What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5522868 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $889.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5522868?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $861.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5522868?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5522868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14047359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5522868 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $889.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5522868?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $861.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5522868?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5522868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14047359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40A Chedworth Avenue, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5522868 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5522868 — net $889.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 May 2026	$861.00	Rent arrears to 31 May 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$889.00
Bond	$2,860.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$889.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $889.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,860.00 (5916363-006) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $889.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,971.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a rent reduction following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, and exemplary damages for the tenant exceeding the maximum amount of occupants allowable, and for keeping a pet bird.
Both parties applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed the tenancy began as a 12-month fixed-term tenancy on 17 May 2024 and at the end of the fixed-term the tenancy rolled over into a periodic tenancy. The end date of the tenancy is disputed by the parties.
The tenant said he moved out of the premises on Friday 29 May 2026.
On 22 February 2026, the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day, without cause notice to terminate the tenancy. The end date was to be 22 May 2026. The tenant requested an extra week and the landlord agreed. On Thursday 28 May the tenant texted the landlord the following:
The Saturday, Sunday and Monday referred to were 30 th and 31 st May and 1 st June 2026 respectively.
The landlord said she was seeking rent until the Sunday 31 May 2026 as indicated in the text.
The landlord said a final end-of-tenancy inspection was conducted on Monday 1 June 2026 and she wasn’t satisfied with the standard of cleanliness of the premises. She took photographs of the premises on this date. The tenant then had a cleaner clean the premises on Tuesday 2 June 2026 and he returned the keys to the landlord afterwards.
Despite the tenant moving out on Friday 29 May 2026, the tenant retained the keys and therefore possession of the property until Tuesday 2 June 2026, the day the tenant’s cleaner finished cleaning the premises.
I determine the tenant requested the tenancy be extended until Sunday 31 May 2026 and the landlord agreed. The tenant agreed to pay an extra one weeks rent. This does not prove the tenancy ended after one extra week. The landlord is entitled to accept the one week’s extra rent without that limiting a further legitimate claim for two days rent, to the end of Sunday 31 May 2026, when the tenant had said the cleaning would be done.
On the information before me, I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy ended on the agreed date of 31 May 2026. I determine the tenant owes rent until this date.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $861.00.
The amount ordered is proved

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that on Monday 1 June 2026 when she conducted the end-of- tenancy inspection, she was not satisfied with the cleanliness of the premises. She took photographs of the premises which she says shows the kitchen stove- top to have food splashes, the cupboard doors to have spill marks, the drawers to have not been adequately cleaned and the sliding door runners to have debris in them. The landlord said the main bathroom had not been adequately cleaned.
The tenant arranged for a professional cleaner to attend on Tuesday 2 June 2026. The tenant provided the Tribunal with an invoice for the cleaning.
The landlord said that following this cleaning, the premises were still not reasonably clean. The landlord said she obtained a quotation $390.00 for an end-of-tenancy clean. She then opted to do the cleaning herself and this took three days. She is seeking payment for $390.00 cleaning as quoted.
An end-of-tenancy clean often goes further than “reasonably clean and tidy” which is the standard required of a tenant.
Having seen the photographs and heard the information from the landlord and tenant today, I am satisfied the premises were somewhat below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy on 31 May 2026. The tenant had not met his obligation as of the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord allowed the tenant a further opportunity to remedy the shortfall, and there is no dispute that the tenant had a cleaner attend and clean. The tenant’s invoice provided to the Tribunal includes vacuuming, mopping, stove, rangehood, kitchen drawers, mirrors, toilets, architraves and windowsills.
The landlord did not provide photographs taken after this cleaning.
I find it more likely than not the condition of the premises after this cleaning was reasonably clean and tidy. This is not to say the standard was sufficient to satisfy the very high standards of the landlord, or sufficient for the property to be re-let. But that is not the tenant’s obligation.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is not proved. Breach of maximum amount of occupants, and breach of no pets clause
The landlord claims the tenant exceeded the maximum amount of occupants on the tenancy agreement, and kept a pet in breach of the landlord’s prohibition of pets.
When the parties signed the tenancy agreement on 17 May 2024, the landlord included the following clause:
One month later on 15 June 2026, the tenant advised the landlord a friend would be coming to stay for three months.
When the landlord conducted her first inspection of the premises on 23 March 2025, she discovered the tenant’s friend appeared to still be living at the premises. She also noticed the tenant was keeping a pet bird.
The landlord said she was surprised but she did nothing about it because she wanted to be respectful and accommodating of the tenant. At no time did the landlord raise the issue of what she believed to be an extra-tenant or a pet bird at the premises.
I determine the landlord’s failure to raise a complaint with the tenant was sufficient to imply consent for the extra person and the pet bird.
I also note that the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 109 provides a limitation on tenants and landlords being awarded exemplary damages for breaches of the RTA such as these, filed more than 12 months after the commission of the breach.
The landlord first became aware of the breaches on 23 March 2025 and filed her application to Tenancy Services on 10 June 2026, almost one year and three months after first becoming aware of the breach.
Therefore, even if I am incorrect regarding the landlord’s implied consent, there is no remedy by way of exemplary damages available to the landlord.
This claim is not proved. Rent reduction
The tenant said that in February 2026 he began to think he was paying more than a fair market rent for the premises. He asked the landlord to review the rent.
The landlord said she believed the rent was fair and she declined to respond to the tenant’s request.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant filed a claim with Tenancy Services to have the rent reduced retrospectively.
Section 25 of the RTA includes the following: 25Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
Section 25 of the RTA gives the Tribunal the power to reduce rent to be in line with market rent; it does not give the Tribunal the power to retrospectively reduce rents and order landlords to refund a portion of the rent.
This claim is not proved.
Both parties have sought refund of their filing fees. I consider the landlord has been substantially successful with her claim. Against this I determine the tenant had no realistic chance of success with his claim. I determine the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5522868 — net $889.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 May 2026	$861.00	Rent arrears to 31 May 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$889.00
Bond	$2,860.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$889.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $889.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,860.00 (5916363-006) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $889.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,971.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a rent reduction following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, and exemplary damages for the tenant exceeding the maximum amount of occupants allowable, and for keeping a pet bird.
Both parties applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed the tenancy began as a 12-month fixed-term tenancy on 17 May 2024 and at the end of the fixed-term the tenancy rolled over into a periodic tenancy. The end date of the tenancy is disputed by the parties.
The tenant said he moved out of the premises on Friday 29 May 2026.
On 22 February 2026, the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day, without cause notice to terminate the tenancy. The end date was to be 22 May 2026. The tenant requested an extra week and the landlord agreed. On Thursday 28 May the tenant texted the landlord the following:
The Saturday, Sunday and Monday referred to were 30 th and 31 st May and 1 st June 2026 respectively.
The landlord said she was seeking rent until the Sunday 31 May 2026 as indicated in the text.
The landlord said a final end-of-tenancy inspection was conducted on Monday 1 June 2026 and she wasn’t satisfied with the standard of cleanliness of the premises. She took photographs of the premises on this date. The tenant then had a cleaner clean the premises on Tuesday 2 June 2026 and he returned the keys to the landlord afterwards.
Despite the tenant moving out on Friday 29 May 2026, the tenant retained the keys and therefore possession of the property until Tuesday 2 June 2026, the day the tenant’s cleaner finished cleaning the premises.
I determine the tenant requested the tenancy be extended until Sunday 31 May 2026 and the landlord agreed. The tenant agreed to pay an extra one weeks rent. This does not prove the tenancy ended after one extra week. The landlord is entitled to accept the one week’s extra rent without that limiting a further legitimate claim for two days rent, to the end of Sunday 31 May 2026, when the tenant had said the cleaning would be done.
On the information before me, I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy ended on the agreed date of 31 May 2026. I determine the tenant owes rent until this date.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $861.00.
The amount ordered is proved

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that on Monday 1 June 2026 when she conducted the end-of- tenancy inspection, she was not satisfied with the cleanliness of the premises. She took photographs of the premises which she says shows the kitchen stove- top to have food splashes, the cupboard doors to have spill marks, the drawers to have not been adequately cleaned and the sliding door runners to have debris in them. The landlord said the main bathroom had not been adequately cleaned.
The tenant arranged for a professional cleaner to attend on Tuesday 2 June 2026. The tenant provided the Tribunal with an invoice for the cleaning.
The landlord said that following this cleaning, the premises were still not reasonably clean. The landlord said she obtained a quotation $390.00 for an end-of-tenancy clean. She then opted to do the cleaning herself and this took three days. She is seeking payment for $390.00 cleaning as quoted.
An end-of-tenancy clean often goes further than “reasonably clean and tidy” which is the standard required of a tenant.
Having seen the photographs and heard the information from the landlord and tenant today, I am satisfied the premises were somewhat below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy on 31 May 2026. The tenant had not met his obligation as of the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord allowed the tenant a further opportunity to remedy the shortfall, and there is no dispute that the tenant had a cleaner attend and clean. The tenant’s invoice provided to the Tribunal includes vacuuming, mopping, stove, rangehood, kitchen drawers, mirrors, toilets, architraves and windowsills.
The landlord did not provide photographs taken after this cleaning.
I find it more likely than not the condition of the premises after this cleaning was reasonably clean and tidy. This is not to say the standard was sufficient to satisfy the very high standards of the landlord, or sufficient for the property to be re-let. But that is not the tenant’s obligation.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is not proved. Breach of maximum amount of occupants, and breach of no pets clause
The landlord claims the tenant exceeded the maximum amount of occupants on the tenancy agreement, and kept a pet in breach of the landlord’s prohibition of pets.
When the parties signed the tenancy agreement on 17 May 2024, the landlord included the following clause:
One month later on 15 June 2026, the tenant advised the landlord a friend would be coming to stay for three months.
When the landlord conducted her first inspection of the premises on 23 March 2025, she discovered the tenant’s friend appeared to still be living at the premises. She also noticed the tenant was keeping a pet bird.
The landlord said she was surprised but she did nothing about it because she wanted to be respectful and accommodating of the tenant. At no time did the landlord raise the issue of what she believed to be an extra-tenant or a pet bird at the premises.
I determine the landlord’s failure to raise a complaint with the tenant was sufficient to imply consent for the extra person and the pet bird.
I also note that the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 109 provides a limitation on tenants and landlords being awarded exemplary damages for breaches of the RTA such as these, filed more than 12 months after the commission of the breach.
The landlord first became aware of the breaches on 23 March 2025 and filed her application to Tenancy Services on 10 June 2026, almost one year and three months after first becoming aware of the breach.
Therefore, even if I am incorrect regarding the landlord’s implied consent, there is no remedy by way of exemplary damages available to the landlord.
This claim is not proved. Rent reduction
The tenant said that in February 2026 he began to think he was paying more than a fair market rent for the premises. He asked the landlord to review the rent.
The landlord said she believed the rent was fair and she declined to respond to the tenant’s request.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant filed a claim with Tenancy Services to have the rent reduced retrospectively.
Section 25 of the RTA includes the following: 25Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
Section 25 of the RTA gives the Tribunal the power to reduce rent to be in line with market rent; it does not give the Tribunal the power to retrospectively reduce rents and order landlords to refund a portion of the rent.
This claim is not proved.
Both parties have sought refund of their filing fees. I consider the landlord has been substantially successful with her claim. Against this I determine the tenant had no realistic chance of success with his claim. I determine the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5522868 — Rent arrears at 40A Chedworth Avenue, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5522868 — Rent arrears at 40A Chedworth Avenue, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.