What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5174411?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5174411?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174411?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893477-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5174411?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5174411?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174411?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893477-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 41 Jutland Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174411 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Background
The tenancy began on 14 April 2022 and ended on 2 December 2024.
The landlord completed an exit inspection. After undertaking some additional cleaning work at the property manager’s request, the tenants were told that the premises had been left in suitable condition and the their bond was released to them.
Around two months later, at the end of January 2025, the property manager contacted the tenants have to say that after reviewing the exit inspection images again, the landlord was of the view that there was damage caused to the property, by burn marks on the kitchen linoleum floor, that the tenants should compensate the landlord for.
The landlord obtained two quotes for repair of the floor. The lower quote was $759.00 including GST. The property manager sought compensation from the tenants for that amount.
The tenants objected to paying the compensation claimed on the basis that they had been told when vacating the premises that all of their obligations had been met and that they should not be pursued for further compensation two months later. They also raised the question of whether the burn damage shown in the photographs had in fact happened during the tenancy, as there had been contractors working there since the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord were taken at the end of the tenancy, before any renovation work was undertaken. A comparison of those photographs with the entry inspection photographs prove that the burn damage shown in the exit photographs was more likely than not to have happened during the tenancy. The property manager who did the final inspection did not give evidence so it is not possible to say why that damage was not noticed at the final inspection or raised as an issue then.
As it is more likely than not that the damage happened during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, it is damage is that the tenants are responsible for.
The question for the Tribunal to set to decide is whether, in the circumstances, it is just for the landlord to claim compensation for that damage. Analysis
There are three factors mitigating against the landlord’s claim.
First, the premises have been re let without repair of the kitchen vinyl so the landlord has as yet suffered no loss.
Second, because the issue was not raised until two months after the end of the tenancy, no opportunity was given to the tenants to remedy the damage at a lesser cost. That is not consistent with the landlord’s obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the tenants’ breach (see. s.49 RTA).
Third, and fundamentally, estoppel principles mean that the landlord should not now be entitled to bring this claim.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to apply equitable principles such as estoppel.
Estoppel applies where: a. “One party to the tenancy agreement makes a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance to the other party that is intended to effect the tendency relationship and to be acted on; b. The other party relies and acts on the promise or assurance; or c. The party who made the promise or assurance is bound by the promise or assurance unless and until the other party has had reasonable opportunity to resume his or her original position.” 1
Benson (above) notes that the principle has been applied to prevent landlords bringing delayed claims for rent arrears after a tenancy has ended, although other authority suggests the principle should only apply where the landlord has made a representation that rent arrears would not be claimed.
Either way, here, there has been a clear and specific representation that the tenants had met their end of tenancy obligations. In reliance on that representation, the tenants have applied their bond to other financial priorities and it is no longer available to meet any obligations relating to this tenancy. They are not now in a financial position to pay the sum claimed.
I find that those circumstances show that the tenants have acted to their detriment in reliance on a clear representation from the landlord. Estoppel principles apply and it would be inequitable to allow the landlord to resile from its representation that the tenants obligations had been met and bring this further claim against the tenants.
The claim is accordingly dismissed

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Background
The tenancy began on 14 April 2022 and ended on 2 December 2024.
The landlord completed an exit inspection. After undertaking some additional cleaning work at the property manager’s request, the tenants were told that the premises had been left in suitable condition and the their bond was released to them.
Around two months later, at the end of January 2025, the property manager contacted the tenants have to say that after reviewing the exit inspection images again, the landlord was of the view that there was damage caused to the property, by burn marks on the kitchen linoleum floor, that the tenants should compensate the landlord for.
The landlord obtained two quotes for repair of the floor. The lower quote was $759.00 including GST. The property manager sought compensation from the tenants for that amount.
The tenants objected to paying the compensation claimed on the basis that they had been told when vacating the premises that all of their obligations had been met and that they should not be pursued for further compensation two months later. They also raised the question of whether the burn damage shown in the photographs had in fact happened during the tenancy, as there had been contractors working there since the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord were taken at the end of the tenancy, before any renovation work was undertaken. A comparison of those photographs with the entry inspection photographs prove that the burn damage shown in the exit photographs was more likely than not to have happened during the tenancy. The property manager who did the final inspection did not give evidence so it is not possible to say why that damage was not noticed at the final inspection or raised as an issue then.
As it is more likely than not that the damage happened during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, it is damage is that the tenants are responsible for.
The question for the Tribunal to set to decide is whether, in the circumstances, it is just for the landlord to claim compensation for that damage. Analysis
There are three factors mitigating against the landlord’s claim.
First, the premises have been re let without repair of the kitchen vinyl so the landlord has as yet suffered no loss.
Second, because the issue was not raised until two months after the end of the tenancy, no opportunity was given to the tenants to remedy the damage at a lesser cost. That is not consistent with the landlord’s obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the tenants’ breach (see. s.49 RTA).
Third, and fundamentally, estoppel principles mean that the landlord should not now be entitled to bring this claim.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to apply equitable principles such as estoppel.
Estoppel applies where: a. “One party to the tenancy agreement makes a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance to the other party that is intended to effect the tendency relationship and to be acted on; b. The other party relies and acts on the promise or assurance; or c. The party who made the promise or assurance is bound by the promise or assurance unless and until the other party has had reasonable opportunity to resume his or her original position.” 1
Benson (above) notes that the principle has been applied to prevent landlords bringing delayed claims for rent arrears after a tenancy has ended, although other authority suggests the principle should only apply where the landlord has made a representation that rent arrears would not be claimed.
Either way, here, there has been a clear and specific representation that the tenants had met their end of tenancy obligations. In reliance on that representation, the tenants have applied their bond to other financial priorities and it is no longer available to meet any obligations relating to this tenancy. They are not now in a financial position to pay the sum claimed.
I find that those circumstances show that the tenants have acted to their detriment in reliance on a clear representation from the landlord. Estoppel principles apply and it would be inequitable to allow the landlord to resile from its representation that the tenants obligations had been met and bring this further claim against the tenants.
The claim is accordingly dismissed

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174411 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 41 Jutland Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174411 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 41 Jutland Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions