What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483773 about?

The tribunal order states: [The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s] to pay Grenadier Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5483773?

Top Up Rent: $417.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483773?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14116772-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483773 about?

The tribunal order states: [The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s] to pay Grenadier Rent

How much money was awarded in case 5483773?

Top Up Rent: $417.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483773?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14116772-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 1, 25 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5483773 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483773 — net $417.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Top up rent	$417.86	Top up rent
Net award	$417.86
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$417.86

Order

[The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s] to pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $417.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-00015743) immediately apportioned as follows: Grenadier Rent Shop Limited: $417.86 [The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s]: $1,662.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, top up rent, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim a return of the full bond they paid. Damage to the kitchen cabinetry
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 tenants 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.
The landlord claims that the tenants caused damage to the kitchen cabinetry by flooding the washing machine which caused the cabinetry around the machine to swell.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that would mean that the landlord would have to show that more likely than not the tenants caused damage to the kitchen cabinetry by carelessly allowing the washing machine to flood.
The landlord says that this must have been the cause of the damage to the cabinetry because the plumber who investigated the issue found that it was dry underneath both the washing machine and dishwasher and he deduced that the damage was most likely caused by the washing machine flooding.
I find that the landlord has not been able to prove this part of their claim to the required standard.
I say this for reasons that include: (a) I accept the evidence indicating that in November 2023 and again in April 2024 the tenants reported issues with the dishwasher. On both occasions the problem was that the dishwasher door was not latching correctly; and (b) This issue could also just as likely been the cause of moisture penetrating the kitchen cabinetry, rather than the washing machine flooding.
Given that I consider that the dishwasher issue could equally as likely have caused moisture to escape and cause damage to the cabinetry, Ithe landlord has not been able to show that more likely than not it was the flooding of the washing machine that caused the damage.
This part of the landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed. Top up rent
The tenants had signed a fixed term tenancy that was due to expire on 11 October 2026. They told the landlord that they wished to break their fixed term lease and were advised that they would be required to pay a break lease fee. They were also advised that they would be required to pay rent until a new tenant was found.
The landlord had difficulty in finding a new tenant to take over the lease and suggested to the tenants that in order to get a quicker uptake of the lease they could reduce the rent from $530.00 per week to $515.00 per week. The tenants were also advised that if they agreed to this reduction in order to get a new tenant, then they would be required to top up the rent shortfall until the expiry of the fixed term.
The tenants agreed to this plan and a new tenant was found to take over the lease commencing on 31 March 2026.
The landlord now makes a claim against the tenants for the $15.00 per week shortfall to 11 October 2026 - $417.86.
The tenants say that they do not want to pay this amount. They say this for reasons that include: (a) They had no choice but to agree to the plan; and (b) There was a change in property management companies which dragged out the tenanting process by a week.
I find that the tenants ought to pay the established shortfall in rent. This is because I do not accept that they had no choice but to agree to it. The options were either to continue with trying to find a tenant who would pay the $530.00 rent or to agree to pay the shortfall if a tenant was found who would pay $515.00 per week. The tenants had every chance to weigh up these options and decide what at that time they considered to be best for them. They cannot now resile from that choice.
Further to this, there is no evidence to suggest that the change in property management caused a delay in finding a tenant. Filing fee reimbursements
Given that each party was somewhat successful with their claim I consider it appropriate that each bear their own cost of filing their claim in the Tribunal. C ter Haar 26 August 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483773 — net $417.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Top up rent	$417.86	Top up rent
Net award	$417.86
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$417.86

Order

[The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s] to pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $417.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-00015743) immediately apportioned as follows: Grenadier Rent Shop Limited: $417.86 [The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s]: $1,662.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, top up rent, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim a return of the full bond they paid. Damage to the kitchen cabinetry
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 tenants 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.
The landlord claims that the tenants caused damage to the kitchen cabinetry by flooding the washing machine which caused the cabinetry around the machine to swell.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that would mean that the landlord would have to show that more likely than not the tenants caused damage to the kitchen cabinetry by carelessly allowing the washing machine to flood.
The landlord says that this must have been the cause of the damage to the cabinetry because the plumber who investigated the issue found that it was dry underneath both the washing machine and dishwasher and he deduced that the damage was most likely caused by the washing machine flooding.
I find that the landlord has not been able to prove this part of their claim to the required standard.
I say this for reasons that include: (a) I accept the evidence indicating that in November 2023 and again in April 2024 the tenants reported issues with the dishwasher. On both occasions the problem was that the dishwasher door was not latching correctly; and (b) This issue could also just as likely been the cause of moisture penetrating the kitchen cabinetry, rather than the washing machine flooding.
Given that I consider that the dishwasher issue could equally as likely have caused moisture to escape and cause damage to the cabinetry, Ithe landlord has not been able to show that more likely than not it was the flooding of the washing machine that caused the damage.
This part of the landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed. Top up rent
The tenants had signed a fixed term tenancy that was due to expire on 11 October 2026. They told the landlord that they wished to break their fixed term lease and were advised that they would be required to pay a break lease fee. They were also advised that they would be required to pay rent until a new tenant was found.
The landlord had difficulty in finding a new tenant to take over the lease and suggested to the tenants that in order to get a quicker uptake of the lease they could reduce the rent from $530.00 per week to $515.00 per week. The tenants were also advised that if they agreed to this reduction in order to get a new tenant, then they would be required to top up the rent shortfall until the expiry of the fixed term.
The tenants agreed to this plan and a new tenant was found to take over the lease commencing on 31 March 2026.
The landlord now makes a claim against the tenants for the $15.00 per week shortfall to 11 October 2026 - $417.86.
The tenants say that they do not want to pay this amount. They say this for reasons that include: (a) They had no choice but to agree to the plan; and (b) There was a change in property management companies which dragged out the tenanting process by a week.
I find that the tenants ought to pay the established shortfall in rent. This is because I do not accept that they had no choice but to agree to it. The options were either to continue with trying to find a tenant who would pay the $530.00 rent or to agree to pay the shortfall if a tenant was found who would pay $515.00 per week. The tenants had every chance to weigh up these options and decide what at that time they considered to be best for them. They cannot now resile from that choice.
Further to this, there is no evidence to suggest that the change in property management caused a delay in finding a tenant. Filing fee reimbursements
Given that each party was somewhat successful with their claim I consider it appropriate that each bear their own cost of filing their claim in the Tribunal. C ter Haar 26 August 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483773 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 1, 25 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483773 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 1, 25 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.