What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5275639?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declines the landlord’s application for a suppression order.

How much money was awarded in case 5275639?

Property Damage: $255.55 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $196.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275639?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098388-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5275639?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declines the landlord’s application for a suppression order.

How much money was awarded in case 5275639?

Property Damage: $255.55 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $196.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275639?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098388-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat B13, 20 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275639 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275639 — net $571.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair hole in wall	$356.50	Repair hole in wall
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52756392 Lock/key replacement: during	$255.55	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52756392 Lock/key replacement: during
Lock/key replacement: during the tenancy 18/10/24	$196.19	Lock/key replacement: during the tenancy 18/10/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$571.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$571.24

Order

The Tribunal declines the landlord’s application for a suppression order.
Hohepa Rikihana must pay Te Toi Mahana $571.24 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $264.00 (5866459-003) to Te Toi Mahana immediately.
Te Toi Mahana must give the tenant a further 14 days from the date of this order to contact the landlord and arrange collection of any of his goods stored by the landlord. After this date, Te Toi Mahana may deal with any remaining goods as follows: a. Take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them; b. The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Hu and Mr Yue. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background facts
The tenancy was terminated by an earlier Tribunal order on 26 March 2025.
Following the termination order, the landlord sent the tenant a letter dated 27 March 2025 enclosing the order and giving the tenant until 1 April 2025 at 2pm to vacate the premises. Curiously, the letter states that it also serves as notice to terminate under section 59(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which does not make sense and is incorrect. The letter also states: “If you do not vacate the tenancy, Te Toi Mahana will apply to the District Court for a Bailiff to enforce the Tribunal order. This will result in an additional cost of $200 being charged to your account.”
The landlord says that the tenant did not vacate the premises on 1 April and they took the step of changing the locks at the premises to lock the tenant out. Most of the tenant’s belongings were still at the premises. The landlord did not obtain the tenant’s consent nor apply to the District Court for a Bailiff to enforce the Tribunal order (an eviction order) as required before changing the locks.
As I explained at the hearing today, in changing the locks without the tenant’s consent and without first obtaining an eviction order, the landlord is in serious breach of its obligations under the RTA. Section 63 (1) RTA provides: “No person shall enter into possession of any residential premises in the occupation of a tenant except with the consent of the tenant or pursuant to an order for possession made by the Tribunal and duly enforced in accordance with section 106.”
A breach of section 63(1) is an offence under section 63(2) RTA.
Once the locks were changed, there were instances of the tenant breaking the locks to gain access to the premises which resulted in the landlord boarding up the front door and changing the locks again on 2 further occasions.
The unlawful steps taken by the landlord, who is a professional social housing landlord and knows or ought to know its obligations under the RTA, is quite astonishing. In this case, clearly the landlord knows that they must apply for an eviction order as they mentioned this in their letter to the tenant on 27 March. However, they failed to follow the required process.

Is the landlord entitled to post-tenancy costs?

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for various costs it incurred after the tenancy ended including: a. The initial costs of changing the locks to lock the tenant out of the premises; b. The costs of boarding up the premises on two occasions after the tenant broke in and two more changes of locks as a result; c. The costs of removing the tenant’s belongings from the premises and placing them in storage.
The landlord was not entitled to change the locks and take possession of the premises in breach of s63 RTA. It follows that all steps taken which flow from the breach of s63 and the associated costs are tainted. Therefore, I dismiss all the claims for recovery of the above costs, which totalled $3,039.05.

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.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there was a hole in the bedroom wall which the landlord discovered during a regular inspection. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which appears to be either careless or intentional. The amount ordered for the repair cost is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for other lock changes during the tenancy?

I am satisfied that the tenant requested that locks be changed twice during the tenancy in September and October 2024 after losing his keys. The tenant is liable for those costs. The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has contacted the tenant several times and agreed on a period for the tenant to collect the goods, but the tenant failed to collect the goods within that time. They have also offered to deliver the goods to the tenant but he has not provided them with a delivery address.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Therefore, I consider that the tenant be given one final opportunity to collect the goods in fourteen days. After that date, the the landlord may dispose of the goods in accordance with the above orders. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression. Under section 95A(1) he Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly succeeded in the proceedings with most claims dismissed. Furthermore, the landlord’s conduct in this case, is in the public interest. Therefore the application for suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275639 — net $571.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair hole in wall	$356.50	Repair hole in wall
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52756392 Lock/key replacement: during	$255.55	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52756392 Lock/key replacement: during
Lock/key replacement: during the tenancy 18/10/24	$196.19	Lock/key replacement: during the tenancy 18/10/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$571.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$571.24

Order

The Tribunal declines the landlord’s application for a suppression order.
Hohepa Rikihana must pay Te Toi Mahana $571.24 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $264.00 (5866459-003) to Te Toi Mahana immediately.
Te Toi Mahana must give the tenant a further 14 days from the date of this order to contact the landlord and arrange collection of any of his goods stored by the landlord. After this date, Te Toi Mahana may deal with any remaining goods as follows: a. Take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them; b. The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Hu and Mr Yue. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background facts
The tenancy was terminated by an earlier Tribunal order on 26 March 2025.
Following the termination order, the landlord sent the tenant a letter dated 27 March 2025 enclosing the order and giving the tenant until 1 April 2025 at 2pm to vacate the premises. Curiously, the letter states that it also serves as notice to terminate under section 59(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which does not make sense and is incorrect. The letter also states: “If you do not vacate the tenancy, Te Toi Mahana will apply to the District Court for a Bailiff to enforce the Tribunal order. This will result in an additional cost of $200 being charged to your account.”
The landlord says that the tenant did not vacate the premises on 1 April and they took the step of changing the locks at the premises to lock the tenant out. Most of the tenant’s belongings were still at the premises. The landlord did not obtain the tenant’s consent nor apply to the District Court for a Bailiff to enforce the Tribunal order (an eviction order) as required before changing the locks.
As I explained at the hearing today, in changing the locks without the tenant’s consent and without first obtaining an eviction order, the landlord is in serious breach of its obligations under the RTA. Section 63 (1) RTA provides: “No person shall enter into possession of any residential premises in the occupation of a tenant except with the consent of the tenant or pursuant to an order for possession made by the Tribunal and duly enforced in accordance with section 106.”
A breach of section 63(1) is an offence under section 63(2) RTA.
Once the locks were changed, there were instances of the tenant breaking the locks to gain access to the premises which resulted in the landlord boarding up the front door and changing the locks again on 2 further occasions.
The unlawful steps taken by the landlord, who is a professional social housing landlord and knows or ought to know its obligations under the RTA, is quite astonishing. In this case, clearly the landlord knows that they must apply for an eviction order as they mentioned this in their letter to the tenant on 27 March. However, they failed to follow the required process.

Is the landlord entitled to post-tenancy costs?

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for various costs it incurred after the tenancy ended including: a. The initial costs of changing the locks to lock the tenant out of the premises; b. The costs of boarding up the premises on two occasions after the tenant broke in and two more changes of locks as a result; c. The costs of removing the tenant’s belongings from the premises and placing them in storage.
The landlord was not entitled to change the locks and take possession of the premises in breach of s63 RTA. It follows that all steps taken which flow from the breach of s63 and the associated costs are tainted. Therefore, I dismiss all the claims for recovery of the above costs, which totalled $3,039.05.

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.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there was a hole in the bedroom wall which the landlord discovered during a regular inspection. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which appears to be either careless or intentional. The amount ordered for the repair cost is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for other lock changes during the tenancy?

I am satisfied that the tenant requested that locks be changed twice during the tenancy in September and October 2024 after losing his keys. The tenant is liable for those costs. The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has contacted the tenant several times and agreed on a period for the tenant to collect the goods, but the tenant failed to collect the goods within that time. They have also offered to deliver the goods to the tenant but he has not provided them with a delivery address.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Therefore, I consider that the tenant be given one final opportunity to collect the goods in fourteen days. After that date, the the landlord may dispose of the goods in accordance with the above orders. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression. Under section 95A(1) he Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly succeeded in the proceedings with most claims dismissed. Furthermore, the landlord’s conduct in this case, is in the public interest. Therefore the application for suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275639 — Property damage at Unit/Flat B13, 20 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275639 — Property damage at Unit/Flat B13, 20 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to post-tenancy costs?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for other lock changes during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to post-tenancy costs?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for other lock changes during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions