What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5526230 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5526230?

Cleaning: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,378.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $256.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5526230?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5526230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14159034-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5526230 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5526230?

Cleaning: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,378.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $256.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5526230?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5526230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14159034-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 1 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5526230 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1, 1 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5526230 — Rent arrears | 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 5526230 — net $7,148.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15/8/2026	$8,378.57	Rent arrears to 15/8/2026
Carpet Cleaning	$375.00	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$256.88	Water rates
Insurance excess carpet replacement	$650.00	Insurance excess carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,148.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,148.45

Claims and awards for application 5526230 — net $7,148.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 15/8/2026

Amount: $8,378.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 15/8/2026

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $375.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $256.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Insurance excess carpet replacement

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess carpet replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Yukon River Trust $7,148.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (5240297-016) to Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Yukon River Trust immediately.
The application by [The tenant/s] tenant/s] for the term of the fixed term tenancy at Flat 1, 1 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1060 to be reduced is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video link.
On 22/5/2026 the tenant sought a reduction in the term of his fixed term tenancy.
Subsequently on 16/6/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation for water rates.
Following the adjourned hearing on 17/6/2026 the landlord amended the application to include further compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The fixed term tenancy originally began on 14/8/2021 and was renewed annually to end on 15/8/2026, at a rental then of $690.00 per week. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both parties, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not. Tenant’s Claim

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances, b. the change was unforeseen, c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced, d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
In Bond v Tang Invercargill TT09/583IN the Tribunal discussed that section 66 was used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed-term agreements can create hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them and landlords who have financial expectations arising from the same bargain.

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I find the evidence does not establish there has been an unforeseen change in his circumstances.
While I note the tenant’s evidence that he was stressed and afraid for his safety and didn’t wish to live at the premises because of his neighbours and unexpectedly losing his two flatmates because of this, there is simply not enough persuasive evidence to support the claim.
The evidence of the tenant was that he made a quick decision in mid-April to move and only advised the landlord of his concerns about the activities of the neighbours after he decided to move.
While it is understandable that the tenant believed his offer of four weeks rent in lieu of notice may have been acceptable the emails between the parties do not support that the landlord agreed to the suggestion.
While losing two flatmates put the tenant under financial strain, that is the secondary consideration under section 66.
First there must be an unforeseen change in circumstances, and I conclude that the tenant has not identified, to the necessary standard a change in his circumstances that would have been unforeseen.
While the landlord did not want the term reduced, the evidence supports that his attempts to mitigate the loss of both parties by trying to re-let the premises before the tenancy ended have been adversely affected by the damage to the carpets.
As I have determined there has been no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, I do not need to consider the second part of the test; that is whether the severe hardship the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy is not reduced would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
The claim by the tenant fails. Landlord’s Claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The fixed term tenancy ended on 15/8/2026.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing.
The tenant did not dispute the water rates.
However, the tenant did disagree with the amount of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy because of his application to end the term of the tenancy early. Did the tenant comply with his obligations, including responsibility for damage at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,025.00 as follows: a. $375.00 for carpet cleaning required before an insurance claim could be made, b. $650.00 insurance excess for carpet replacement.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, a statement from the carpet cleaner, information from the insurance company and the replacement cost of the carpet.
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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 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.
There is no dispute that damage to carpets was caused during the tenancy by staining from cat urine and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage but considers due to the age of the carpet it was worth “zero” and he should not have to pay any insurance excess.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant is liable for both the carpet cleaning costs and the one insurance excess which covered all the costs of carpet replacement.
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.
As Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Yukon River Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for 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 5526230 — net $7,148.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15/8/2026	$8,378.57	Rent arrears to 15/8/2026
Carpet Cleaning	$375.00	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$256.88	Water rates
Insurance excess carpet replacement	$650.00	Insurance excess carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,148.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,148.45

Claims and awards for application 5526230 — net $7,148.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 15/8/2026

Amount: $8,378.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 15/8/2026

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $375.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $256.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Insurance excess carpet replacement

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess carpet replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Yukon River Trust $7,148.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (5240297-016) to Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Yukon River Trust immediately.
The application by [The tenant/s] tenant/s] for the term of the fixed term tenancy at Flat 1, 1 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1060 to be reduced is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video link.
On 22/5/2026 the tenant sought a reduction in the term of his fixed term tenancy.
Subsequently on 16/6/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation for water rates.
Following the adjourned hearing on 17/6/2026 the landlord amended the application to include further compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The fixed term tenancy originally began on 14/8/2021 and was renewed annually to end on 15/8/2026, at a rental then of $690.00 per week. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both parties, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not. Tenant’s Claim

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances, b. the change was unforeseen, c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced, d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
In Bond v Tang Invercargill TT09/583IN the Tribunal discussed that section 66 was used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed-term agreements can create hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them and landlords who have financial expectations arising from the same bargain.

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I find the evidence does not establish there has been an unforeseen change in his circumstances.
While I note the tenant’s evidence that he was stressed and afraid for his safety and didn’t wish to live at the premises because of his neighbours and unexpectedly losing his two flatmates because of this, there is simply not enough persuasive evidence to support the claim.
The evidence of the tenant was that he made a quick decision in mid-April to move and only advised the landlord of his concerns about the activities of the neighbours after he decided to move.
While it is understandable that the tenant believed his offer of four weeks rent in lieu of notice may have been acceptable the emails between the parties do not support that the landlord agreed to the suggestion.
While losing two flatmates put the tenant under financial strain, that is the secondary consideration under section 66.
First there must be an unforeseen change in circumstances, and I conclude that the tenant has not identified, to the necessary standard a change in his circumstances that would have been unforeseen.
While the landlord did not want the term reduced, the evidence supports that his attempts to mitigate the loss of both parties by trying to re-let the premises before the tenancy ended have been adversely affected by the damage to the carpets.
As I have determined there has been no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, I do not need to consider the second part of the test; that is whether the severe hardship the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy is not reduced would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
The claim by the tenant fails. Landlord’s Claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The fixed term tenancy ended on 15/8/2026.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing.
The tenant did not dispute the water rates.
However, the tenant did disagree with the amount of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy because of his application to end the term of the tenancy early. Did the tenant comply with his obligations, including responsibility for damage at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,025.00 as follows: a. $375.00 for carpet cleaning required before an insurance claim could be made, b. $650.00 insurance excess for carpet replacement.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, a statement from the carpet cleaner, information from the insurance company and the replacement cost of the carpet.
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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 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.
There is no dispute that damage to carpets was caused during the tenancy by staining from cat urine and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage but considers due to the age of the carpet it was worth “zero” and he should not have to pay any insurance excess.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant is liable for both the carpet cleaning costs and the one insurance excess which covered all the costs of carpet replacement.
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.
As Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Yukon River Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5526230 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 1 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5526230 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 1 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.