What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5247471?

The tribunal order states: Wairore Chase and Toheriri Taunoa must pay John Pidduck $3,787.50

How much money was awarded in case 5247471?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Pile: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $65.18 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $205.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247471?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11999512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5247471?

The tribunal order states: Wairore Chase and Toheriri Taunoa must pay John Pidduck $3,787.50

How much money was awarded in case 5247471?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Pile: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $65.18 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $205.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247471?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11999512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5B Mansfield Street, Hairini, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247471 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

5B Mansfield Street, Hairini, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247471 — 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 5247471 — net $3,787.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,460.00	Rent arrears
Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25	$205.32	Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25
Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25	$65.18	Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25
Carpet cleaning	$250.00	Carpet cleaning
Replace pile	$150.00	Replace pile
Wall repairs	$350.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,787.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,787.50

Claims and awards for application 5247471 — net $3,787.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $5,460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25

Amount: $205.32
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25

Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25

Amount: $65.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Replace pile

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace pile

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates Compensation

Order

Wairore Chase and Toheriri Taunoa must pay John Pidduck $3,787.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order supersedes and replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 17 June 2025 which incorrectly duplicated the credit for the tenants’ bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled by videoconference. The tenants appeared by phone.
Mr Taunoa is not named as a tenant in the agreement. He has however signed the agreement and all parties agree he should be a party to this Order.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord had been following up with the tenants about increasing rent arrears. He proposed that the tenancy end. On 1 April 2025 the landlord gave 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 2 July 2025.
On 28 May 2025 the tenants txt the landlord, “Hi John as per conversation we had on the phone I will be surrendering the property 28/05/2025 as I can’t afford the rent/ arrears. I will do cleaning today and leave the keys under the mat. Thank You”
The landlord’s claim for rent arears to 28 May 2025 is proved.
The landlord claims an additional 2 week’s rent as compensation for lack of notice. Ordinarily, the landlord would be entitled to rent in lieu of notice but in this case, the landlord retook possession of the premises and had the locks changed on 29 May. The tenants cannot be expected to pay rent for a notice period during which they were excluded from the premises. The claim for that additional rent compensation is dismissed.
Calculation of the arrears takes account of the bond, which the landlord unlawfully retained rather than lodging it with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has provided a water rates invoice that proves the claim for the period 31.10.24-24.2.25. The non-consumption charges in that invoice have been deducted (see s.39 RTA).
No invoice has been provided for the period 24.2.25. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is within the average daily cost as proved by the previous invoice and is reasonable.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims compensation for lock/ key replacement. The tenants’ obligation was to return the keys provided. They confirmed their intention to return the keys as required but were prevented from doing so by the landlord having had the locks changed. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and claims compensation for his time and expenses in cleaning the bathroom/ shower/ laundry and the carpets.
The tenants say that they cleaned the premises except the carpets, which they did not clean for fear of the effects of the dampness on their child.
As this is the landlord’s claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to prove it. The landlord has provided no evidence in support of this claim, so I can only award the compensation accepted by the tenants.

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. Awards of Compensation – principles
The Tribunal’s ability to award compensation is provided by s.77(2)(n) RTA under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “...to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”
Even if a breach of the tenant’s obligations is established, the landlord does not have an entitlement to an award of damages as of right 1 . However, where loss is proved to have resulted from the tenant’s breach, in most circumstances an award of compensation should be made.
It is the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the landlord that an award is intended to compensate for. That loss might be represented by the cost of repair or it might be by a lessening in value.
If the costs of repair exceed the lessening in value, good reason should be shown to award the higher compensation amount. 2 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 2 See for example Leisure Investments NZ Ltd. Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89
Section48 RTA requires the Tribunal to have specific regard to a party’s obligation to , “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
In doing work on their premises, owners are acting in their capacity as landlords, not in whatever other professional/ trades roles they might otherwise spend their time. Hourly charge rates on which compensation is claimed should reflect that.

Were the premises damaged during the tenancy?

During the tenancy a decking pile was damaged while the tenants were not occupying the premises. I find it proved on balance that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is entitled to reasonable mitigated compensation for the resulting loss.
The damage was discovered by the landlord in early April. He notified the tenants of his intention to repair the damage and take it out of the tenants’ bond. The tenants responded, “....we are not quite aware of what’s happened there sorry we are about as surprised as you are and we can sort that out when we return to NZ as you know we haven’t been home for 2 months now...”.
The landlord went ahead and immediately replaced the pile anyway . By doing so, I find that he breached his obligation to mitigate the loss by giving the tenants a chance to remedy the breach.
If the tenants had been given the chance to repair the pile themselves, I am satisfied they could have done it at a somewhat lower cost than the amount of compensation charged by the landlord, but it would still have been a significant cost to them. I award reduced compensation accordingly, calculated at 4 hours x $40 per hour plus materials and modest incidentals.
There was some damage caused to walls at the premises in the bathroom and master bedroom. The tenants say that the damage to the bathroom wall was from a towel rail that was not properly secured and came off. The tenants accept responsibility for the damage in the bedroom but say it had been plastered and sanded and only required a minor paint.
The tenants have a concern that the landlord’s claim covers the cost of repairing where vents were removed by the landlord. The landlord confirms that is not the case.
The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of his claims, which makes it very difficult to assess whether the compensation claimed is reasonable. By way of comparison, Kainga Ora contractors have a fixed charge of around $90.00 per hole repair. I accept the landlord’s position that to make a reasonable repair, painting of more than just the patched area is required.
I do not find it proves that the damage in the bathroom was other than wear and tear. I have calculated compensation for the bedroom damage at $40.00 x 3 hours x 2 holes, plus paint costs, plus allowance for incidentals.
Because John Pidduck has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 5247471 — net $3,787.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,460.00	Rent arrears
Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25	$205.32	Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25
Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25	$65.18	Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25
Carpet cleaning	$250.00	Carpet cleaning
Replace pile	$150.00	Replace pile
Wall repairs	$350.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,787.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,787.50

Claims and awards for application 5247471 — net $3,787.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $5,460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25

Amount: $205.32
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 31.10.24-24.2.25

Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25

Amount: $65.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 24.2.25 - 16.5.25

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Replace pile

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace pile

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates Compensation

Order

Wairore Chase and Toheriri Taunoa must pay John Pidduck $3,787.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order supersedes and replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 17 June 2025 which incorrectly duplicated the credit for the tenants’ bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled by videoconference. The tenants appeared by phone.
Mr Taunoa is not named as a tenant in the agreement. He has however signed the agreement and all parties agree he should be a party to this Order.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord had been following up with the tenants about increasing rent arrears. He proposed that the tenancy end. On 1 April 2025 the landlord gave 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 2 July 2025.
On 28 May 2025 the tenants txt the landlord, “Hi John as per conversation we had on the phone I will be surrendering the property 28/05/2025 as I can’t afford the rent/ arrears. I will do cleaning today and leave the keys under the mat. Thank You”
The landlord’s claim for rent arears to 28 May 2025 is proved.
The landlord claims an additional 2 week’s rent as compensation for lack of notice. Ordinarily, the landlord would be entitled to rent in lieu of notice but in this case, the landlord retook possession of the premises and had the locks changed on 29 May. The tenants cannot be expected to pay rent for a notice period during which they were excluded from the premises. The claim for that additional rent compensation is dismissed.
Calculation of the arrears takes account of the bond, which the landlord unlawfully retained rather than lodging it with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has provided a water rates invoice that proves the claim for the period 31.10.24-24.2.25. The non-consumption charges in that invoice have been deducted (see s.39 RTA).
No invoice has been provided for the period 24.2.25. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is within the average daily cost as proved by the previous invoice and is reasonable.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims compensation for lock/ key replacement. The tenants’ obligation was to return the keys provided. They confirmed their intention to return the keys as required but were prevented from doing so by the landlord having had the locks changed. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and claims compensation for his time and expenses in cleaning the bathroom/ shower/ laundry and the carpets.
The tenants say that they cleaned the premises except the carpets, which they did not clean for fear of the effects of the dampness on their child.
As this is the landlord’s claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to prove it. The landlord has provided no evidence in support of this claim, so I can only award the compensation accepted by the tenants.

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. Awards of Compensation – principles
The Tribunal’s ability to award compensation is provided by s.77(2)(n) RTA under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “...to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”
Even if a breach of the tenant’s obligations is established, the landlord does not have an entitlement to an award of damages as of right 1 . However, where loss is proved to have resulted from the tenant’s breach, in most circumstances an award of compensation should be made.
It is the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the landlord that an award is intended to compensate for. That loss might be represented by the cost of repair or it might be by a lessening in value.
If the costs of repair exceed the lessening in value, good reason should be shown to award the higher compensation amount. 2 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 2 See for example Leisure Investments NZ Ltd. Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89
Section48 RTA requires the Tribunal to have specific regard to a party’s obligation to , “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
In doing work on their premises, owners are acting in their capacity as landlords, not in whatever other professional/ trades roles they might otherwise spend their time. Hourly charge rates on which compensation is claimed should reflect that.

Were the premises damaged during the tenancy?

During the tenancy a decking pile was damaged while the tenants were not occupying the premises. I find it proved on balance that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is entitled to reasonable mitigated compensation for the resulting loss.
The damage was discovered by the landlord in early April. He notified the tenants of his intention to repair the damage and take it out of the tenants’ bond. The tenants responded, “....we are not quite aware of what’s happened there sorry we are about as surprised as you are and we can sort that out when we return to NZ as you know we haven’t been home for 2 months now...”.
The landlord went ahead and immediately replaced the pile anyway . By doing so, I find that he breached his obligation to mitigate the loss by giving the tenants a chance to remedy the breach.
If the tenants had been given the chance to repair the pile themselves, I am satisfied they could have done it at a somewhat lower cost than the amount of compensation charged by the landlord, but it would still have been a significant cost to them. I award reduced compensation accordingly, calculated at 4 hours x $40 per hour plus materials and modest incidentals.
There was some damage caused to walls at the premises in the bathroom and master bedroom. The tenants say that the damage to the bathroom wall was from a towel rail that was not properly secured and came off. The tenants accept responsibility for the damage in the bedroom but say it had been plastered and sanded and only required a minor paint.
The tenants have a concern that the landlord’s claim covers the cost of repairing where vents were removed by the landlord. The landlord confirms that is not the case.
The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of his claims, which makes it very difficult to assess whether the compensation claimed is reasonable. By way of comparison, Kainga Ora contractors have a fixed charge of around $90.00 per hole repair. I accept the landlord’s position that to make a reasonable repair, painting of more than just the patched area is required.
I do not find it proves that the damage in the bathroom was other than wear and tear. I have calculated compensation for the bedroom damage at $40.00 x 3 hours x 2 holes, plus paint costs, plus allowance for incidentals.
Because John Pidduck has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247471 — Rent arrears at 5B Mansfield Street, Hairini, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247471 — Rent arrears at 5B Mansfield Street, Hairini, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Were the premises damaged during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Were the premises damaged during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions