (frequently).
Due to ill health, the property manager was not able to investigate these issues within the first five or so months of the tenancy. The first inspection was completed in July and the property manager immediately confirmed the Body Corporate Manager’s suspicions that the property was being used as a holiday rental and issued a 14-day notice to the tenant to cease doing so.
The tenant responded that she was away and was unaware that the property was being used in this way. She told the manager that she would check with the person she had left in charge of the property.
During the hearing the tenant acknowledged that she had rented the property on a short-term basis on a few occasions when she was out of town. She was not immediately forthcoming with details of the frequency of this but when pushed, she said that she had rented the property out through an Air BNB manager on two occasions for one night each. She said she had not been paid for one other occasion as the landlord had made the occupiers leave the address. She said that she had been paid a total of $360.00 being $180 per night.
She acknowledged that it was a coincidence that these two occasions were on the same dates as the property manager inspected the premises.
There were no inspections completed between the commencement of the tenancy (25 January 2025) and the July inspection. The tenant said that she had been present in the property at this time herself and had not rented it out at all.
Some of the short-term holiday listings provided by the landlord are still available to view online and these show 15 reviews of the property as short term rental accommodation between April and June 2025, with at least 10 of these for stays in May. Given that not all holiday makers leave reviews and most of the sites used by the tenant are no longer showing this property, it is likely that there were considerably more stays during this period.
Given the above, I cannot find the tenant’s evidence reliable. The property was clearly intended, from early in the tenancy, if not from its commencement, to be used by the tenant as short-term accommodation for holidaymakers.
The tenant also said that she ceased advertising the property from the initial receipt of the 14-day notice (in July) and did not use it as a holiday rental after that except on the one further occasion (when the property manager again inspected the property) in late October. She explained that this was a one off as another property was damaged and her Air BNB manager had asked if they could use this property so that the holidaymakers still had somewhere to stay.
The tenant’s explanation for all of the landlord’s supporting evidence was unconvincing and the tenant provided no evidence to support her version of events.
The tenant said she had not been aware that she was not able to let the property until the landlord had told her after the July inspection. I do not accept this. The tenancy agreement is clear that using the property for these purposes without landlord approval is not permitted. This reflects the requirements of the Act.
Additionally, the tenant denied knowledge of the use for short-term rental when first confronted by the landlord but accepted in the hearing that she had intentionally listed the property thinking she was allowed to do so. This is contradictory.
The photographs show that the property is clearly set up for short term rental and the Body Corp manager was complaining about such use from early in the tenancy.
By her own admission the tenant had an Air BNB property manager for the property.
The tenant’s personal knowledge of the property seemed limited.
Additionally, the wear and tear shown in the photographs is significantly greater than would be expected from a small rental property used for normal residential purposes only.
Post the first 14-day notice, the tenant removed the listing for this property, but she continued to rent it our via other listings (with very similar wording but different photographs) on at least one occasion that the landlord is aware of.
The evidence supports the landlord’s contention that the tenant rented the property for this purpose and used it in this way for at least some, if not all, of the tenancy.
The property owners, according to landlord evidence, are now contemplating selling the property as they no longer feel they can trust tenants to be honest and to care for their property or pay rent in a timely way. The tenant’s behaviour has caused financial and emotional stress to the owners and the property manager.
For all of the reasons above I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. I also consider that it is the public interest to dissuade tenant’s from breaching the Act in this way.
Although it is quite possible that the property was never occupied by the tenant at all, there is no evidence either way in that regard so I have set exemplary damages somewhat lower than I may have otherwise on the basis that the tenant may have lived in the property herself at times.
The amount ordered for exemplary damages is $800.00.
As Sullivan Property Management Limited As Agents For Kerryanne & Kerry Holtham has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431540 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit G03, 245 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431540 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit G03, 245 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions