What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518024 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,058.00

How much money was awarded in case 5518024?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518024?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14210114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518024 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,058.00

How much money was awarded in case 5518024?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518024?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14210114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Old Kaimai Road, Lower Kaimai, 1, Tauranga 3171 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518024 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,058.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to provide the evidence to establish her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The parties signed an agreement for a fixed-term starting on 5 February 2026 and ending on 6 February 2027.
Soon after the tenancy began, the tenants said that they wanted to have a puppy. The landlord did not agree to that because the property was not suitable.
The landlord agreed to release the tenants from their fixed-term tenancy, but no final agreement was reached about what compensation should be paid.
The tenants made no application to the Tribunal to reduce the fixed-term tenancy, but I add that even if they had done so, based on the information presented, it would be unlikely that the Tribunal would have found that there had been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, or that the severe hardship that they would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced (see section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). And in any event, the Tribunal would usually order compensation to be paid to the landlord for loss of rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants moved out in April, but the keys were not returned until 18 June. The tenants say that they put the keys in the letterbox on 16 June, but also refer in an email to returning them on 18 June. In any event, the landlord seeks the rent up to 17 June, being the day before the new tenancy was to start.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing up to 17 June was $4,130.00.
The landlord had indicated that she may seek rent only until the property was ready for new tenants. The tenants say it was ready on 15 June. That is three days before the keys were returned.
Until the keys were returned, the tenants had not handed over possession. The evidence of when the keys were returned is ambiguous. The tenants say that they left them in the letterbox on 16 June, but in their own emails and submissions, they say they returned them on 18 June. Also, the property is not “ready for another tenant” until an entry inspection has been completed. This is usually done when the keys are handed over.
Under a fixed-term tenancy, the tenants are liable for the rent up to the end of the tenancy. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to mitigate her loss and has found new tenants. She also kept them informed of the rent owing. Under the terms of the contract, the tenants are liable for the rent up to 17 June and that amount is ordered.

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

The landlord submitted a quote for $469.34 for cleaning. This included a “detailed clean” of some areas.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord undertook the cleaning herself. She provided some photos which show some floors and drawers that had not been cleaned. The toilet appears not to have been cleaned
The tenants say that they did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and that any rubbish that was left was already there at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided no entry inspection report or photos. Therefore, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the rubbish that was left behind was the tenants’.
Because the landlord provided only close-up photos of some areas that needed cleaning, I could not assess the extent of the cleaning needed for the premises to be deemed “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy”. I find it more likely than not that some further vacuuming and cleaning of floors and drawers was required. The toilet also needed a proper clean. I order $60.00 representing two hours of the landlord’s time for cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is no dispute that during the tenancy, the tenant put screws in the walls and mounted a TV. At the end of the tenancy, the tenants made the unwise decision to repair the holes and paint the walls themselves. Unless there is leftover paint from the original painting, the paint cannot be matched. Predictably, the areas where the tenant attempted to repair are obvious. The walls require repainting.
The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
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.
On 11 September, the landlord obtained a quote for $1,322.50 for fixing the damage. The work has not been undertaken. The property is currently rented out. Therefore, the landlord has not sustained a loss. She is adamant that she will need to undertake the work. However, the cost of the work when she does so is actually unknown.
I accept that at some stage the landlord will want to tidy up the job done by the tenants. In the meantime, the property is being rented out. It may be some years before the repairs are done. In the absence of an invoice for the actual cost, no photos of the property at the start of the tenancy, and bearing in mind that the property can be rented out without the repairs being undertaken, I have decided that a contribution of $200.00 is reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Other
In the tenants’ submissions, they argue that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully by showing prospective tenants through the premises without giving proper notice. The landlord disputes this.
If the tenant wishes to bring a claim for this, they must file an application with the Tenancy Tribunal and pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518024 — Rent arrears at 2A Old Kaimai Road, Lower Kaimai, 1, Tauranga 3171

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518024 — Rent arrears at 2A Old Kaimai Road, Lower Kaimai, 1, Tauranga 3171

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?

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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?

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.