What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5524863 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5524863?

Cleaning: $20,987.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $509.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $497.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5524863?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5524863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14179497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5524863 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5524863?

Cleaning: $20,987.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $509.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $497.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5524863?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5524863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14179497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2583 Bealey Road, Hororata, Hororata 7572 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5524863 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

2583 Bealey Road, Hororata, Hororata 7572 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5524863 — 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 5524863 — net $22,047.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement	$20,987.44	Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement
Rent arrears to 12 June 2026	$1,350.00	Rent arrears to 12 June 2026
Carpet cleaning	$509.50	Carpet cleaning
Lawn mowing	$195.00	Lawn mowing
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$497.70	Rubbish removal and dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$22,047.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,047.64

Claims and awards for application 5524863 — net $22,047.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement

Amount: $20,987.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement

Rent arrears to 12 June 2026

Amount: $1,350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 12 June 2026

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $509.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Lawn mowing

Amount: $195.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn mowing

Rubbish removal and dump fees

Amount: $497.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal and dump fees

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $22,047.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (BN-40105146) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and Mark Hoetjes immediately.
The application for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.
The application for compensation for the landlord’s time, travel, food and fuel and for costs incurred by others is dismissed.
The application for compensation for a missing leaf blower is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hoetjes attended in person, Mrs Hoetjes by phone. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended by phone from prison. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] did not attend.
I heard evidence from the parties and from Ben Hoetjes, a witness for the landlord and Alistair Piper a witness for the tenant.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. For ease, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, loss of rent, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the disposal of their goods and exemplary damages for the landlord seizing and disposing of their goods. Background
The tenancy started on 17 April 2026. It was a fixed term tenancy until 17 December 2027. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was held in custody at Christchurch Prison from 22 April 2026. The landlord offered to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy. The tenancy ended by agreement on 11 June 2026 with a final inspection scheduled for 12 June 2026.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] left the tenancy about 2 weeks before the agreed end date. The landlord tried to contact her, but she did not respond. On 11 June, a neighbour alerted the landlord that people were removing the tenant’s goods from the premises. The landlord’s brother (witness Mr Ben Hoetjes) checked the property on 12 June. He had a discussion with (witness) Alistair Piper about the removal of the tenant’s goods. Two other people were present with Mr Piper.
There then followed discussion between Ben Hoetjes and the people present to remove the tenant’s goods. It became heated. Mr Hoetjes called the police who declined to attend. A neighbouring stock manager attended to support Ben Hoetjes during this time.
The landlord extended the timeframe for Mr Piper to remove the tenant’s goods. When the time frame was not kept, the landlord carried out an assessment of what was left behind, deemed the goods to have no value beyond the cost of storing or transporting them, and decided to dump them.
The premises were left unclean, and damaged. The landlord made an insurance claim for the damage, but the insurer has not accepted the claim yet. None of the claims exceeds the sum equivalent to 4 week’s rent, the limit that applies to a landlord’s claim when the claim is not covered by the landlord’s insurance.
The tenant’s claim was filed first. The landlord then filed a cross application.
I heard both applications on 8 September 2026. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are as follows: •Did the landlord unlawfully seize and dispose of the tenant’s goods and if so, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for the goods the landlord disposed of? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation? •Has the landlord proved a claim for loss of rent compensation? Law
Section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods as security for or in payment of any amount owing in rent or for any other reason. However, Section 33 RTA does not apply to goods disposed of under sections 62 to 62C RTA.
Section 62A RTA applies to goods the tenant fails to collect within an agreed period. If the landlord assesses the goods to have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may dispose of the goods in any way the landlord thinks fit.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to remove all his or her goods from the premises; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Did the landlord unlawfully seize and dispose of the tenant’s goods and if so, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?
The landlord did not seize the tenant’s goods as security for or in payment of any amount owing in rent or for any other reasons. Rather, the tenant left goods behind when she vacated the tenancy 2 weeks before the agreed end date. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was not at the tenancy then because he was in prison. The landlord tried to make arrangements with [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s friends to collect his goods. They removed some but did not keep to the agreement to return and collect the remainder of the goods. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] would not communicate with the landlord. Once the agreement to collect the remainder of the goods was breached, the landlord was able to dispose of them as the landlord saw fit.
Before doing so, the landlord gave evidence that they assessed the remaining goods with reference to the guide on the Tenancy Services website and their assessment was that the remaining goods had no value beyond the cost of storing, transporting, or selling them.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] could not give evidence about the goods that were left after his friends had removed the goods they did; he was not there. Mr Piper’s evidence did not assist [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s case. He was vague about what happened, when, and by whom, and what goods were left behind when he failed to stick to the agreement to collect the remaining goods.
He gave evidence that he and ‘Damo’ together with a woman he did not know removed some of the goods. He said he had helped [The tenant/s] tenant/s] move 3 or 4 times previously and he was ‘sick and tired’ of helping. He agreed that the whole situation could have been handled better
I have also considered the written statement of the stock manager (Brad) who came to be with Mr Hoetjes (the witness) when there was an argument about the removal of the goods on 12 June when Mr Piper, Damo and the woman were present. He states that on 13 June when [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s friends failed to return there was very little of value left at the premises – linen, food in the cupboards, and miscellaneous rubbish in the shed.
The landlord gave evidence that the shop at the refuse station did not consider any of the goods taken to be dumped to be of any value and would not accept any of them to on-sell.
Section 33 RTA cannot apply in this case because the landlord made efforts to have the tenant’s goods removed. [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s friends did not keep to the agreement made with the landlord to uplift the goods.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s frustration is understandable due to him being in prison. He could not manage the process himself. But his frustration should be directed towards [The tenant/s] tenant/s] who simply vacated the tenancy and would not communicate with the landlord despite the several efforts the landlord made. It was her breach of her statutory responsibilities as a tenant that has resulted in the loss [The tenant/s] tenant/s] alleges.
Mr Piper did not describe what goods he and the others removed (other than to say he removed some of [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s tools) nor did he clearly describe what was left behind. The other people present when the tenant’s goods were removed did not attend the hearing to give evidence.
I need not address the removal of the caravan. That was owned by Mr Piper and removed by him.
The landlord’s photos of the goods piled in the driveway which were to be collected do not show goods of any obvious value. Regardless, the landlord undertook the assessment section 62A RTA requires following the process set out in the Tenancy Services information sheet. The landlord, having completed that assessment, was able to dispose of the goods as the landlord saw fit.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] might also reasonably enquire what has happened to the goods (including his tools) that Mr Piper stated he and the others did remove. That is not for the Tribunal to address.
The tenant’s application for compensation and or exemplary damages must fail. First, he has not established exactly what goods he alleges the landlord disposed of as opposed to the goods Mr Piper and others removed. Second, the landlord complied with the statutory process under section 62A RTA. Thirdly, section 33 RTA cannot apply for the reasons stated. There was no unlawful act by the landlord. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for the goods the landlord disposed of?
This head of claim has been addressed by my finding on the tenant’s application for exemplary damages. The tenant has not proved any breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities for which compensation can be awarded. The landlord complied with the statutory process when the tenant ([The tenant/s] tenant/s]) vacated the tenancy and left goods which the landlord (after making efforts to have the goods returned to the tenant) then assessed as having no value.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 11 June 2026 by agreement between the parties (the landlord and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy. I find the rent claim proved.

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

The landlord produced a quotation (an amended amount) for repairs to the walls, kitchen cabinets, lock replacement, a carpet repair, replacement of light fittings, the repair of windows, and for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy is $650.00. The insurer has not accepted the claim. The Tribunal will regard the claims as ones not covered by the landlord’s insurer in which case each claim cannot excess the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent.
No individual claim exceeds that amount, and most are under the insurance excess amount.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] was not present at the end of the tenancy. He accepted that he could not give evidence about the state of the premises.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s witness Mr Piper said in evidence that the property was dirty and ‘he would have been disgusted’ were he the landlord. He denied seeing any damage, but I do not accept that evidence to mean there was no damage.
The landlord’s evidence, including photos, establishes on the balance of probabilities that the damage (which has now been repaired and the invoice paid) was caused during the tenancy and was at least careless damage. It is certainly damage beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant is liable for the repair cost.
I am satisfied that the claim properly takes into account depreciation and fair wear and tear. The landlord gave evidence that the initial quote was for a much higher amount, but they reduced the work to ensure that only the damage caused by the tenant was repaired. I accept that the landlord had been careful not to better their position.
The landlord’s witness gave evidence that all the keys were missing at the end of the tenancy. I accept that.
I have deducted the cost of carpet cleaning from the quote produced in evidence (on which the invoice for the completed work was based). The landlord gave evidence that they had the carpets cleaned and provided the invoice for that. I accept too that the lawns had to be mowed. The claims for rubbish removal and dump fees are likewise proved.
The landlord has claimed for his time, his brother’s time, loss of income, airfare to inspect the premises, the time spent by the stock manager to support his brother, airport parking, fuel and food.
The landlord resides in Auckland. The premises are in rural Canterbury. That the landlord had to travel and lose income and incur costs for food, travel, and parking does not impose a responsibility on the tenant to meet those costs. The Tribunal can only award compensation under the provision of the RTA. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal can award these costs. Nor can a party claim costs for attending a Tribunal hearing.
A landlord who does not reside close to the premises should consider appointing a professional property manager. To claim the costs the landlord seeks would mean that tenants were in a serendipitous position; their potential liability would be determined by the landlord’s location and level of income.
These costs are part of the cost of being in business as a landlord. They are business expenses.
The landlord’s claim for the cost of a missing leaf blower cannot succeed. There is no chattels list that includes the leaf blower as a chattel. The landlord referred to references to the leaf blower in communications. This claim should be considered as a claim for theft by an unknown party because the landlord cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave the missing chattel, given how the tenancy ended.

Has the landlord proved a claim for loss of rent compensation?

The landlord seeks rent to the date of the hearing. This is akin to a claim for loss of rent compensation.
Had the tenant abandoned the fixed term tenancy, the landlord could have claimed rent to the end of the fixed term, or until a new tenancy started.
What happened here was different. The landlord agreed to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy; the tenancy agreement was varied by consent. Once a tenancy ends, it ends. A landlord is entitled to rent up until the tenant vacates the premises but (usually) not after that.
Possibly, there were delays having the premises assessed for insurance purposes. But the tenancy ended in mid-June. It is now early September. The quotation for the work is dated 25 June 2026. The damage detailed is not so extensive that the Tribunal would consider awarding loss of rent compensation.
The loss of rent is an insurable loss. The landlord is insured. Even if not insured for the loss of rent this is not a case where the landlord can claim for a continuing loss of rent from the tenant. If they could, when would that liability end? The landlord agreed to end the tenancy. There is no obvious reason why the repair work could not have been completed quickly. If it was due to an insurance dispute, that does not impose a continuing liability for rent on the tenant. Result
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears, carpet cleaning, lawn mowing, lock replacement, rubbish removal and dump fees, and for the repair of damage are proved.
The landlord’s claims for loss of rent compensation, compensation for time, travel, loss of income, food, parking, fuel and for the time spent by their brother and neighbour are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of a leaf blower is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. The tenant will pay the landlord $22,047.64. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

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 5524863 — net $22,047.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement	$20,987.44	Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement
Rent arrears to 12 June 2026	$1,350.00	Rent arrears to 12 June 2026
Carpet cleaning	$509.50	Carpet cleaning
Lawn mowing	$195.00	Lawn mowing
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$497.70	Rubbish removal and dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$22,047.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,047.64

Claims and awards for application 5524863 — net $22,047.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement

Amount: $20,987.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs, cleaning and waste removal (less carpet cleaning), lock replacement

Rent arrears to 12 June 2026

Amount: $1,350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 12 June 2026

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $509.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Lawn mowing

Amount: $195.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn mowing

Rubbish removal and dump fees

Amount: $497.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal and dump fees

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $22,047.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (BN-40105146) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and Mark Hoetjes immediately.
The application for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.
The application for compensation for the landlord’s time, travel, food and fuel and for costs incurred by others is dismissed.
The application for compensation for a missing leaf blower is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hoetjes attended in person, Mrs Hoetjes by phone. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended by phone from prison. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] did not attend.
I heard evidence from the parties and from Ben Hoetjes, a witness for the landlord and Alistair Piper a witness for the tenant.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. For ease, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, loss of rent, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the disposal of their goods and exemplary damages for the landlord seizing and disposing of their goods. Background
The tenancy started on 17 April 2026. It was a fixed term tenancy until 17 December 2027. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was held in custody at Christchurch Prison from 22 April 2026. The landlord offered to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy. The tenancy ended by agreement on 11 June 2026 with a final inspection scheduled for 12 June 2026.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] left the tenancy about 2 weeks before the agreed end date. The landlord tried to contact her, but she did not respond. On 11 June, a neighbour alerted the landlord that people were removing the tenant’s goods from the premises. The landlord’s brother (witness Mr Ben Hoetjes) checked the property on 12 June. He had a discussion with (witness) Alistair Piper about the removal of the tenant’s goods. Two other people were present with Mr Piper.
There then followed discussion between Ben Hoetjes and the people present to remove the tenant’s goods. It became heated. Mr Hoetjes called the police who declined to attend. A neighbouring stock manager attended to support Ben Hoetjes during this time.
The landlord extended the timeframe for Mr Piper to remove the tenant’s goods. When the time frame was not kept, the landlord carried out an assessment of what was left behind, deemed the goods to have no value beyond the cost of storing or transporting them, and decided to dump them.
The premises were left unclean, and damaged. The landlord made an insurance claim for the damage, but the insurer has not accepted the claim yet. None of the claims exceeds the sum equivalent to 4 week’s rent, the limit that applies to a landlord’s claim when the claim is not covered by the landlord’s insurance.
The tenant’s claim was filed first. The landlord then filed a cross application.
I heard both applications on 8 September 2026. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are as follows: •Did the landlord unlawfully seize and dispose of the tenant’s goods and if so, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for the goods the landlord disposed of? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation? •Has the landlord proved a claim for loss of rent compensation? Law
Section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods as security for or in payment of any amount owing in rent or for any other reason. However, Section 33 RTA does not apply to goods disposed of under sections 62 to 62C RTA.
Section 62A RTA applies to goods the tenant fails to collect within an agreed period. If the landlord assesses the goods to have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may dispose of the goods in any way the landlord thinks fit.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to remove all his or her goods from the premises; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Did the landlord unlawfully seize and dispose of the tenant’s goods and if so, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?
The landlord did not seize the tenant’s goods as security for or in payment of any amount owing in rent or for any other reasons. Rather, the tenant left goods behind when she vacated the tenancy 2 weeks before the agreed end date. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was not at the tenancy then because he was in prison. The landlord tried to make arrangements with [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s friends to collect his goods. They removed some but did not keep to the agreement to return and collect the remainder of the goods. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] would not communicate with the landlord. Once the agreement to collect the remainder of the goods was breached, the landlord was able to dispose of them as the landlord saw fit.
Before doing so, the landlord gave evidence that they assessed the remaining goods with reference to the guide on the Tenancy Services website and their assessment was that the remaining goods had no value beyond the cost of storing, transporting, or selling them.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] could not give evidence about the goods that were left after his friends had removed the goods they did; he was not there. Mr Piper’s evidence did not assist [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s case. He was vague about what happened, when, and by whom, and what goods were left behind when he failed to stick to the agreement to collect the remaining goods.
He gave evidence that he and ‘Damo’ together with a woman he did not know removed some of the goods. He said he had helped [The tenant/s] tenant/s] move 3 or 4 times previously and he was ‘sick and tired’ of helping. He agreed that the whole situation could have been handled better
I have also considered the written statement of the stock manager (Brad) who came to be with Mr Hoetjes (the witness) when there was an argument about the removal of the goods on 12 June when Mr Piper, Damo and the woman were present. He states that on 13 June when [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s friends failed to return there was very little of value left at the premises – linen, food in the cupboards, and miscellaneous rubbish in the shed.
The landlord gave evidence that the shop at the refuse station did not consider any of the goods taken to be dumped to be of any value and would not accept any of them to on-sell.
Section 33 RTA cannot apply in this case because the landlord made efforts to have the tenant’s goods removed. [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s friends did not keep to the agreement made with the landlord to uplift the goods.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s frustration is understandable due to him being in prison. He could not manage the process himself. But his frustration should be directed towards [The tenant/s] tenant/s] who simply vacated the tenancy and would not communicate with the landlord despite the several efforts the landlord made. It was her breach of her statutory responsibilities as a tenant that has resulted in the loss [The tenant/s] tenant/s] alleges.
Mr Piper did not describe what goods he and the others removed (other than to say he removed some of [The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s tools) nor did he clearly describe what was left behind. The other people present when the tenant’s goods were removed did not attend the hearing to give evidence.
I need not address the removal of the caravan. That was owned by Mr Piper and removed by him.
The landlord’s photos of the goods piled in the driveway which were to be collected do not show goods of any obvious value. Regardless, the landlord undertook the assessment section 62A RTA requires following the process set out in the Tenancy Services information sheet. The landlord, having completed that assessment, was able to dispose of the goods as the landlord saw fit.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] might also reasonably enquire what has happened to the goods (including his tools) that Mr Piper stated he and the others did remove. That is not for the Tribunal to address.
The tenant’s application for compensation and or exemplary damages must fail. First, he has not established exactly what goods he alleges the landlord disposed of as opposed to the goods Mr Piper and others removed. Second, the landlord complied with the statutory process under section 62A RTA. Thirdly, section 33 RTA cannot apply for the reasons stated. There was no unlawful act by the landlord. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for the goods the landlord disposed of?
This head of claim has been addressed by my finding on the tenant’s application for exemplary damages. The tenant has not proved any breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities for which compensation can be awarded. The landlord complied with the statutory process when the tenant ([The tenant/s] tenant/s]) vacated the tenancy and left goods which the landlord (after making efforts to have the goods returned to the tenant) then assessed as having no value.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 11 June 2026 by agreement between the parties (the landlord and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy. I find the rent claim proved.

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

The landlord produced a quotation (an amended amount) for repairs to the walls, kitchen cabinets, lock replacement, a carpet repair, replacement of light fittings, the repair of windows, and for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy is $650.00. The insurer has not accepted the claim. The Tribunal will regard the claims as ones not covered by the landlord’s insurer in which case each claim cannot excess the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent.
No individual claim exceeds that amount, and most are under the insurance excess amount.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] was not present at the end of the tenancy. He accepted that he could not give evidence about the state of the premises.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s witness Mr Piper said in evidence that the property was dirty and ‘he would have been disgusted’ were he the landlord. He denied seeing any damage, but I do not accept that evidence to mean there was no damage.
The landlord’s evidence, including photos, establishes on the balance of probabilities that the damage (which has now been repaired and the invoice paid) was caused during the tenancy and was at least careless damage. It is certainly damage beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant is liable for the repair cost.
I am satisfied that the claim properly takes into account depreciation and fair wear and tear. The landlord gave evidence that the initial quote was for a much higher amount, but they reduced the work to ensure that only the damage caused by the tenant was repaired. I accept that the landlord had been careful not to better their position.
The landlord’s witness gave evidence that all the keys were missing at the end of the tenancy. I accept that.
I have deducted the cost of carpet cleaning from the quote produced in evidence (on which the invoice for the completed work was based). The landlord gave evidence that they had the carpets cleaned and provided the invoice for that. I accept too that the lawns had to be mowed. The claims for rubbish removal and dump fees are likewise proved.
The landlord has claimed for his time, his brother’s time, loss of income, airfare to inspect the premises, the time spent by the stock manager to support his brother, airport parking, fuel and food.
The landlord resides in Auckland. The premises are in rural Canterbury. That the landlord had to travel and lose income and incur costs for food, travel, and parking does not impose a responsibility on the tenant to meet those costs. The Tribunal can only award compensation under the provision of the RTA. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal can award these costs. Nor can a party claim costs for attending a Tribunal hearing.
A landlord who does not reside close to the premises should consider appointing a professional property manager. To claim the costs the landlord seeks would mean that tenants were in a serendipitous position; their potential liability would be determined by the landlord’s location and level of income.
These costs are part of the cost of being in business as a landlord. They are business expenses.
The landlord’s claim for the cost of a missing leaf blower cannot succeed. There is no chattels list that includes the leaf blower as a chattel. The landlord referred to references to the leaf blower in communications. This claim should be considered as a claim for theft by an unknown party because the landlord cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave the missing chattel, given how the tenancy ended.

Has the landlord proved a claim for loss of rent compensation?

The landlord seeks rent to the date of the hearing. This is akin to a claim for loss of rent compensation.
Had the tenant abandoned the fixed term tenancy, the landlord could have claimed rent to the end of the fixed term, or until a new tenancy started.
What happened here was different. The landlord agreed to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy; the tenancy agreement was varied by consent. Once a tenancy ends, it ends. A landlord is entitled to rent up until the tenant vacates the premises but (usually) not after that.
Possibly, there were delays having the premises assessed for insurance purposes. But the tenancy ended in mid-June. It is now early September. The quotation for the work is dated 25 June 2026. The damage detailed is not so extensive that the Tribunal would consider awarding loss of rent compensation.
The loss of rent is an insurable loss. The landlord is insured. Even if not insured for the loss of rent this is not a case where the landlord can claim for a continuing loss of rent from the tenant. If they could, when would that liability end? The landlord agreed to end the tenancy. There is no obvious reason why the repair work could not have been completed quickly. If it was due to an insurance dispute, that does not impose a continuing liability for rent on the tenant. Result
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears, carpet cleaning, lawn mowing, lock replacement, rubbish removal and dump fees, and for the repair of damage are proved.
The landlord’s claims for loss of rent compensation, compensation for time, travel, loss of income, food, parking, fuel and for the time spent by their brother and neighbour are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of a leaf blower is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. The tenant will pay the landlord $22,047.64. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5524863 — Cleanliness at 2583 Bealey Road, Hororata, Hororata 7572

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5524863 — Cleanliness at 2583 Bealey Road, Hororata, Hororata 7572

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

Has the landlord proved a claim for loss of rent compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

Has the landlord proved a claim for loss of rent compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.