What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445516 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5445516?

Dump Fees: $140.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $663.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445516?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775871-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445516 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5445516?

Dump Fees: $140.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $663.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445516?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775871-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Sumner Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024, single Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445516 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445516 — net $6,331.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2026	$5,000.00	Rent arrears to 31 January 2026
Water rates	$663.58	Water rates
Dump fees	$140.35	Dump fees
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,331.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,331.93

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,331.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The applications for the cost of an electrical repair and for rubbish removal costs from 2019/20 are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 23 September 2019 and ended on 31 January 2026 after the landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy dated 1 November 2025. The premises were to be (and have been) demolished.
On 15 February 2026 the landlord filed her application. She seeks rent arrears of $16,850.00; water rates of $663.58; rubbish removal charges of $2,151.00 and $428.70; dump fees of $140.35; and reimbursement of electrical work of $306.71.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for water rates and for dump fees. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these claims: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, how much should be awarded? •Has the landlord proved claims for rubbish removal? If so, how much should be awarded? •Has the landlord proved a claim for electrical work? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to quit the premises when the tenancy ends; and to remove all rubbish. Discussion Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, how much should be awarded?
The landlord’s rent claim dates back to about November 2019.
The landlord provided rent records but not in a form that is acceptable to the Tribunal. There is no running accrual of the rent arrears. It seems that some rent payments were greater than required, some less, and some missed altogether.
The landlord is well aware of the evidence she must produce to prove rent arrears. She appears frequently in the Tribunal pursuing claims against tenants. It is not the Tribunal’s role to wade through pages of rent records to work out the amount of rent arrears on an accrual basis.
I accept that there are considerable rent arrears. The tenants said they thought they owed about $2,000.00. I find that that underestimates what they owe in fact and by some margin.
Apart from the evidentially inadequate rent records, there is another reason why the landlord’s rent claim cannot succeed as pleaded.
In Huang v Ashworth 1 Judge Sainsbury said this: I consider that Mr Huang’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to 4 years. But I qualify that; it is reasonable only up to a point. Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal.
In this case, the landlord obtained a conditional termination order on 26 September 2019 at which time there were rent arrears of $3,395.00. She enforced that order and one of the tenants (still) is making weekly payments from her benefit.
The landlord said in evidence that she served 14-day notices for rent arrears, but she has taken no enforcement action since 2019; she let the tenancy continue apparently prepared to let the rent arrears accrue.
When I questioned her about that she said she was being compassionate. While that is her self-assessment it is not one the Tribunal would make.
Unlike the landlord in Huang whom the Court considered might have been naïve, this landlord is far from naïve. Simply put, an experienced landlord such 1 [2024] NZDC 15726 as this one who frequently appears before the Tribunal cannot expect to succeed on a rent claim dating back almost 6 years when she has allowed that situation to continue. She should have acted much sooner.
I allow the landlord rent arrears of $5,000.00 only.
The landlord said she considered that the tenancy ended on 8 February 2026. The tenants denied that, pointing to the termination notice that ended the tenancy on 31 January 2026.
Nothing turns of that given the limitation on the rent claim. But the landlord’s claim that another person remined at the premises (not a tenant) does not make these tenants liable for rent after the tenancy terminated. Has the landlord proved claims for rubbish removal? If so, how much should be awarded?
First, I will address the claim for $428.70 for rubbish removal the landlord said dated back to 2019 (the invoice is dated 15 March 2020).
The landlord stated that the tenants filled up a skip with extra rubbish.
The narration on the invoice does not support that explanation. It says: extra skip for rubbish at dig out and cabbage tree.
The narration does not support a proven breach by the tenants of their statutory responsibilities. The tenants said they knew nothing about this claim.
I dismiss this part of the claim for rubbish removal for lack of proof.
The landlord has also claimed $2,151.00 for dump fees also part of rubbish removal. At the hearing she said there could be a deduction of $271.44 for green waste removal that was not the tenants’ responsibility.
The photos produced in evidence show a huge amount of rubbish. The evidence as to how it accumulated was in direct conflict. The tenants said that most of the things were items from one of the landlord’s other properties. The landlord said that was not true.
This was a property where the house and structures were demolished. A demolition usually includes the removal of every structure including whatever is around it and the levelling of the site.
It is impossible for the Tribunal to assess this claim with accuracy given the conflict in the evidence.
The landlord produced two 14-day breach notices for rubbish, one dated 9 July 2019 and one dated 30 May 2025.She said in evidence that she conducted 6- monthly inspections.
I accept from those notices that the tenants accumulated rubbish at the premises. They agreed that there were ‘a few things’ left outside.
I find that the tenants did leave goods and rubbish at the premises and that the landlord incurred some costs removing the rubbish.
Given the paucity of evidence the landlord provided (for example, no property inspection reports and no photos from those inspections) and the conflict in the evidence both parties gave I award her compensation for rubbish removal of $500.00 only.

Has the landlord proved a claim for electrical work?

The landlord speculated that the tenant or some other person at the premises damaged the oven element due to drug use. She produced no objective evidence to support that allegation.
The tenants denied any drug use and they denied causing any damage.
This claim cannot succeed because the landlord produced no evidence of the repair cost, only a report from the electrician on which she has written the repair cost. As she knows that is not sufficient to prove a claim. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $6,331.93. The landlord’s claims for the rubbish removal charge from 2019/20 and for the cost of an electrical repair are dismissed.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. The application is only partly successful. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order.
The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as they have not fully successfully defended the landlord’s claims.
The landlord might have been entitled to name suppression, although her application is only partly successful. I make no name suppression order in this case. The Tribunal has a discretion not to grant name suppression when it considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct.
This landlord brings multiple applications to the Tribunal each year and there have been numerous published orders against her. It is in the public interest that she be named so tenants can make informed decisions about whether to rent premises from her.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445516 — net $6,331.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2026	$5,000.00	Rent arrears to 31 January 2026
Water rates	$663.58	Water rates
Dump fees	$140.35	Dump fees
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,331.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,331.93

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,331.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The applications for the cost of an electrical repair and for rubbish removal costs from 2019/20 are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 23 September 2019 and ended on 31 January 2026 after the landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy dated 1 November 2025. The premises were to be (and have been) demolished.
On 15 February 2026 the landlord filed her application. She seeks rent arrears of $16,850.00; water rates of $663.58; rubbish removal charges of $2,151.00 and $428.70; dump fees of $140.35; and reimbursement of electrical work of $306.71.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for water rates and for dump fees. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these claims: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, how much should be awarded? •Has the landlord proved claims for rubbish removal? If so, how much should be awarded? •Has the landlord proved a claim for electrical work? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to quit the premises when the tenancy ends; and to remove all rubbish. Discussion Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, how much should be awarded?
The landlord’s rent claim dates back to about November 2019.
The landlord provided rent records but not in a form that is acceptable to the Tribunal. There is no running accrual of the rent arrears. It seems that some rent payments were greater than required, some less, and some missed altogether.
The landlord is well aware of the evidence she must produce to prove rent arrears. She appears frequently in the Tribunal pursuing claims against tenants. It is not the Tribunal’s role to wade through pages of rent records to work out the amount of rent arrears on an accrual basis.
I accept that there are considerable rent arrears. The tenants said they thought they owed about $2,000.00. I find that that underestimates what they owe in fact and by some margin.
Apart from the evidentially inadequate rent records, there is another reason why the landlord’s rent claim cannot succeed as pleaded.
In Huang v Ashworth 1 Judge Sainsbury said this: I consider that Mr Huang’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to 4 years. But I qualify that; it is reasonable only up to a point. Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal.
In this case, the landlord obtained a conditional termination order on 26 September 2019 at which time there were rent arrears of $3,395.00. She enforced that order and one of the tenants (still) is making weekly payments from her benefit.
The landlord said in evidence that she served 14-day notices for rent arrears, but she has taken no enforcement action since 2019; she let the tenancy continue apparently prepared to let the rent arrears accrue.
When I questioned her about that she said she was being compassionate. While that is her self-assessment it is not one the Tribunal would make.
Unlike the landlord in Huang whom the Court considered might have been naïve, this landlord is far from naïve. Simply put, an experienced landlord such 1 [2024] NZDC 15726 as this one who frequently appears before the Tribunal cannot expect to succeed on a rent claim dating back almost 6 years when she has allowed that situation to continue. She should have acted much sooner.
I allow the landlord rent arrears of $5,000.00 only.
The landlord said she considered that the tenancy ended on 8 February 2026. The tenants denied that, pointing to the termination notice that ended the tenancy on 31 January 2026.
Nothing turns of that given the limitation on the rent claim. But the landlord’s claim that another person remined at the premises (not a tenant) does not make these tenants liable for rent after the tenancy terminated. Has the landlord proved claims for rubbish removal? If so, how much should be awarded?
First, I will address the claim for $428.70 for rubbish removal the landlord said dated back to 2019 (the invoice is dated 15 March 2020).
The landlord stated that the tenants filled up a skip with extra rubbish.
The narration on the invoice does not support that explanation. It says: extra skip for rubbish at dig out and cabbage tree.
The narration does not support a proven breach by the tenants of their statutory responsibilities. The tenants said they knew nothing about this claim.
I dismiss this part of the claim for rubbish removal for lack of proof.
The landlord has also claimed $2,151.00 for dump fees also part of rubbish removal. At the hearing she said there could be a deduction of $271.44 for green waste removal that was not the tenants’ responsibility.
The photos produced in evidence show a huge amount of rubbish. The evidence as to how it accumulated was in direct conflict. The tenants said that most of the things were items from one of the landlord’s other properties. The landlord said that was not true.
This was a property where the house and structures were demolished. A demolition usually includes the removal of every structure including whatever is around it and the levelling of the site.
It is impossible for the Tribunal to assess this claim with accuracy given the conflict in the evidence.
The landlord produced two 14-day breach notices for rubbish, one dated 9 July 2019 and one dated 30 May 2025.She said in evidence that she conducted 6- monthly inspections.
I accept from those notices that the tenants accumulated rubbish at the premises. They agreed that there were ‘a few things’ left outside.
I find that the tenants did leave goods and rubbish at the premises and that the landlord incurred some costs removing the rubbish.
Given the paucity of evidence the landlord provided (for example, no property inspection reports and no photos from those inspections) and the conflict in the evidence both parties gave I award her compensation for rubbish removal of $500.00 only.

Has the landlord proved a claim for electrical work?

The landlord speculated that the tenant or some other person at the premises damaged the oven element due to drug use. She produced no objective evidence to support that allegation.
The tenants denied any drug use and they denied causing any damage.
This claim cannot succeed because the landlord produced no evidence of the repair cost, only a report from the electrician on which she has written the repair cost. As she knows that is not sufficient to prove a claim. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $6,331.93. The landlord’s claims for the rubbish removal charge from 2019/20 and for the cost of an electrical repair are dismissed.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. The application is only partly successful. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order.
The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as they have not fully successfully defended the landlord’s claims.
The landlord might have been entitled to name suppression, although her application is only partly successful. I make no name suppression order in this case. The Tribunal has a discretion not to grant name suppression when it considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct.
This landlord brings multiple applications to the Tribunal each year and there have been numerous published orders against her. It is in the public interest that she be named so tenants can make informed decisions about whether to rent premises from her.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445516 — Rent arrears at 21 Sumner Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024, single

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445516 — Rent arrears at 21 Sumner Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024, single

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for electrical work?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for electrical work?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions