Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5446274 — Rent arrears
Decided 26 Jun 2026 · Published 26 Jun 2026 · Application 5446274
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
- Te Ana Whorskey must pay [The landlord/s] $4,747.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 December 2025 under application 5407109. That order is not to be enforced separately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy was ended by a previous Tribunal order on 22 December 2025. This was a fixed-term tenancy to 3 April 2026. A new tenancy formed before that date on 26 January 2026, ending tenant rent liability as at 25 January 2026. The final rent arrears totalled $5,914.29. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord provided entry and exit photos as well as invoices for carpet cleaning ($195.00), cleaning ($400.00) and rubbish/abandoned items removal. The photos evidence the need for each task and the invoices establish the reasonable costs. The invoices are awarded in full.
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. TV and remote. The chattel list and entry photos confirm a working TV and remote in good condition. The age and value are difficult to ascertain but it appears reasonable to assume it was of several years age. The landlord no longer provides such a chattel so the loss is not established by any replacement invoice. The landlord provided some indicative costs for like- for-like replacement and I award $150.00 for the loss of the TV and remote. b. Two dining chairs (of a set of four). Again, these were confirmed in the chattel list and photos. Again, the owner has decided to not replace the chattels for the next tenancy. The landlord provided some indicative costs for like-for-like replacement, and I award $150.00 for the loss of the two dining chairs, also considering the impact on what was a set of four dining chairs and therefore a loss of that optional use in the future.
- The guiding principle in any such loss is restitution in integrum (a Latin term meaning “restitution to the original position”)– to place the injured party in the same position that it would have been in if the damage had not occurred. Thus, the appropriate measure of compensation is the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the damaging act.
- However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and the Tribunal’s task becomes an attempt to do so as closely as possible through compensation. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the applicant, the concept of betterment has developed in the jurisprudence, which essentially limits an award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Prior order
- On 22 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for termination and monetary orders. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. That order must not be enforced. Filing fee
- Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.