What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5452347?

The tribunal order states: Jason Albery Hall must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5452347?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,405.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $651.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,128.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,459.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452347?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452347?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13498392-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5452347?

The tribunal order states: Jason Albery Hall must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5452347?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,405.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $651.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,128.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,459.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452347?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452347?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13498392-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

92 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452347 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

92 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452347 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452347 — net $4,142.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 March 2025	$2,128.57	Rent arrears to 18 March 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,405.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,459.33	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$651.90	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,142.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,142.80

Claims and awards for application 5452347 — net $4,142.80 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 18 March 2025

Amount: $2,128.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 18 March 2025

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $1,405.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,459.33
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Window repairs

Amount: $651.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Dismissed claims

Its Costs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Jason Albery Hall must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Igel Robert Hoare And Melissa Jane Hudson Trustees Of Jasper Trust $4,142.80 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6286556-003) to Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Igel Robert Hoare And Melissa Jane Hudson Trustees Of Jasper Trust immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 18 March 2025$2,128.57 Carpet Cleaning$150.00 Cleaning$1,405.00 Rubbish removal$1,459.33 Window repairs$651.90 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,822.80 Bond$1,680.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,142.80

Reasons

The landlord attended 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. Service
The landlord made application to the Tribunal on 23 February 2026, nearly a year after the end of the tenancy. This means that the application and other documents required to be served on the tenant must be posted to an address that the tenant has given to the landlord in writing within the last two months, or served in person on the tenant, or delivered to the tenant's place of residence, or given to an authorised agent of the tenant. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord does not have a contact address for the tenant that has been given to them in writing within the last two months. The landlord has no knowledge of the tenant having an authorised agent or solicitor.
The landlord has provided evidence of an address trace which gave a current address for the tenant as at 9 May 2025. The landlord’s application and the notice of hearing have been posted to this address and sent by text to the tenant’s cell phone number provided in the tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal is satisfied that in these circumstances all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the application and corresponding documentation on the tenant. Posting and texting is likely to have brought notice of the application to the tenant’s attention.
In accordance with section 91B(2) RTA, the Tribunal directs that the requirement for service is dispensed with and that the landlord’s application is to proceed as if it had been served on the tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 March 2025. The landlord provided rent 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what he wanted, left anything else and made no attempt at cleaning. There was evidence of extensive staining to the carpet in one bedroom which was not present in other rooms. It is reasonable to conclude that the staining was not due to fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claims supported by invoices from independent contractors are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A 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 tenant 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.
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) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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) RTA.
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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the front door glass was broken. This was careless damage and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord made a further claim for repairs to window stays in the property. There was limited photographic evidence of any such damage, nor any indication of why the repairs were not due to fair wear and tear. Given the age of the property and, presumably, the window stays, it is not unreasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that they broke because of age and use. The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that the damage was not due to fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord submitted a further claim for their attendances. It did not include sufficient details for the Tribunal to determine what works it related to, nor was it supported by receipts. The Tribunal can only guess that it relates to repairs, rubbish removal and cleaning.
The Tribunal has awarded the landlord reimbursement of the costs of independent contractors for cleaning and rubbish removal. The landlord has provided no evidence of what further work it was required to carry out, nor why the tenant was liable for its cost. In addition, the landlord has excluded fair wear and tear as a possible cause.
It appears from the landlord’s invoice that the landlord has replaced curtains. There is no evidence of what curtains were missing, their age or condition or receipts which could support the landlord’s claim.
The landlord’s claim included the cost of meals, petrol and accommodation. The tenant is not liable for the landlord’s living costs just as the tenant is not liable for the living costs of the landlord’s contractors.
In the absence of supporting evidence or any evidence that the damage was not fair wear or tear, the landlord’s claim for its costs is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed in its application for insurance excesses, however no information or evidence in support of these claims was provided. This claim is also dismissed.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Igel Robert Hoare And Melissa Jane Hudson Trustees Of Jasper Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452347 — net $4,142.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 March 2025	$2,128.57	Rent arrears to 18 March 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,405.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,459.33	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$651.90	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,142.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,142.80

Claims and awards for application 5452347 — net $4,142.80 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 18 March 2025

Amount: $2,128.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 18 March 2025

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $1,405.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,459.33
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Window repairs

Amount: $651.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Dismissed claims

Its Costs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Jason Albery Hall must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Igel Robert Hoare And Melissa Jane Hudson Trustees Of Jasper Trust $4,142.80 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6286556-003) to Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Igel Robert Hoare And Melissa Jane Hudson Trustees Of Jasper Trust immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 18 March 2025$2,128.57 Carpet Cleaning$150.00 Cleaning$1,405.00 Rubbish removal$1,459.33 Window repairs$651.90 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,822.80 Bond$1,680.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,142.80

Reasons

The landlord attended 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. Service
The landlord made application to the Tribunal on 23 February 2026, nearly a year after the end of the tenancy. This means that the application and other documents required to be served on the tenant must be posted to an address that the tenant has given to the landlord in writing within the last two months, or served in person on the tenant, or delivered to the tenant's place of residence, or given to an authorised agent of the tenant. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord does not have a contact address for the tenant that has been given to them in writing within the last two months. The landlord has no knowledge of the tenant having an authorised agent or solicitor.
The landlord has provided evidence of an address trace which gave a current address for the tenant as at 9 May 2025. The landlord’s application and the notice of hearing have been posted to this address and sent by text to the tenant’s cell phone number provided in the tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal is satisfied that in these circumstances all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the application and corresponding documentation on the tenant. Posting and texting is likely to have brought notice of the application to the tenant’s attention.
In accordance with section 91B(2) RTA, the Tribunal directs that the requirement for service is dispensed with and that the landlord’s application is to proceed as if it had been served on the tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 March 2025. The landlord provided rent 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what he wanted, left anything else and made no attempt at cleaning. There was evidence of extensive staining to the carpet in one bedroom which was not present in other rooms. It is reasonable to conclude that the staining was not due to fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claims supported by invoices from independent contractors are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A 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 tenant 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.
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) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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) RTA.
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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the front door glass was broken. This was careless damage and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord made a further claim for repairs to window stays in the property. There was limited photographic evidence of any such damage, nor any indication of why the repairs were not due to fair wear and tear. Given the age of the property and, presumably, the window stays, it is not unreasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that they broke because of age and use. The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that the damage was not due to fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord submitted a further claim for their attendances. It did not include sufficient details for the Tribunal to determine what works it related to, nor was it supported by receipts. The Tribunal can only guess that it relates to repairs, rubbish removal and cleaning.
The Tribunal has awarded the landlord reimbursement of the costs of independent contractors for cleaning and rubbish removal. The landlord has provided no evidence of what further work it was required to carry out, nor why the tenant was liable for its cost. In addition, the landlord has excluded fair wear and tear as a possible cause.
It appears from the landlord’s invoice that the landlord has replaced curtains. There is no evidence of what curtains were missing, their age or condition or receipts which could support the landlord’s claim.
The landlord’s claim included the cost of meals, petrol and accommodation. The tenant is not liable for the landlord’s living costs just as the tenant is not liable for the living costs of the landlord’s contractors.
In the absence of supporting evidence or any evidence that the damage was not fair wear or tear, the landlord’s claim for its costs is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed in its application for insurance excesses, however no information or evidence in support of these claims was provided. This claim is also dismissed.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Igel Robert Hoare And Melissa Jane Hudson Trustees Of Jasper Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452347 — Rent arrears at 92 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452347 — Rent arrears at 92 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions