What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5197913?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5197913?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $336.96 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $53.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $199.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197913?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11961864-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5197913?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5197913?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $336.96 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $53.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $199.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197913?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11961864-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Blagdon Road, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5197913 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197913 — net $2,326.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 14 January 2025 to 3 February 2025	$1,020.86	Rent arrears from 14 January 2025 to 3 February 2025
Cleaning: Cleaning costs	$350.00	Cleaning: Cleaning costs
Rubbish removal: Labour	$75.00	Rubbish removal: Labour
Rubbish removal: Waste fees	$199.88	Rubbish removal: Waste fees
Rubbish removal: Gas bottle disposal fees	$24.00	Rubbish removal: Gas bottle disposal fees
Repairs: Lino - replacement	$40.00	Repairs: Lino - replacement
Repairs: Door handle replacement	$53.00	Repairs: Door handle replacement
Repairs: Wall damage - Hole fill	$200.00	Repairs: Wall damage - Hole fill
Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement after eviction	$336.96	Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement after eviction
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,326.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,326.70

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The claim for the warrant eviction fee is dismissed.
Mikayla Alison Liddall must pay Mcdonald Real Estate Limited As Agent For Ian James Law And Vanessa Clare Henley $2,326.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Both the property manager and Mr Law attended.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 February 2025 when the tenant was removed by the bailiff. The tenancy began in September 2017. Rent records for the full tenancy were provided after my enquiry into this.
Upon coming to write this decision I considered the whereabouts of the bond and this alerted me to an earlier decision of the Tribunal that made an order for rent arrears up to 13 January 2024.
This was not mentioned by the landlord in the hearing. It would have been helpful if it had. This is because this means that in this hearing the landlord can only recover rent arrears from 13 January 2025 onwards (they already have had an order for arears before this date and I cannot revisit that).
This means that it was not necessary to consider the early rent summaries provided by the landlord at the hearing today. Instead, the better focus of the submissions would have been the existing order and what sums had been paid (and not paid) since then.
However, I am satisfied, after considering the order made by Adjudicator R Kee in [2025] NZTT 5079349 and the rent summary filed by the landlord in this case that shows the sums paid since that earlier order was made, that the arrears presently outstanding, that have arisen from 14 January 2025 (being the day after the earlier order ordered arrears to) to 2 February 2025 (being the date in the rent summary provided today) are as claimed at $1,020.86.
This sum is therefore ordered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces.
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA).
Here the landlord claims almost $3,000 in cleaning being the costs incurred by engaging cleaners who provided a breakdown of work undertaken.
No final inspection report was provided and there was a very limited number of photographs particularly given the significant level of compensation claimed.
The landlord says the photographs provided are the photographs that show the worst of the property.
I accept that the landlord has proven that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs I saw of the kitchen at the hearing alone establishes this. I accept that drawers in the kitchen were left very dirty and the bench top left stained. The bathroom vanity was also pictured as needing cleaning.
However, there was insufficient evidence to support the full extent of this claim. Evidence that showed the property elsewhere required cleaning to the extent claimed was lacking to the necessary standard of proof.
The description of the work done by the cleaners indicate a level of work undertaken far greater than that required to bring the property to the required standard. This work would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in.
A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Given the extent of the cleaning proven I award the landlord $350 as compensation for cleaning. In making this award I have taken into account the fact that the cleaner assisted with lifting some rubbish as referred to below (carpet).
The tenant also left rubbish behind at the premises. The main evidence to support this was a photograph of the rubbish already loaded into a trailer and two gas bottles.
I award the waste station fee for the rubbish disposal and the disposal of the gas bottles these costs are proven with receipts.
The landlord says he took about 6 hours to deal with the rubbish (but is claiming for 3) but the evidence (both oral and probative) was very limited as to how this time (whether it be 6 or 3 hours) was actually spent.
Overall, based on the evidence before me I award the landlord $75 in labour costs for dealing with the rubbish. This includes the time which I accept would have taken the landlord to go to the waste station and some additional time for rubbish collection, which I consider reasonable on the evidence before me.
The tenant did not return the keys the landlord says were provided to her. She was removed by the bailiff. I consider it reasonable for the landlord to change the locks when a tenant is removed from the property in this way. This is standard practice. The sum ordered is proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan may be taken into account. Door handle
I accept that a door handle was broken in the course of the tenancy and given that a) it appears that the door may have been removed or damaged elsewhere by the tenant at some point and b) the explanation given by the landlord about how the handle was broken, I find this is not fair wear and tear and it is more likely than not to be intentional damage.
The landlord seeks $18.85 for the handle itself and 1 hour at $45 + GST for the repair which the landlord did himself. He has raised a tax invoice for the work.
I consider it appropriate to apply some depreciation. The handle is at least 7 years old as it was there at the start of the tenancy but it appears modern and otherwise in a good condition at the start of the tenancy.
I award the landlord $53 in total for this repair to account for depreciation. Lino
The landlord seeks $100 for the cost of replacement lino in the kitchen. No claim has been made for labour. Labour cost was not included by the landlord in the application and as explained at the hearing, claims cannot be added at the hearing itself as the tenant must have notice of claims made against them (when the tenant is not at the hearing they cannot agree for it to be added).
I accept the lino was damaged during the course of the tenancy. I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord says it was likely done when the fridge was removed due to the position and nature of the damage. I accept this explanation and consider the damage most likely to be to be careless.
The landlord says his insurance excess is in the region of $500.
I accept the evidence that the lino was installed in April 2018 making it around 6 years old when the tenancy ended.
I consider lino in a kitchen such as this to have a life span in the region of 10 years. Therefore, I have awarded the landlord $40 to take into account depreciation. Holes in bedroom
The landlord says that there are scrapes on a bedroom wall and a hole. He says the paint work was new at the start of the tenancy.
I consider that the landlord has not proven that the scraping is anything other than fair wear and tear. No award is made in respect of this.
However, I consider the hole is not fair wear given its size and the tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. I consider it most likely to be careless damage.
The landlord says the repairs for the hole/scraping, which he did himself and then raised a tax invoice for, took 5 hours at $45 + GST (having to return after the GIB had dried and sand and reapply) and the GIB product cost was $31.86. This relates to GIB work and sealing it. No claim has been made for painting as the landlord considered it was time to paint anyway.
I award the landlord $200 in respect of the repair to the hole. This is the sum I consider to be reasonable and also takes into account I have found that some of the work is not recoverable from the tenant.
I have not applied depreciation. I do not consider the landlord’s repair to the hole benefitted the landlord. Recovery of eviction warrant fee
The landlord seeks the sum paid for the bailiff to enforce an earlier possession order made by the Tribunal (the eviction warrant fee).
This is a cost which attaches to the original order, and it is inappropriate to add it to this order.
Ordering it may result in double recovery because usually this would be added to the sum collected on the original order by Collections.
The landlord may investigate this with Collections. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
I award the filing fee. The landlord has had not insignificant sums awarded in his favour albeit less than the sums sought.
Suppression was not sought in the application, so I have not needed to consider this.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197913 — net $2,326.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 14 January 2025 to 3 February 2025	$1,020.86	Rent arrears from 14 January 2025 to 3 February 2025
Cleaning: Cleaning costs	$350.00	Cleaning: Cleaning costs
Rubbish removal: Labour	$75.00	Rubbish removal: Labour
Rubbish removal: Waste fees	$199.88	Rubbish removal: Waste fees
Rubbish removal: Gas bottle disposal fees	$24.00	Rubbish removal: Gas bottle disposal fees
Repairs: Lino - replacement	$40.00	Repairs: Lino - replacement
Repairs: Door handle replacement	$53.00	Repairs: Door handle replacement
Repairs: Wall damage - Hole fill	$200.00	Repairs: Wall damage - Hole fill
Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement after eviction	$336.96	Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement after eviction
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,326.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,326.70

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The claim for the warrant eviction fee is dismissed.
Mikayla Alison Liddall must pay Mcdonald Real Estate Limited As Agent For Ian James Law And Vanessa Clare Henley $2,326.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Both the property manager and Mr Law attended.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 February 2025 when the tenant was removed by the bailiff. The tenancy began in September 2017. Rent records for the full tenancy were provided after my enquiry into this.
Upon coming to write this decision I considered the whereabouts of the bond and this alerted me to an earlier decision of the Tribunal that made an order for rent arrears up to 13 January 2024.
This was not mentioned by the landlord in the hearing. It would have been helpful if it had. This is because this means that in this hearing the landlord can only recover rent arrears from 13 January 2025 onwards (they already have had an order for arears before this date and I cannot revisit that).
This means that it was not necessary to consider the early rent summaries provided by the landlord at the hearing today. Instead, the better focus of the submissions would have been the existing order and what sums had been paid (and not paid) since then.
However, I am satisfied, after considering the order made by Adjudicator R Kee in [2025] NZTT 5079349 and the rent summary filed by the landlord in this case that shows the sums paid since that earlier order was made, that the arrears presently outstanding, that have arisen from 14 January 2025 (being the day after the earlier order ordered arrears to) to 2 February 2025 (being the date in the rent summary provided today) are as claimed at $1,020.86.
This sum is therefore ordered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces.
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA).
Here the landlord claims almost $3,000 in cleaning being the costs incurred by engaging cleaners who provided a breakdown of work undertaken.
No final inspection report was provided and there was a very limited number of photographs particularly given the significant level of compensation claimed.
The landlord says the photographs provided are the photographs that show the worst of the property.
I accept that the landlord has proven that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs I saw of the kitchen at the hearing alone establishes this. I accept that drawers in the kitchen were left very dirty and the bench top left stained. The bathroom vanity was also pictured as needing cleaning.
However, there was insufficient evidence to support the full extent of this claim. Evidence that showed the property elsewhere required cleaning to the extent claimed was lacking to the necessary standard of proof.
The description of the work done by the cleaners indicate a level of work undertaken far greater than that required to bring the property to the required standard. This work would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in.
A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Given the extent of the cleaning proven I award the landlord $350 as compensation for cleaning. In making this award I have taken into account the fact that the cleaner assisted with lifting some rubbish as referred to below (carpet).
The tenant also left rubbish behind at the premises. The main evidence to support this was a photograph of the rubbish already loaded into a trailer and two gas bottles.
I award the waste station fee for the rubbish disposal and the disposal of the gas bottles these costs are proven with receipts.
The landlord says he took about 6 hours to deal with the rubbish (but is claiming for 3) but the evidence (both oral and probative) was very limited as to how this time (whether it be 6 or 3 hours) was actually spent.
Overall, based on the evidence before me I award the landlord $75 in labour costs for dealing with the rubbish. This includes the time which I accept would have taken the landlord to go to the waste station and some additional time for rubbish collection, which I consider reasonable on the evidence before me.
The tenant did not return the keys the landlord says were provided to her. She was removed by the bailiff. I consider it reasonable for the landlord to change the locks when a tenant is removed from the property in this way. This is standard practice. The sum ordered is proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan may be taken into account. Door handle
I accept that a door handle was broken in the course of the tenancy and given that a) it appears that the door may have been removed or damaged elsewhere by the tenant at some point and b) the explanation given by the landlord about how the handle was broken, I find this is not fair wear and tear and it is more likely than not to be intentional damage.
The landlord seeks $18.85 for the handle itself and 1 hour at $45 + GST for the repair which the landlord did himself. He has raised a tax invoice for the work.
I consider it appropriate to apply some depreciation. The handle is at least 7 years old as it was there at the start of the tenancy but it appears modern and otherwise in a good condition at the start of the tenancy.
I award the landlord $53 in total for this repair to account for depreciation. Lino
The landlord seeks $100 for the cost of replacement lino in the kitchen. No claim has been made for labour. Labour cost was not included by the landlord in the application and as explained at the hearing, claims cannot be added at the hearing itself as the tenant must have notice of claims made against them (when the tenant is not at the hearing they cannot agree for it to be added).
I accept the lino was damaged during the course of the tenancy. I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord says it was likely done when the fridge was removed due to the position and nature of the damage. I accept this explanation and consider the damage most likely to be to be careless.
The landlord says his insurance excess is in the region of $500.
I accept the evidence that the lino was installed in April 2018 making it around 6 years old when the tenancy ended.
I consider lino in a kitchen such as this to have a life span in the region of 10 years. Therefore, I have awarded the landlord $40 to take into account depreciation. Holes in bedroom
The landlord says that there are scrapes on a bedroom wall and a hole. He says the paint work was new at the start of the tenancy.
I consider that the landlord has not proven that the scraping is anything other than fair wear and tear. No award is made in respect of this.
However, I consider the hole is not fair wear given its size and the tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. I consider it most likely to be careless damage.
The landlord says the repairs for the hole/scraping, which he did himself and then raised a tax invoice for, took 5 hours at $45 + GST (having to return after the GIB had dried and sand and reapply) and the GIB product cost was $31.86. This relates to GIB work and sealing it. No claim has been made for painting as the landlord considered it was time to paint anyway.
I award the landlord $200 in respect of the repair to the hole. This is the sum I consider to be reasonable and also takes into account I have found that some of the work is not recoverable from the tenant.
I have not applied depreciation. I do not consider the landlord’s repair to the hole benefitted the landlord. Recovery of eviction warrant fee
The landlord seeks the sum paid for the bailiff to enforce an earlier possession order made by the Tribunal (the eviction warrant fee).
This is a cost which attaches to the original order, and it is inappropriate to add it to this order.
Ordering it may result in double recovery because usually this would be added to the sum collected on the original order by Collections.
The landlord may investigate this with Collections. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
I award the filing fee. The landlord has had not insignificant sums awarded in his favour albeit less than the sums sought.
Suppression was not sought in the application, so I have not needed to consider this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5197913 — Rent arrears at 9 Blagdon Road, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5197913 — Rent arrears at 9 Blagdon Road, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions