What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457492 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 5457492?

Cleaning: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,161.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $104.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $726.46 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,552.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,244.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457492?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13799869-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457492 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 5457492?

Cleaning: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,161.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $104.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $726.46 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,552.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,244.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457492?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13799869-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 North Road, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457492 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457492 — net $11,320.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/12/2025	$8,552.14	Rent arrears to 31/12/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$470.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs & painting	$4,161.77	Repairs & painting
Rubbish removal & cleaning	$1,244.40	Rubbish removal & cleaning
Insurance excess for lounge carpet	$500.00	Insurance excess for lounge carpet
Window repair in front door	$213.73	Window repair in front door
Bedroom door key replacements	$104.00	Bedroom door key replacements
Shower wall repairs	$726.46	Shower wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,320.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,320.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Rian Kiyas, Kaveesha Piramanage, Dayton Cripps, Graham Peterson, Ben Isabirye and Kade Springer must pay [The landlord/s] $11,000.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for further compensation of $1,270.28 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and five tenants attended the hearing, with the father of one tenant.
On 1/3/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,170.00 per week rent. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, such as in this case the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31/12/2025.
The landlord sought rent arrears of $8,552.14 and provided rent records which supported the amount owing.
Despite one tenant vacating the premises early, the landlord relied on the joint and several liability of all six tenants for the rent arrears.
On the other hand, the father of one tenant submitted that he believed the former property manager had agreed to his son leaving the tenancy early on 4/8/2025 on the grounds of an “extreme situation”, with a payment of his arrears and a further months rent.
Subsequently he discovered that the former property manager had not passed this information onto the owner and had told the remaining tenants not to sign off the departing tenant from the tenancy agreement.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant who departed early, I find he is jointly and severally liable with the other five tenants as between themselves and the landlord for the rent arrears.
The law about joint and several liability is clear, tenants who sign a joint tenancy are individually and jointly liable for all obligations under the tenancy, including rent and damages.
There is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within a particular period, and no obligation on a landlord to agree to end a tenancy early.
One flatmate in a joint and several tenancy cannot unilaterally sever the joint tenancy if the other flatmates do not agree to do so, as was the case here.
Rather the nub of the matter is a dispute between flatmates about finding a replacement tenant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine disputes between flatmates, that is a matter for the Disputes Tribunal.
An award has been made for the arrears claimed against all the tenants.

Did the tenants 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $3,198.41 as follows: a. $1,420.00 carpet cleaning for six bedrooms and a hallway, b. $924.13 for cleaning and rubbish removal, c. $640.55 for rubbish removal during the tenancy, d. $213.73 for glass repair in the front door.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit property inspection reports with photographs, dated 31/12/2024 and 31/12/2025 respectively, and invoices.
The tenants agreed that at the end of the tenancy the premises needed cleaning and rubbish removed.
However, the tenants disputed that all the rubbish in the carport belonged to them or that they had been warned someone would come and take it away.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
However, the claim for carpet cleaning has been reduced because I am not satisfied by the exit photographs that the carpets required extra treatment for stain removal at a cost of $950.00.
The claim for rubbish removal during the tenancy is also reduced because, based on the evidence of the tenants, I am not persuaded that all the rubbish belonged to them as opposed to previous tenants.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $7,573.12 as follows: a. $6,242.66 for replacement of damaged doors, repairs to walls and painting, b. $500.00 insurance excess for replacement of the lounge carpet, c. $104.00 for new bedroom door locks, d. $726.46 for repairs to a shower wall.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
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 submitted that the damage was intentional.
In response the tenants agreed there was a hole in the shower wall, the lounge carpet was badly stained, there were holes in the lounge walls and doors were broken.
The tenants acknowledged that damage occurred throughout the term of the tenancy.
I am satisfied from the evidence that damage was caused during the tenancy to doors, walls and carpets and was more than fair wear and tear.
Based on the evidence of the damage occurring throughout the tenancy I consider the damage was intentional.
The amount claimed for repairs and painting has been reduced because I have taken into account 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 depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the walls and doors at the start of the tenancy.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because they largely succeeded with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457492 — net $11,320.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/12/2025	$8,552.14	Rent arrears to 31/12/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$470.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs & painting	$4,161.77	Repairs & painting
Rubbish removal & cleaning	$1,244.40	Rubbish removal & cleaning
Insurance excess for lounge carpet	$500.00	Insurance excess for lounge carpet
Window repair in front door	$213.73	Window repair in front door
Bedroom door key replacements	$104.00	Bedroom door key replacements
Shower wall repairs	$726.46	Shower wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,320.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,320.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Rian Kiyas, Kaveesha Piramanage, Dayton Cripps, Graham Peterson, Ben Isabirye and Kade Springer must pay [The landlord/s] $11,000.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for further compensation of $1,270.28 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and five tenants attended the hearing, with the father of one tenant.
On 1/3/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,170.00 per week rent. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, such as in this case the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31/12/2025.
The landlord sought rent arrears of $8,552.14 and provided rent records which supported the amount owing.
Despite one tenant vacating the premises early, the landlord relied on the joint and several liability of all six tenants for the rent arrears.
On the other hand, the father of one tenant submitted that he believed the former property manager had agreed to his son leaving the tenancy early on 4/8/2025 on the grounds of an “extreme situation”, with a payment of his arrears and a further months rent.
Subsequently he discovered that the former property manager had not passed this information onto the owner and had told the remaining tenants not to sign off the departing tenant from the tenancy agreement.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant who departed early, I find he is jointly and severally liable with the other five tenants as between themselves and the landlord for the rent arrears.
The law about joint and several liability is clear, tenants who sign a joint tenancy are individually and jointly liable for all obligations under the tenancy, including rent and damages.
There is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within a particular period, and no obligation on a landlord to agree to end a tenancy early.
One flatmate in a joint and several tenancy cannot unilaterally sever the joint tenancy if the other flatmates do not agree to do so, as was the case here.
Rather the nub of the matter is a dispute between flatmates about finding a replacement tenant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine disputes between flatmates, that is a matter for the Disputes Tribunal.
An award has been made for the arrears claimed against all the tenants.

Did the tenants 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $3,198.41 as follows: a. $1,420.00 carpet cleaning for six bedrooms and a hallway, b. $924.13 for cleaning and rubbish removal, c. $640.55 for rubbish removal during the tenancy, d. $213.73 for glass repair in the front door.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit property inspection reports with photographs, dated 31/12/2024 and 31/12/2025 respectively, and invoices.
The tenants agreed that at the end of the tenancy the premises needed cleaning and rubbish removed.
However, the tenants disputed that all the rubbish in the carport belonged to them or that they had been warned someone would come and take it away.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
However, the claim for carpet cleaning has been reduced because I am not satisfied by the exit photographs that the carpets required extra treatment for stain removal at a cost of $950.00.
The claim for rubbish removal during the tenancy is also reduced because, based on the evidence of the tenants, I am not persuaded that all the rubbish belonged to them as opposed to previous tenants.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $7,573.12 as follows: a. $6,242.66 for replacement of damaged doors, repairs to walls and painting, b. $500.00 insurance excess for replacement of the lounge carpet, c. $104.00 for new bedroom door locks, d. $726.46 for repairs to a shower wall.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
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 submitted that the damage was intentional.
In response the tenants agreed there was a hole in the shower wall, the lounge carpet was badly stained, there were holes in the lounge walls and doors were broken.
The tenants acknowledged that damage occurred throughout the term of the tenancy.
I am satisfied from the evidence that damage was caused during the tenancy to doors, walls and carpets and was more than fair wear and tear.
Based on the evidence of the damage occurring throughout the tenancy I consider the damage was intentional.
The amount claimed for repairs and painting has been reduced because I have taken into account 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 depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the walls and doors at the start of the tenancy.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because they largely succeeded with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457492 — Rent arrears at 53 North Road, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457492 — Rent arrears at 53 North Road, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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