Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5445396 — Rent arrears
Decided 23 Apr 2026 · Published 23 Apr 2026 · Application 5445396
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The application to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.
- The tenancy terminated and possession was granted to the landlord on 24 February 2026, and the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement on 25 February 2026.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Manor Realty Property Management Limited As Agents For Andrew & Jane Grigg $53.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Manor Realty Property Management Limited As Agents For Andrew & Jane Grigg immediately.
Reasons
- [ Tenant ] appeared for the tenant. Ms Kotze appeared for the landlord. Both appeared by video.
- The tenancy commenced on 20 November 2025 and is for a fixed term ending 19 November 2026. On 13 February 2026, the tenant filed an application to reduce the fixed term and refund of the bond. On 24 February 2026, the landlord filed a counterclaim.
- The landlord claims are as follows: i. Rent to the commencement of a new tenancy ($1,160.71), ii. Reletting costs ($430.10), iii. Failing to leave the property reasonably clean ($112.13) iv. Failing to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($420.00) v. Failing to remove all rubbish and damage ($481.05)
- In brackets next to each claim is details of the compensation claimed. Reduce fixed term
- On 11 February 2026, the tenant stated that a neighbour who lived at the rear of the property came to the tenant’s house and demanded entry to search for a kidnapped child. The tenant refused. The neighbour had a golf club, which they kept hidden behind a vehicle parked outside. Although the neighbour did not threaten the tenant with the golf club, they said, “people are ready to pour petrol over your house right now,” or words to that effect. The tenant stated that the other tenant managed to de-escalate the incident, and the neighbour left.
- The tenant called Police. The Police did not attend the tenant’s property but went straight to the neighbour’s house where the tenant witnessed them speaking with the neighbour. The tenant stated that police called later and said that there had been other complaints made.
- The tenant suffers from PTSD. They reside at the property with their partner (the other tenant), and three children under 11. The tenant stated they were extremely traumatised.
- The tenant stated that shortly afterward a member of the neighbour’s family visited and apologised, stating that the neighbour had mental health issues.
- The tenant emailed the landlord advising of the incident which they described as an extremely serious safety incident, and that they would be vacating the property. On 13 February 2026, the tenant vacated the property, returned the keys, requested release from the fixed term, also stating they intended filing an application with the Tribunal. The tenant provided the landlord with the Police case number [ redacted ].
- The tenant stated that when they moved in, they had been advised that it was a family orientated and child friendly area but experienced an Armed Offenders Squad call out soon afterwards.
- The tenant stated that at the viewing, the fence between the neighbour’s property and the tenant’s property was overgrown. Prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord had arranged for garden maintenance, which involved removing the overgrowth. The tenant stated that this revealed the fence to be lower than anticipated and in a poor condition. The tenant argued that in one section, a child may have been able to climb over the fence and into the neighbour’s property. The neighbour also had dogs, the temperaments of which were unknown to the tenant.
- The tenant formed the view that the property was not adequately secured. The tenant stated that they raised the issue with the landlord and asked whether the fence height could be increased but that the property manager advised the landlord could not afford to do so.
- The tenant stated that the property had an alarm system and that on 19 November 2025 they had asked the property manager for the code but that one was not provided.
- The tenant produced emails to the property manager dated 19 November 2025 concerning the fence and alarm, 11 February 2026, and 13 February 2026, concerning their vacating the property, and a letter from a medical professional confirming their PTSD diagnosis.
- The tenant has also provided written submissions.
- On 18 February 2026, the landlord made a request for details of the incident using the Police case number [ redacted] provided by the tenant. The landlord has produced a letter from Police dated 16 March 2026 stating, “Police can confirm that in Police report [ redacted] there was no threats made by any neighbouring occupants”.
- Ms Kotze stated that she was not the property manager for the tenancy and that the property manager had left in March 2026. Ms Kotze stated she was not aware of the tenants’ request concerning the fence or the code to the alarm but accepted the alarm was a chattel.
- The landlord produced pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports, both of which included photographs of the fence.
- The tenant stated that they had made two complaints, one about the Armed Offenders Squad call out and the other about this incident and that they may have provided the landlord with the wrong Police case number.
- In an undated email, likely sent on 13 February 2026, the landlord indicated a willingness to end the fixed term on standard terms, namely that the tenant remained liable for rent until entering a new agreement and reasonable costs associated with re letting. Law
- The usual legal position with a fixed-term agreement is that the term will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it.
- Section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) states: 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
- Before the Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy, the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that: (a) there has been a change in the tenant’s circumstances. (b) the change was unforeseen. (c) the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and (d) the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced outweighs the hardship the respondent would suffer if the term were reduced.
- Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage resulting from the reduction of the term. Analysis and decision
- In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
- Arguably the fence may not have been maintained in a reasonable state of repair, however there is no evidence that the tenant pressed the matter or issued a 14- day breach notice to remedy.
- While the landlord is obliged maintain chattels, including the alarm system, there is no evidence that the alarm was not functioning. If the tenant wished to activate the alarm, they could have taken steps to reset the code and arranged monitoring.
- Concerning the application to reduce the fixed term and end the tenancy on 13 February 2026. The alleged incident of 11 February 2026 is relied upon as the catalyst for the change in circumstances. However, there is no evidence corroborating the tenant’s account of the threats allegedly made. The Police information produced does not record any threats being made. There is also an inconsistency in the tenant’s evidence. In an email to the property manager describing the incident on 11 February 2026, the tenant referred to the neighbour holding a golf club. At the hearing, the tenant stated that the neighbour had been leaning on the tenant’s car and that, at the time, they did not see that the neighbour had a golf club hidden nearby.
- Initially this application was scheduled for hearing on 06 March 2026. On 26 February 2026, the tenant requested an adjournment and advised that they were seeking evidence from Police to support their application. The only evidence has in fact been obtained by the landlord who made their own request and have produced the Police response referred to above.
- The tenant stated that they had made their request to Police on 01 March 2026, however, no evidence of that request has been provided.
- While the Tribunal accepts that the tenant suffers PTSD and may have found the incident distressing, the evidence does not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that there was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The application to reduce the fixed term is declined. Rent and reletting costs
- The landlord states that having been given the keys, and after cleaning and some minor repairs, they immediately offered the property for rent. Shortly afterward they entered into a new agreement commencing 25 February 2026.
- The landlord has provided a breakdown of reletting costs and is also claiming rent to 24 February 2026. The landlord states that they advertised the property on four digital media platforms, including their own, at a cost of $287.50. In addition to the advertising costs, they claim $27.60 for credit checks and $115.00 for travel, viewings, processing applications, and a final and entry inspection.
- The tenant stated that the landlord had failed to provide sufficient details regarding advertising dates, reletting efforts, and when a new tenant was secured. The tenant also submitted that the landlord was not entitled to compensation for reletting costs that they would have incurred in any event had the tenancy run its full term. Law
- A fixed term tenancy can not be ended by either party giving unilateral notice. Under section 50(1)(d) of the Act a tenancy agreement, whether periodic or fixed term may end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
- A tenant who vacates otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act or order of the Tribunal commits a breach. The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, meaning losses that naturally flows from the breach.
- Under section 49 of the Act, if a party to a tenancy agreement suffers a loss due to a breach of the agreement or the Act, they must take all reasonable steps to mitigate (reduce) that loss. If they do not, the Tribunal may reduce the amount of compensation or damages awarded to reflect what could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps. Analysis and decision
- By leaving the tenancy before the end of the fixed term, the tenant has breached their agreement. Although the landlord indicated a willingness to reduce the fixed term there was no concluded agreement under section 50(1)(d). Instead, the tenant made an application under section 66 of the Act to reduce the fixed term.
- The landlord is entitled to be compensated for lost rent. In this case the compensation claimed is for rent up to the entering of a new tenancy agreement and costs associated with entering into that new agreement. The relatively short period taken to find a replacement tenant is evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate any loss.
- The rent claimed is a direct consequence of the tenant’s breach.
- The tenant’s submission that the reletting costs would have been incurred in any event, is not accepted. In this case the reletting costs claimed arise from the landlord’s efforts to mitigate their loss. Without their doing so, the tenant may have been liable for a longer period of lost rent.
- I am satisfied that the rent and reletting claims naturally flow from the breach and are reasonable in the circumstances. The amounts claimed are awarded. Other claims Cleaning
- The landlord claims that the property was not left in a reasonably clean condition.
- The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection conducted on 14 February including photographs, some of which are close up.
- The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to leave the following areas reasonably clean: • Toilet and bathroom • Stove top and oven • Inside kitchen cabinet • Windowsills and skirting boards
- The tenant denies the claim and states that the property was returned in a reasonably clean condition, and the landlord is claiming compensation for seeking to obtain a greater standard than necessary.
- The tenant stated that their mother-in-law, who is a professional cleaner, cleaned the property on the tenant’s behalf. The tenant provided short videos taken on 13 February 2026 showing the interior after cleaning. Carpet cleaning
- The landlord states that the carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. They state at the end of the tenancy there was staining and soiling in each room. The landlord has produced photographs showing what they claim is staining and soiling. This was removed by professional carpet cleaning.
- The tenant denies liability and states that any staining and soiling should be considered fair wear and tear. Lawn and garden maintenance
- The landlord claims that the lawns and gardens were not returned in a reasonably tidy condition.
- The tenant denies the claim and states that during a routine inspection on 01 February 2026, the landlord raised no concerns about the condition of the lawns or gardens.
- The tenant also disputes the amount claimed, submitting that it is disproportionate to the work required. Rubbish
- The landlord claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish. The landlord produced photographs showing items of household rubbish left by the tenant including full council supplied waste and recycling bins.
- The tenant accepted that they had left some rubbish around the outside of the house and in the garage, and that the council bins were full. Law
- 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) of the Act.
- The provision 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 inspection reports and photographs.
- The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994). Analysis and decision
- Having viewed the photographic and video evidence provided, I consider the landlord’s evidence to be more reliable. The tenant’s videos are brief, taken from a distance, and the screen shots are blurry.
- I am satisfied that some areas have not been left in a reasonably clean condition, namely some windowsills and skirting boards, the stove top and inside the oven, inside the kitchen cupboard under the sink, the shelves in the pantry, and the toilet. The amount claimed for cleaning is proportionate to the cleaning required and is reasonable.
- The landlord’s photographs show discrete areas of staining to the carpet in the dining room, bedroom, and hallway. The landlord claims there was some soiling to the carpet in a fourth bedroom, but no photographic evidence for this room has been provided.
- I am satisfied that the staining and soiling in dining room, bedroom, and hallway has occurred during the tenancy, and that the carpet in those rooms has not been left reasonably clean. It is not fair wear and tear. There is insufficient evidence concerning the carpet in the fourth bedroom.
- The amount claimed relates to the entire property of which includes the dining room, lounge, hallway, and four bedrooms were carpeted. The invoice is not itemised by room. I therefore apportion the costs accordingly ($420.00 divided by 7 x 3 = $180.00). I award the landlord $180.00 for carpet cleaning.
- That the property manager conducting an inspection on 01 February 2026 did not mention the gardens or lawns is irrelevant, it is their condition at the end. In this case both one of the tenant’s videos, which captures areas of the lawn and garden, and the landlord’s end of tenancy photographs show that the lawns were moderately overgrown and that there were weeds in the gardens. Provided the lawns and gardens were provided in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy they should at least be returned in a similar condition. In this case I am satisfied that this did not occur.
- The claim is for $388.12 labour and $57.50 for consumables to mow the lawn and remove the clippings, trim edges, and spray weeds. Taking into account the extent of work required, I consider that an award of $300.00 is reasonable.
- The tenant accepted that they left items of rubbish. I will deal with compensation below. Damage
- The landlords claim for damage relates to removing scuff marks and graffiti drawings on walls, removing four adhesive child locks from kitchen cupboard doors and the oven, replacing a broken door stop at the front door, and reattaching an internet wall router and phone cover. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
- The Tenant accepts liability for removing the marks from the wall and for the adhesive child locks. There is no photographic evidence of the broken door stop or of the internet router. There is a photograph of the phone cover located in one of the bedrooms that has come away from the wall. The tenant accepted that the phone cover had become dislodged during the tenancy.
- I am satisfied that the marks were made on the walls and the adhesive locks installed during the tenancy. While it is arguable that some of these falls within cleaning rather than damage, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable in any event.
- There is insufficient evidence concerning the door stop or the internet router. I accept that damage has occurred to the telephone cover which is more than fair wear and tear.
- The invoice produced includes rubbish removal and damage. After excluding items for which I am not satisfied the tenant is liable, I award $432.40. I note that the rubbish removal, which includes disposal fees, comprises a more significant portion of the invoice. Another claim
- The landlord is claiming $80.50 for a failed contractor call out. The landlord states that the tenant reported that the oven was malfunctioning. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend and investigate at 9.30am on 10 February 2026. The tenant stated that they were stuck in traffic after a school run and called the contractor to cancel the visit. The tenant was unsure if the contractor were in fact at the property at the time they cancelled or whether the other tenant would have been home in any event.
- The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach of the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Act. I am unsure as to what breach has occurred. There is no evidence that the landlord has issued a notice which the tenant has then unreasonably failed to comply with. I am not satisfied there is a breach, and I decline to make any order. Costs
- Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
- As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.
- Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
- The tenant seeks name suppression. Although the tenant has not been substantially successful, having considered the medical evidence provided I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.