What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440264 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 5440264?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Outdoor Maintenance: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Pick Up Dog Faeces: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $835.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440264?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13641251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440264 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 5440264?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Outdoor Maintenance: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Pick Up Dog Faeces: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $835.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440264?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13641251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440264 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440264 — net $1,508.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$835.71	Rent arrears
Garden work to fix the holes and sew grass seed	$150.00	Garden work to fix the holes and sew grass seed
Damage to the wall	$120.00	Damage to the wall
Outdoor maintenance	$50.00	Outdoor maintenance
Repair cedar scriber	$200.00	Repair cedar scriber
Pick up dog faeces	$100.00	Pick up dog faeces
Rubbish removal	$25.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,508.71
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,508.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shenee Stamper and Sean Turner to pay [The landlord/s] $1,508.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,508.71 Shenee Stamper and Sean Turner: $1,091.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Turner attended in person. Ms Stamper attended briefly by phone and then chose to leave 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 tenants said they had no idea about the claims being made against them. I can see the tenants were sent many text messages about the hearings and these messages contained the application number and two ways the tenants could contact Tenancy Services to get information about the hearing. Tenancy Services would have provided a copy of the application and supporting documents before the hearing if asked. The tenants both chose not to follow up with Tenancy Services. The claim was straight forward and I decided the hearing should go ahead. Mr Turner was provided with a copy of the documents and photos and we worked through the claims one by one.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant questioned the claim because they thought they only owed one week and not one week and two days. I checked the amount at the hearing and the tenant agreed to pay the money claimed.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning because of a smell of dog at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said they cleaned the carpets at the end of the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord did not provide me with any photos showing the need for carpet cleaning. The invoice from Jae does not specify that the carpets were treated for a smell. I find the landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The landlord provided me with photos showing the tenants did not remove all of their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has proved this claim and the amount claimed is reasonable.
The landlord provided me with good photos showing the need for filling holes, reseeding a small area of lawn, picking up dog faeces, and carrying out outdoor maintenance. The tenant accepted some of this was not reasonable at the end of the tenancy. I have only allowed $50 for the outdoor maintenance which seems reasonable based on the photos. Otherwise, the amounts claimed are reasonable.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for the cost of repairing damage. The 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 tenants 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.
The claim for replacing the missing TV brackets is dismissed because the landlord did not have a receipt.
There is a claim for replacing the spa pool cover in the amount of $1390. The spa pool was excluded from the tenancy agreement because the landlord was concerned about damage. The landlord provided photos of the damaged cover.
The tenant agreed the cover broke during the tenancy and said his dog used to lie on it. It is agreed evidence the parties discussed the dog not being allowed to lie on the cover. The landlord’s recollection is the tenant was going to rig up some sort of protection. The tenant’s recollection is that he was going to work together with the landlord to build some sort of covering and this never happened. At the hearing we discussed that keeping the dog off the cover was not a simple matter of, for example, blocking off an entrance. Having considered the submissions I find it was the landlord’s job to protect the spa pool cover. This is because the tenants were not allowed to use the spa pool and protecting the cover was not a straight forward job. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairing a small hole in the gib in the hallway. The landlord provided photos which prove the damage happened during the tenancy. I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is reasonable.
There is a claim for replacing a door handle. The landlord provided photos and I accept the handle was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant said lots of handles came loose during the tenancy and he fixed these as he noticed them. He did not notice the handle in question was loose. I find the damage was most likely fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There are two claims for repairing doors which have scratches on them, most likely from a dog. The tenant said the doors were scratched when they moved in. The landlord’s photos from the start of the tenancy are not close enough for me to see if there were existing scratches. These claims are not proved and they are dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing a piece of decking the landlord said was chewed by a dog. The tenant said that the small piece of decking broke along the edge when he stepped off the deck one day. This damage should have been reported to the landlord but it was not. Having heard the submissions and considered the photos I am not persuaded the damage was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $200 for repairs to a cedar scriber which is badly scratched. The tenant did not want to reply to the claim. It seems most likely to me this damage happened during the tenancy. I find this is different from the claims for the doors, where I am being asked to guess if the scratches are all from the tenants’ dogs. The damage to the scriber is noticeable, and the tenant has not offered any defence. The amount claimed is reasonable. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. The landlord’s name will not be published because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when premises are not left in a reasonable condition at the end of a tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440264 — net $1,508.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$835.71	Rent arrears
Garden work to fix the holes and sew grass seed	$150.00	Garden work to fix the holes and sew grass seed
Damage to the wall	$120.00	Damage to the wall
Outdoor maintenance	$50.00	Outdoor maintenance
Repair cedar scriber	$200.00	Repair cedar scriber
Pick up dog faeces	$100.00	Pick up dog faeces
Rubbish removal	$25.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,508.71
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,508.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shenee Stamper and Sean Turner to pay [The landlord/s] $1,508.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,508.71 Shenee Stamper and Sean Turner: $1,091.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Turner attended in person. Ms Stamper attended briefly by phone and then chose to leave 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 tenants said they had no idea about the claims being made against them. I can see the tenants were sent many text messages about the hearings and these messages contained the application number and two ways the tenants could contact Tenancy Services to get information about the hearing. Tenancy Services would have provided a copy of the application and supporting documents before the hearing if asked. The tenants both chose not to follow up with Tenancy Services. The claim was straight forward and I decided the hearing should go ahead. Mr Turner was provided with a copy of the documents and photos and we worked through the claims one by one.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant questioned the claim because they thought they only owed one week and not one week and two days. I checked the amount at the hearing and the tenant agreed to pay the money claimed.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning because of a smell of dog at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said they cleaned the carpets at the end of the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord did not provide me with any photos showing the need for carpet cleaning. The invoice from Jae does not specify that the carpets were treated for a smell. I find the landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The landlord provided me with photos showing the tenants did not remove all of their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has proved this claim and the amount claimed is reasonable.
The landlord provided me with good photos showing the need for filling holes, reseeding a small area of lawn, picking up dog faeces, and carrying out outdoor maintenance. The tenant accepted some of this was not reasonable at the end of the tenancy. I have only allowed $50 for the outdoor maintenance which seems reasonable based on the photos. Otherwise, the amounts claimed are reasonable.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for the cost of repairing damage. The 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 tenants 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.
The claim for replacing the missing TV brackets is dismissed because the landlord did not have a receipt.
There is a claim for replacing the spa pool cover in the amount of $1390. The spa pool was excluded from the tenancy agreement because the landlord was concerned about damage. The landlord provided photos of the damaged cover.
The tenant agreed the cover broke during the tenancy and said his dog used to lie on it. It is agreed evidence the parties discussed the dog not being allowed to lie on the cover. The landlord’s recollection is the tenant was going to rig up some sort of protection. The tenant’s recollection is that he was going to work together with the landlord to build some sort of covering and this never happened. At the hearing we discussed that keeping the dog off the cover was not a simple matter of, for example, blocking off an entrance. Having considered the submissions I find it was the landlord’s job to protect the spa pool cover. This is because the tenants were not allowed to use the spa pool and protecting the cover was not a straight forward job. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairing a small hole in the gib in the hallway. The landlord provided photos which prove the damage happened during the tenancy. I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is reasonable.
There is a claim for replacing a door handle. The landlord provided photos and I accept the handle was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant said lots of handles came loose during the tenancy and he fixed these as he noticed them. He did not notice the handle in question was loose. I find the damage was most likely fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There are two claims for repairing doors which have scratches on them, most likely from a dog. The tenant said the doors were scratched when they moved in. The landlord’s photos from the start of the tenancy are not close enough for me to see if there were existing scratches. These claims are not proved and they are dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing a piece of decking the landlord said was chewed by a dog. The tenant said that the small piece of decking broke along the edge when he stepped off the deck one day. This damage should have been reported to the landlord but it was not. Having heard the submissions and considered the photos I am not persuaded the damage was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $200 for repairs to a cedar scriber which is badly scratched. The tenant did not want to reply to the claim. It seems most likely to me this damage happened during the tenancy. I find this is different from the claims for the doors, where I am being asked to guess if the scratches are all from the tenants’ dogs. The damage to the scriber is noticeable, and the tenant has not offered any defence. The amount claimed is reasonable. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. The landlord’s name will not be published because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when premises are not left in a reasonable condition at the end of a tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440264 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440264 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants 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?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions