What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463652 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 5463652?

Cleaning: $1,332.61 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5428048 D…: $2,518.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.60 awarded to landlord; Rent 20/2/26 To 28/2/26: $771.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $195.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463652?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13618591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463652 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 5463652?

Cleaning: $1,332.61 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5428048 D…: $2,518.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.60 awarded to landlord; Rent 20/2/26 To 28/2/26: $771.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $195.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463652?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13618591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463652 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463652 — Cleanliness | 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 5463652 — net $5,021.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026	$2,518.65	Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026
Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26	$771.43	Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26
Repairs and cleaning	$1,332.61	Repairs and cleaning
Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord	$195.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord
Lawn damage	$175.60	Lawn damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,021.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,021.29

Claims and awards for application 5463652 — net $5,021.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026

Amount: $2,518.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026

Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26

Amount: $771.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26

Repairs and cleaning

Amount: $1,332.61
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs and cleaning

Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord

Amount: $195.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord

Lawn damage

Amount: $175.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is granted. This Order replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 21 April 2026.
Emma Dougherty must pay [The landlord/s] $5,021.29 immediately, calculated as shown below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenant did not attend and couldn’t be reached on the number given in the Notice of Hearing, which was properly served.
The Tribunal made an Order on 21 April 2026 determining the landlord’s claims for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord attended that hearing, the tenant didn’t.
The landlord applied for a rehearing of the April Order ion the grounds that relevant evidence was not able to be presented.
A hearing was directed to decide whether there should be a rehearing.
At that hearing I heard from the landlord’s wife [suppressed], who was able to give direct evidence about matters at issue. She had planned to attend the April hearing to give that evidence but had been caught up at work.
Having heard from [suppressed], I am satisfied that the April Order, made without hearing her evidence, represents a miscarriage of justice and the application for rehearing is granted.
With the landlord’s consent, I therefore proceeded with the substantive rehearing, taking that new evidence into account.
The evidence given by [suppressed] persuades me that tenant remained occupying the premises until 28 February 2026. She is therefore responsible for rent to that date. 1
The landlord asks for an additional week’s rent beyond that date but that was not part of the original application and should not be awarded through a rehearing.
At the April hearing I was not satisfied that the whole of the cleaning and repair invoice amounting to $1,332.61 should be paid by the tenant because, “....the work done to , “Fix leak in the garage – replace tap inner.” ...is not proved to be anything other than wear and tear that the landlord is responsible for.”
[suppressed] was able to give evidence about the circumstances and the findings of the contractors who did the repair work, which was that the damage was not maintenance related but had been caused in the course of the tenant moving out. I am satisfied that it is a cost the landlord should be compensated for and the whole of the contractor’s invoice payable by the tenant.
Finally, [suppressed] was able to give evidence about the nature and extent of the cleaning and rubbish removal work she carried out at the premises after the 1 S.60(1) RTA tenant vacated. That evidence satisfies me that it would be just to award the landlord compensation for the work that was done.
The amount Ordered is varied accordingly.

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 5463652 — net $5,021.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026	$2,518.65	Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026
Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26	$771.43	Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26
Repairs and cleaning	$1,332.61	Repairs and cleaning
Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord	$195.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord
Lawn damage	$175.60	Lawn damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,021.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,021.29

Claims and awards for application 5463652 — net $5,021.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026

Amount: $2,518.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5428048 dated 19/02/2026

Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26

Amount: $771.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent 20/2/26 to 28/2/26

Repairs and cleaning

Amount: $1,332.61
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs and cleaning

Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord

Amount: $195.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal by landlord

Lawn damage

Amount: $175.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is granted. This Order replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 21 April 2026.
Emma Dougherty must pay [The landlord/s] $5,021.29 immediately, calculated as shown below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenant did not attend and couldn’t be reached on the number given in the Notice of Hearing, which was properly served.
The Tribunal made an Order on 21 April 2026 determining the landlord’s claims for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord attended that hearing, the tenant didn’t.
The landlord applied for a rehearing of the April Order ion the grounds that relevant evidence was not able to be presented.
A hearing was directed to decide whether there should be a rehearing.
At that hearing I heard from the landlord’s wife [suppressed], who was able to give direct evidence about matters at issue. She had planned to attend the April hearing to give that evidence but had been caught up at work.
Having heard from [suppressed], I am satisfied that the April Order, made without hearing her evidence, represents a miscarriage of justice and the application for rehearing is granted.
With the landlord’s consent, I therefore proceeded with the substantive rehearing, taking that new evidence into account.
The evidence given by [suppressed] persuades me that tenant remained occupying the premises until 28 February 2026. She is therefore responsible for rent to that date. 1
The landlord asks for an additional week’s rent beyond that date but that was not part of the original application and should not be awarded through a rehearing.
At the April hearing I was not satisfied that the whole of the cleaning and repair invoice amounting to $1,332.61 should be paid by the tenant because, “....the work done to , “Fix leak in the garage – replace tap inner.” ...is not proved to be anything other than wear and tear that the landlord is responsible for.”
[suppressed] was able to give evidence about the circumstances and the findings of the contractors who did the repair work, which was that the damage was not maintenance related but had been caused in the course of the tenant moving out. I am satisfied that it is a cost the landlord should be compensated for and the whole of the contractor’s invoice payable by the tenant.
Finally, [suppressed] was able to give evidence about the nature and extent of the cleaning and rubbish removal work she carried out at the premises after the 1 S.60(1) RTA tenant vacated. That evidence satisfies me that it would be just to award the landlord compensation for the work that was done.
The amount Ordered is varied accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463652 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463652 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions