What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120881?

The tribunal order states: Nicola Jayne Flewellen must pay B&N Properties Limited $274.19 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5120881?

Cleaning: $119.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Reletting Costs: $626.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $141.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120881?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11718764-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120881?

The tribunal order states: Nicola Jayne Flewellen must pay B&N Properties Limited $274.19 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5120881?

Cleaning: $119.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Reletting Costs: $626.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $141.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120881?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11718764-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38D Southampton Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120881 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120881 — net $274.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 January 2025	$141.44	Rent arrears to 18 January 2025
Cleaning	$119.00	Cleaning
Reletting costs	$626.75	Reletting costs
Blinds and curtain damage	$1,200.00	Blinds and curtain damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$274.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$274.19

Order

Nicola Jayne Flewellen must pay B&N Properties Limited $274.19 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5669619-005) to B&N Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing on 14 April at 9.30am.
Notice of the hearing was sent to the parties on 13 March. The same day, the tenant requested permission to attend the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal granted that request on 17 March.
On 25 March the tenant requested an adjournment because it would be expensive to call New Zealand from where she was. That request was not brought to the attention of an adjudicator and therefore there was no response from the Tribunal.
On 14 April at 8.30am the Tribunal contacted the tenant to confirm that the adjournment was not granted and that the hearing would proceed. The Tribunal contacted her again at the time of the hearing and the tenant said that she was not able to attend because she was unable to call to a New Zealand number from where she was. The hearing then proceeded in her absence.
The tenant is unhappy with that decision. There is no doubt that the tenant’s adjournment request should have been considered and she should have received a timely response. That said, having not received a response, she should have assumed that the hearing was not adjourned, and she should have arranged to attend by telephone as she had previously requested. I note as well that the tenant could have followed up on her adjournment request but did not do so.
At the hearing, the Tribunal carefully considered the landlord’s application, and it has been only partly successful. The tenant’s application has been dismissed. Aside from the fact that the tenant was not present to advance her claims, the claims set out in her application did not disclose any breach by the landlord of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims concerned the property manager’s behaviour towards her. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term to 13 July 2025. In early December 2024, the tenant informed the landlord that she wanted to end her tenancy early because she intended pursuing a work opportunity abroad.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant early on the usual terms that she would remain liable for the rent until the landlord had found another tenant and the new tenancy had started and she would be responsible for the costs associated with reletting the premises.
The landlord duly advertised the premises and found a new tenant. That tenancy started on 19 January 2025. It is at a weekly rent of $600 compared with $510 per week payable by the tenant.
The tenant has suggested that the landlord initially sought too high a rent for the premises and that consequently, it took longer than it should have to find a new tenant. I don’t accept that. It is not unusual for premises to be advertised at a rent which then must be reduced to meet the market. Given the time of year, the time that it took to find a new tenant was reasonable.
By 18 January rent was $2,404.29 in arrears.
The process involving the final inspection and end of tenancy issues became fractious and the tenant took offense at one of the property managers messages. I note that the property manager was upset by the tenant’s reaction and by one of her comments. The landlord’s Claims. Rent
The only issue that I perceived in relation to rent concerned the benefit that the landlord received from the higher rent being received from the new tenant. For the remaining period of the tenant’s fixed term (19 January to 13 July – 176 days) the additional $90 per week amounts to $2,262.85. I asked the landlord’s representative why the landlord should not give the tenant credit for that because it arose from the early termination of the tenancy.
His response was twofold. He said that the landlord did not have to release the tenant and that the rent under the tenant’s agreement was below market rent.
My response to that is that I must assess this case on the facts. The landlord did agree to release the tenant, on terms, and the rent under the agreement was the rent agreed between the parties. It is not for the Tribunal to look behind that, and I don’t see that it affects the basic proposition that the landlord is better off in terms of rent now than if the tenant had not been released.
The law on “collateral benefits” is clear. Any loss sustained by claimants must be balanced against any gain to them arising directly out of the steps they took to lessen the consequences of the breach. The reference to breach arises because the law has developed from cases involving breach of contract where the innocent party has taken steps to mitigate their loss and in doing so gains some benefit. This is not strictly a case of breach of contract, but it is akin to it. Ending the tenancy early would have been a breach but for the agreement between the parties and the landlord’s agreement to find a new tenant was an act of mitigation. I see no reason why the principle should not apply here.
It follows that the tenant should receive the benefit of the higher rent. $2,404.29 - $2,262 = $141.44 and so that is the award I have made for rent arrears. Carpet Cleaning
The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was not reasonably clean because there was cat hair present. The tenant had a cat in the premises that she was not permitted to have. I have therefore awarded the cost of carpet cleaning. Costs of Reletting
Aside from the agreement between the parties, the landlord is entitled to the reasonable expenses associated with the reletting under s44A of the Act. The expenses are reasonable and so I have awarded them. Curtains and Blinds
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Curtains and blinds in the premises were damaged by cat urine and damage from clawing. The claim was originally for the cost of replacing 2 roller blinds, 2 venetian blinds and 3 sets (2 drops each) of curtains. The landlord did not pursue the claim for the 2 venetian blinds for evidential reasons.
I am satisfied on the evidence, including photographs, that the blinds and curtains were damaged carelessly by the tenant allowing her cat to damage them.
Insurance is not a consideration in this case.
The landlord produced a quote for the cost of replacing the blinds and curtains. It was not entirely satisfactory because it did not give a breakdown of the price of the curtains and there was no other evidence of the price of them.
As well, the curtains were five years old by the end of the tenancy.
Taking all this into consideration, I have awarded $1,200 for the curtains and blinds. The Tenant’s Application
The tenant’s application must be dismissed because she did not attend to advance it.
I any case, I did not see anything in the tenant’s application or the evidence that would have warranted intervention by this Tribunal. The correspondence from the property manager was courteous and professional. There was one comment that might be seen as patronising, but I am satisfied that it was not intentional. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
The landlord is entitled to the bond and the tenant must pay the remaining liability.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120881 — net $274.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 January 2025	$141.44	Rent arrears to 18 January 2025
Cleaning	$119.00	Cleaning
Reletting costs	$626.75	Reletting costs
Blinds and curtain damage	$1,200.00	Blinds and curtain damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$274.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$274.19

Order

Nicola Jayne Flewellen must pay B&N Properties Limited $274.19 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5669619-005) to B&N Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing on 14 April at 9.30am.
Notice of the hearing was sent to the parties on 13 March. The same day, the tenant requested permission to attend the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal granted that request on 17 March.
On 25 March the tenant requested an adjournment because it would be expensive to call New Zealand from where she was. That request was not brought to the attention of an adjudicator and therefore there was no response from the Tribunal.
On 14 April at 8.30am the Tribunal contacted the tenant to confirm that the adjournment was not granted and that the hearing would proceed. The Tribunal contacted her again at the time of the hearing and the tenant said that she was not able to attend because she was unable to call to a New Zealand number from where she was. The hearing then proceeded in her absence.
The tenant is unhappy with that decision. There is no doubt that the tenant’s adjournment request should have been considered and she should have received a timely response. That said, having not received a response, she should have assumed that the hearing was not adjourned, and she should have arranged to attend by telephone as she had previously requested. I note as well that the tenant could have followed up on her adjournment request but did not do so.
At the hearing, the Tribunal carefully considered the landlord’s application, and it has been only partly successful. The tenant’s application has been dismissed. Aside from the fact that the tenant was not present to advance her claims, the claims set out in her application did not disclose any breach by the landlord of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims concerned the property manager’s behaviour towards her. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term to 13 July 2025. In early December 2024, the tenant informed the landlord that she wanted to end her tenancy early because she intended pursuing a work opportunity abroad.
The landlord agreed to release the tenant early on the usual terms that she would remain liable for the rent until the landlord had found another tenant and the new tenancy had started and she would be responsible for the costs associated with reletting the premises.
The landlord duly advertised the premises and found a new tenant. That tenancy started on 19 January 2025. It is at a weekly rent of $600 compared with $510 per week payable by the tenant.
The tenant has suggested that the landlord initially sought too high a rent for the premises and that consequently, it took longer than it should have to find a new tenant. I don’t accept that. It is not unusual for premises to be advertised at a rent which then must be reduced to meet the market. Given the time of year, the time that it took to find a new tenant was reasonable.
By 18 January rent was $2,404.29 in arrears.
The process involving the final inspection and end of tenancy issues became fractious and the tenant took offense at one of the property managers messages. I note that the property manager was upset by the tenant’s reaction and by one of her comments. The landlord’s Claims. Rent
The only issue that I perceived in relation to rent concerned the benefit that the landlord received from the higher rent being received from the new tenant. For the remaining period of the tenant’s fixed term (19 January to 13 July – 176 days) the additional $90 per week amounts to $2,262.85. I asked the landlord’s representative why the landlord should not give the tenant credit for that because it arose from the early termination of the tenancy.
His response was twofold. He said that the landlord did not have to release the tenant and that the rent under the tenant’s agreement was below market rent.
My response to that is that I must assess this case on the facts. The landlord did agree to release the tenant, on terms, and the rent under the agreement was the rent agreed between the parties. It is not for the Tribunal to look behind that, and I don’t see that it affects the basic proposition that the landlord is better off in terms of rent now than if the tenant had not been released.
The law on “collateral benefits” is clear. Any loss sustained by claimants must be balanced against any gain to them arising directly out of the steps they took to lessen the consequences of the breach. The reference to breach arises because the law has developed from cases involving breach of contract where the innocent party has taken steps to mitigate their loss and in doing so gains some benefit. This is not strictly a case of breach of contract, but it is akin to it. Ending the tenancy early would have been a breach but for the agreement between the parties and the landlord’s agreement to find a new tenant was an act of mitigation. I see no reason why the principle should not apply here.
It follows that the tenant should receive the benefit of the higher rent. $2,404.29 - $2,262 = $141.44 and so that is the award I have made for rent arrears. Carpet Cleaning
The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was not reasonably clean because there was cat hair present. The tenant had a cat in the premises that she was not permitted to have. I have therefore awarded the cost of carpet cleaning. Costs of Reletting
Aside from the agreement between the parties, the landlord is entitled to the reasonable expenses associated with the reletting under s44A of the Act. The expenses are reasonable and so I have awarded them. Curtains and Blinds
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Curtains and blinds in the premises were damaged by cat urine and damage from clawing. The claim was originally for the cost of replacing 2 roller blinds, 2 venetian blinds and 3 sets (2 drops each) of curtains. The landlord did not pursue the claim for the 2 venetian blinds for evidential reasons.
I am satisfied on the evidence, including photographs, that the blinds and curtains were damaged carelessly by the tenant allowing her cat to damage them.
Insurance is not a consideration in this case.
The landlord produced a quote for the cost of replacing the blinds and curtains. It was not entirely satisfactory because it did not give a breakdown of the price of the curtains and there was no other evidence of the price of them.
As well, the curtains were five years old by the end of the tenancy.
Taking all this into consideration, I have awarded $1,200 for the curtains and blinds. The Tenant’s Application
The tenant’s application must be dismissed because she did not attend to advance it.
I any case, I did not see anything in the tenant’s application or the evidence that would have warranted intervention by this Tribunal. The correspondence from the property manager was courteous and professional. There was one comment that might be seen as patronising, but I am satisfied that it was not intentional. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
The landlord is entitled to the bond and the tenant must pay the remaining liability.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120881 — Property damage at 38D Southampton Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120881 — Property damage at 38D Southampton Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions