What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and David Brown as

How much money was awarded in case 5509769?

Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Cost Of Enforcement Of Tribunal'S Or…: $367.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $654.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $392.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $203.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $726.25 awarded to landlord; Replace 4 Broken Windows – Lounge (2…: $170.18 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Fridge (Depreciated…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,743.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13862623-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and David Brown as

How much money was awarded in case 5509769?

Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Cost Of Enforcement Of Tribunal'S Or…: $367.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $654.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $392.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $203.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $726.25 awarded to landlord; Replace 4 Broken Windows – Lounge (2…: $170.18 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Fridge (Depreciated…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,743.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13862623-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Railway Street, Sefton, Sefton 7477 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5509769 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5509769 — net $5,785.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cost of enforcement of Tribunal's order dated 1 April 2026	$367.00	Cost of enforcement of Tribunal's order dated 1 April 2026
Replace 4 broken windows – lounge (2), bedroom French door – glass price only	$170.18	Replace 4 broken windows – lounge (2), bedroom French door – glass price only
Rent arrears to 16 April 2026	$726.25	Rent arrears to 16 April 2026
Lock/key replacement	$392.90	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,200.00	Cleaning
Repair kitchen drawer unit	$203.15	Repair kitchen drawer unit
Replace missing fridge (depreciated 66	$300.00	Replace missing fridge (depreciated 66
Replace vinyl in ensuite bathroom (depreciated 33	$654.00	Replace vinyl in ensuite bathroom (depreciated 33
Rubbish removal, disposal of goods, and dump fees	$1,743.75	Rubbish removal, disposal of goods, and dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,785.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,785.23

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and David Brown as trustees of New Life Family Trust Limited $5,785.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Steadman represented the landlord at the hearing today. The tenant did not attend.
Both landlord applications and the tenant’s cross application had been scheduled for hearing together. The tenant advised the Tribunal she would not attend because she has disengaged from the process. I will address that in more detail later.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, lock/key replacement, the replacement of missing chattels, and the repair of damage.
The landlord has already received the bond in reduction of a previous order for rent arrears. Background
The tenancy started on or about 26 July 2019. Generally, the tenant paid her rent on time but there were occasions when she did not. She received assistance from the Ministry of Social Development I(MSD). More recently she has been in a dispute with MSD about her payments. She wanted her application dealt with separately as part of her dispute with MSD. I declined that request. When the Tribunal has applications from both parties, they are heard together so that any issues of set-off can be addressed.
The Tribunal first heard the landlord’s application on 1 April 2026. It terminated the tenancy and made orders for rent arrears and the bond.
The tenant applied for a rehearing which was dismissed. She applied again. The adjudicator who made the order granted a rehearing, conditionally, and stayed the enforcement of the money order.
The tenant did not meet the conditions of the rehearing order, and the landlord enforced the order granting possession. The tenant was evicted on 17 April 2026.
Because a rehearing of the money order for rent arrears was granted with a direction that it could not be enforced, that order was set aside. I have, however, awarded the landlord the enforcement costs incurred since the enforcement was in respect of the possession order and there is no other mechanism for recovery of those costs. Directions conference
The applications were set for hearing on 27 May 2026. The tenant had filed a cross application and the landlord a further application for end of tenancy costs. The tenant applied for an adjournment of the hearing. I granted that but directed that a directions conference be held instead. The tenant did not attend the telephone directions conference.
I made directions for both parties to file a statement of their claims. I noted that the tenant had filed different documents addressing parts of her claims prepared by AI. I noted that Tenancy Services would advise the parties of the time and date for an in-person hearing. The tenant’s application
The tenant advised the Tribunal that she has ‘disengaged’ with the hearing process and would not attend the hearing. She has provided a substantial document, again prepared by AI, and she seems to suggest that the Tribunal should consider it in her absence.
There is nothing wrong with having AI assist with the preparation of a statement of claim. But the application is the tenant’s application, not AI’s application. It is for the tenant to prove claims.
Unless the Tribunal schedules a phone or video hearing (usually restricted to straightforward claims), parties are expected to attend hearings in person so they can give evidence and have their evidence examined. It is not for the Tribunal to try and discern what claims a party is making and why.
I held the directions conference because these applications were not suitable for a remote hearing; they needed to be heard in person. I provided directions so that both parties would be informed of each other’s claims before the scheduled hearing.
The only time the Tribunal will make a decision ‘on the papers’ is when it considers that that is appropriate method of resolution and with the consent of both parties. Seldon does that occur. This was not such a case.
Further, the tenant’s submission document contains generalised statements some of which are meaningless. There is reference to procedural asymmetry, participation and time barriers, systemic access issues, and unaddressed grievances.
The tenant states the cumulative tenancy and Tribunal process involved: •Compartmentalized (sic) information handling •Selective disclosure •Procedural asymmetry •Repeated exclusion from visibility and transparency •Inconsistent participation access •Tolerance of landlord late filings and actions •Narrow framing of arrears context •Enforcement escalation •Fragmented property handling •Ongoing procedural disadvantage.
In fact, all the tenant needed to do was attend the hearing, set out her claims, provide evidence to support them, and answer any questions the landlord and/or the Tribunal had. And she could have responded to the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, which is not complex. It simply involves considering what rent was due, what rent was paid, and what, if any, was the shortfall.
The tenant’s dispute with MSD about her eligibility for assistance is not a relevant factor in the landlord’s claim. Rent is due when it is due. It is the tenant’s responsibility to pay it.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for 3 reasons: non-attendance by the tenant, her statement that she has disengaged, and because the AI-prepared submissions do not address her claims in any legally meaningful manner. The landlord’s applications

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 April 2026 when the tenant was evicted (the Tribunal granted the landlord possession on 8 April 2026). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent 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 1 . 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount of cleaning required and the amount of rubbish that had to be removed were considerable. The landlord has only claimed for part of the costs incurred.
The tenant did not return the keys.
A fridge was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed for the replacement of the fridge (depreciated by two-thirds to reflect its age and condition).

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 2 .
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •4 windowpanes were broken and had to be replaced (the landlord has limited the claim to the cost of the glass only) •vinyl in the ensuite was damaged by burn marks and had to be replaced (depreciated by one-third) •a kitchen draw was damaged and had to be repaired.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Mr Steadman gave at the hearing. The photographic evidence especially shows the extent of the damage done and the amount of cleaning and rubbish removal that were required.
The landlord has depreciated the claims for the replacement of the fridge and the ensuite bathroom vinyl at amounts the Tribunal considers are appropriate to reflect the age and condition of those chattels and their expected lifespan.
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $5,785.23.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5509769 — net $5,785.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cost of enforcement of Tribunal's order dated 1 April 2026	$367.00	Cost of enforcement of Tribunal's order dated 1 April 2026
Replace 4 broken windows – lounge (2), bedroom French door – glass price only	$170.18	Replace 4 broken windows – lounge (2), bedroom French door – glass price only
Rent arrears to 16 April 2026	$726.25	Rent arrears to 16 April 2026
Lock/key replacement	$392.90	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,200.00	Cleaning
Repair kitchen drawer unit	$203.15	Repair kitchen drawer unit
Replace missing fridge (depreciated 66	$300.00	Replace missing fridge (depreciated 66
Replace vinyl in ensuite bathroom (depreciated 33	$654.00	Replace vinyl in ensuite bathroom (depreciated 33
Rubbish removal, disposal of goods, and dump fees	$1,743.75	Rubbish removal, disposal of goods, and dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,785.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,785.23

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and David Brown as trustees of New Life Family Trust Limited $5,785.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Steadman represented the landlord at the hearing today. The tenant did not attend.
Both landlord applications and the tenant’s cross application had been scheduled for hearing together. The tenant advised the Tribunal she would not attend because she has disengaged from the process. I will address that in more detail later.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, lock/key replacement, the replacement of missing chattels, and the repair of damage.
The landlord has already received the bond in reduction of a previous order for rent arrears. Background
The tenancy started on or about 26 July 2019. Generally, the tenant paid her rent on time but there were occasions when she did not. She received assistance from the Ministry of Social Development I(MSD). More recently she has been in a dispute with MSD about her payments. She wanted her application dealt with separately as part of her dispute with MSD. I declined that request. When the Tribunal has applications from both parties, they are heard together so that any issues of set-off can be addressed.
The Tribunal first heard the landlord’s application on 1 April 2026. It terminated the tenancy and made orders for rent arrears and the bond.
The tenant applied for a rehearing which was dismissed. She applied again. The adjudicator who made the order granted a rehearing, conditionally, and stayed the enforcement of the money order.
The tenant did not meet the conditions of the rehearing order, and the landlord enforced the order granting possession. The tenant was evicted on 17 April 2026.
Because a rehearing of the money order for rent arrears was granted with a direction that it could not be enforced, that order was set aside. I have, however, awarded the landlord the enforcement costs incurred since the enforcement was in respect of the possession order and there is no other mechanism for recovery of those costs. Directions conference
The applications were set for hearing on 27 May 2026. The tenant had filed a cross application and the landlord a further application for end of tenancy costs. The tenant applied for an adjournment of the hearing. I granted that but directed that a directions conference be held instead. The tenant did not attend the telephone directions conference.
I made directions for both parties to file a statement of their claims. I noted that the tenant had filed different documents addressing parts of her claims prepared by AI. I noted that Tenancy Services would advise the parties of the time and date for an in-person hearing. The tenant’s application
The tenant advised the Tribunal that she has ‘disengaged’ with the hearing process and would not attend the hearing. She has provided a substantial document, again prepared by AI, and she seems to suggest that the Tribunal should consider it in her absence.
There is nothing wrong with having AI assist with the preparation of a statement of claim. But the application is the tenant’s application, not AI’s application. It is for the tenant to prove claims.
Unless the Tribunal schedules a phone or video hearing (usually restricted to straightforward claims), parties are expected to attend hearings in person so they can give evidence and have their evidence examined. It is not for the Tribunal to try and discern what claims a party is making and why.
I held the directions conference because these applications were not suitable for a remote hearing; they needed to be heard in person. I provided directions so that both parties would be informed of each other’s claims before the scheduled hearing.
The only time the Tribunal will make a decision ‘on the papers’ is when it considers that that is appropriate method of resolution and with the consent of both parties. Seldon does that occur. This was not such a case.
Further, the tenant’s submission document contains generalised statements some of which are meaningless. There is reference to procedural asymmetry, participation and time barriers, systemic access issues, and unaddressed grievances.
The tenant states the cumulative tenancy and Tribunal process involved: •Compartmentalized (sic) information handling •Selective disclosure •Procedural asymmetry •Repeated exclusion from visibility and transparency •Inconsistent participation access •Tolerance of landlord late filings and actions •Narrow framing of arrears context •Enforcement escalation •Fragmented property handling •Ongoing procedural disadvantage.
In fact, all the tenant needed to do was attend the hearing, set out her claims, provide evidence to support them, and answer any questions the landlord and/or the Tribunal had. And she could have responded to the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, which is not complex. It simply involves considering what rent was due, what rent was paid, and what, if any, was the shortfall.
The tenant’s dispute with MSD about her eligibility for assistance is not a relevant factor in the landlord’s claim. Rent is due when it is due. It is the tenant’s responsibility to pay it.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for 3 reasons: non-attendance by the tenant, her statement that she has disengaged, and because the AI-prepared submissions do not address her claims in any legally meaningful manner. The landlord’s applications

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 April 2026 when the tenant was evicted (the Tribunal granted the landlord possession on 8 April 2026). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent 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 1 . 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount of cleaning required and the amount of rubbish that had to be removed were considerable. The landlord has only claimed for part of the costs incurred.
The tenant did not return the keys.
A fridge was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed for the replacement of the fridge (depreciated by two-thirds to reflect its age and condition).

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 2 .
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •4 windowpanes were broken and had to be replaced (the landlord has limited the claim to the cost of the glass only) •vinyl in the ensuite was damaged by burn marks and had to be replaced (depreciated by one-third) •a kitchen draw was damaged and had to be repaired.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Mr Steadman gave at the hearing. The photographic evidence especially shows the extent of the damage done and the amount of cleaning and rubbish removal that were required.
The landlord has depreciated the claims for the replacement of the fridge and the ensuite bathroom vinyl at amounts the Tribunal considers are appropriate to reflect the age and condition of those chattels and their expected lifespan.
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $5,785.23.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509769 — Property damage at 29 Railway Street, Sefton, Sefton 7477

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509769 — Property damage at 29 Railway Street, Sefton, Sefton 7477

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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