What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301353?

The tribunal order states: Mark Greenstreet must pay Donald Mark Dreaver and Lynne Dreaver $7,466.30

How much money was awarded in case 5301353?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $767.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,983.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301353?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12333335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301353?

The tribunal order states: Mark Greenstreet must pay Donald Mark Dreaver and Lynne Dreaver $7,466.30

How much money was awarded in case 5301353?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $767.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,983.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301353?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12333335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Devonport Lane, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301353 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301353 — net $7,466.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 June 2025	$6,750.00	Rent arrears to 29 June 2025
Repair garage door	$767.05	Repair garage door
Repairs and rubbish removal	$1,983.75	Repairs and rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$287.50	Carpet cleaning
Compensation for damage to carpet	$200.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Cleaning: landlord labour - 5 hours	$150.00	Cleaning: landlord labour - 5 hours
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,466.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,466.30

Order

Mark Greenstreet must pay Donald Mark Dreaver and Lynne Dreaver $7,466.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (3340761-006) to Donald Mark Dreaver and Lynne Dreaver immediately.
The landlord’s application for the repair cost of a bi-fold door, and a retaining wall and for carpet replacement is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 28 August 2025, the landlords in person and the tenant by phone. For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of his bond. Background
The tenancy started on 26 June 2023 and ended on 29 June 2025.
For the first 3 weeks of the tenancy the tenant paid rent weekly as the tenancy agreement provided. He then requested to pay monthly. The landlord agreed to that.
By the end of the first year (as of 23 June 2024) the tenant had paid his rent fully other than for 1 week, so the arrears at the end of that year were $675.00 only.
The last payment of rent the tenant made was on 15 May 2025. By then there were arrears for the year starting 24 June 2024 and $675.00 from the previous year, and no further rent was paid. So, the total amount of rent arrears as of 29 June 2025 is $6,750.00.
The rent arrears have accrued due to the change to monthly payments from weekly payments. Monthly payments require a correction to take account of the fact that while most months have 4 weeks, some months have 5 weeks.
The issue of rent was raised at the end of the tenancy when the landlord conducted an inspection. Before then the landlord had never collected rent monthly. The tenant felt aggrieved that the rent arrears had not been brought to his attention sooner.
At the inspection, the landlord discovered damage which they discussed with the tenant. The landlord considered that further cleaning was also required.
The tenant applied for a refund of his bond. The landlord then cross-applied for rent arrears and end of tenancy costs.
The landlord suggested a resolution of the issue, but the tenant would not accept the offer put to him.
The applications therefore proceeded to an adjudicated hearing. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage? •Can the bond be refunded to the tenant? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Even with the change to monthly rent payments after the first few weeks of the tenancy, the tenant managed to pay his rent for the first year of the tenancy and was only in arrears by 1 week at the end of the first year.
As I have noted, the arrears after that were due to the tenant paying monthly without correction for the additional weeks some months require.
A landlord has a duty to mitigate loss. Had the landlord let the arrears accrue without notice over a period of years, the Tribunal would likely have reduced the rent claim. However, rent arrears that accrue over the course of 1 year only do not create a situation where the landlord has failed to mitigate their loss.
It was the tenant’s statutory responsibility to pay all rent due under the tenancy agreement (the contract). The change to monthly payments was for the tenant’s benefit due to his pay cycle. What he needed to do was multiply his weekly rent by 52 and then divide that by 12 to get a monthly rate. So, instead of paying $2,700.00 per month he needed to pay $2,925.00 per month.
The tenant is liable for the outstanding rent to the end of the tenancy.

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for damage to the garage door. I have allowed that claim, marked *, by consent.
The landlord has accepted a quote to complete other repairs. These include repairs to the walls in a garden shed; the repair of a block wall; the removal of a raised garden put in place by the tenant; the repair of a bi-fold door in the lounge; and gouges in walls. The quotation also extends to the removal of rubbish the tenant left behind.
The previous tenant has confirmed that there was no damage to the garden shed walls when she vacated the tenancy before this tenancy started. That the tenant does not know how the damage occurred does not mean he is not liable for it. The tenant said in evidence that he was sometimes absent from the property, but his family was there.
The photos show damage that appears to be caused by punches or something being thrown at the walls.
The tenant accepted that his teenage children caused pin holes in the walls. I find it probable that the gouges and other wall damage was caused during the tenancy as well.
I do not find proved the damage to the bi-fold door in the lounge. The tenant said the locking mechanism was always difficult and the bottom part was not opened. The landlord’s evidence is not sufficient to prove that the tenant carelessly damaged this door.
The landlord’s photos show that the block wall was not damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The photos do not prove damage to the retaining wall. It is probable that this damage was the result of some stress (after-shocks?) other than any careless tenant action. I have deducted $172.50 (bi-fold doors) and $207.00 (retaining wall) from the quoted price for repairs to remove those claims.
The raised garden was not removed by the tenant. The tenant said he was told to leave it there, but the landlord denies that.
The landlord has proved that the damage claimed for (other than for the bi-fold door and the retaining wall) was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not proved that the damage was fair wear and tear. He is liable for the repair cost.
The landlord’s evidence (photos and an invoice) proves the claim for carpet cleaning in bedroom 2 and the lounge and for steam cleaning the bathroom. The tenant agreed there were stains on the carpet which he said were fair wear and tear. I do not accept that. He attempted to remove the stains, unsuccessfully.
Because the cleaning did not fully remove the stains, the landlord has claimed the cost of carpet replacement for the 2 rooms where the carpet is stained. This claim is based on a quote. The work has not been done.
My assessment of the photos produced in evidence is that the carpets are not so badly stained to require carpet replacement. The damage is cosmetic, rather than say a burn or a hole. The landlord has suffered a loss of amenity value only due to the staining and for this I award compensation of $200.00.
The landlord gave evidence that she cleaned the premises over 2 days. She said she provided her premises ‘spotless’.
A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
From the photos produced in evidence I award the landlord compensation of $150.00 for cleaning – 5 hours’ labour at $30.00 per hour which is the usual rate the Tribunal awards for landlord labour. The cleaning included cleaning the oven which the tenant agreed required further cleaning.

Can the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The landlord’s proven claims exceed the amount of the bond, so the tenant’s application for a bond refund cannot succeed. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears, compensation for damage (other than the repair cost of a bi-fold door and a retaining wall and carpet replacement) is successful as is the claim for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full.
The tenant will pay the landlord $7,466.30 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301353 — net $7,466.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 June 2025	$6,750.00	Rent arrears to 29 June 2025
Repair garage door	$767.05	Repair garage door
Repairs and rubbish removal	$1,983.75	Repairs and rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$287.50	Carpet cleaning
Compensation for damage to carpet	$200.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Cleaning: landlord labour - 5 hours	$150.00	Cleaning: landlord labour - 5 hours
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,466.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,466.30

Order

Mark Greenstreet must pay Donald Mark Dreaver and Lynne Dreaver $7,466.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (3340761-006) to Donald Mark Dreaver and Lynne Dreaver immediately.
The landlord’s application for the repair cost of a bi-fold door, and a retaining wall and for carpet replacement is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 28 August 2025, the landlords in person and the tenant by phone. For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of his bond. Background
The tenancy started on 26 June 2023 and ended on 29 June 2025.
For the first 3 weeks of the tenancy the tenant paid rent weekly as the tenancy agreement provided. He then requested to pay monthly. The landlord agreed to that.
By the end of the first year (as of 23 June 2024) the tenant had paid his rent fully other than for 1 week, so the arrears at the end of that year were $675.00 only.
The last payment of rent the tenant made was on 15 May 2025. By then there were arrears for the year starting 24 June 2024 and $675.00 from the previous year, and no further rent was paid. So, the total amount of rent arrears as of 29 June 2025 is $6,750.00.
The rent arrears have accrued due to the change to monthly payments from weekly payments. Monthly payments require a correction to take account of the fact that while most months have 4 weeks, some months have 5 weeks.
The issue of rent was raised at the end of the tenancy when the landlord conducted an inspection. Before then the landlord had never collected rent monthly. The tenant felt aggrieved that the rent arrears had not been brought to his attention sooner.
At the inspection, the landlord discovered damage which they discussed with the tenant. The landlord considered that further cleaning was also required.
The tenant applied for a refund of his bond. The landlord then cross-applied for rent arrears and end of tenancy costs.
The landlord suggested a resolution of the issue, but the tenant would not accept the offer put to him.
The applications therefore proceeded to an adjudicated hearing. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage? •Can the bond be refunded to the tenant? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Even with the change to monthly rent payments after the first few weeks of the tenancy, the tenant managed to pay his rent for the first year of the tenancy and was only in arrears by 1 week at the end of the first year.
As I have noted, the arrears after that were due to the tenant paying monthly without correction for the additional weeks some months require.
A landlord has a duty to mitigate loss. Had the landlord let the arrears accrue without notice over a period of years, the Tribunal would likely have reduced the rent claim. However, rent arrears that accrue over the course of 1 year only do not create a situation where the landlord has failed to mitigate their loss.
It was the tenant’s statutory responsibility to pay all rent due under the tenancy agreement (the contract). The change to monthly payments was for the tenant’s benefit due to his pay cycle. What he needed to do was multiply his weekly rent by 52 and then divide that by 12 to get a monthly rate. So, instead of paying $2,700.00 per month he needed to pay $2,925.00 per month.
The tenant is liable for the outstanding rent to the end of the tenancy.

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for damage to the garage door. I have allowed that claim, marked *, by consent.
The landlord has accepted a quote to complete other repairs. These include repairs to the walls in a garden shed; the repair of a block wall; the removal of a raised garden put in place by the tenant; the repair of a bi-fold door in the lounge; and gouges in walls. The quotation also extends to the removal of rubbish the tenant left behind.
The previous tenant has confirmed that there was no damage to the garden shed walls when she vacated the tenancy before this tenancy started. That the tenant does not know how the damage occurred does not mean he is not liable for it. The tenant said in evidence that he was sometimes absent from the property, but his family was there.
The photos show damage that appears to be caused by punches or something being thrown at the walls.
The tenant accepted that his teenage children caused pin holes in the walls. I find it probable that the gouges and other wall damage was caused during the tenancy as well.
I do not find proved the damage to the bi-fold door in the lounge. The tenant said the locking mechanism was always difficult and the bottom part was not opened. The landlord’s evidence is not sufficient to prove that the tenant carelessly damaged this door.
The landlord’s photos show that the block wall was not damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The photos do not prove damage to the retaining wall. It is probable that this damage was the result of some stress (after-shocks?) other than any careless tenant action. I have deducted $172.50 (bi-fold doors) and $207.00 (retaining wall) from the quoted price for repairs to remove those claims.
The raised garden was not removed by the tenant. The tenant said he was told to leave it there, but the landlord denies that.
The landlord has proved that the damage claimed for (other than for the bi-fold door and the retaining wall) was caused during the tenancy. The tenant has not proved that the damage was fair wear and tear. He is liable for the repair cost.
The landlord’s evidence (photos and an invoice) proves the claim for carpet cleaning in bedroom 2 and the lounge and for steam cleaning the bathroom. The tenant agreed there were stains on the carpet which he said were fair wear and tear. I do not accept that. He attempted to remove the stains, unsuccessfully.
Because the cleaning did not fully remove the stains, the landlord has claimed the cost of carpet replacement for the 2 rooms where the carpet is stained. This claim is based on a quote. The work has not been done.
My assessment of the photos produced in evidence is that the carpets are not so badly stained to require carpet replacement. The damage is cosmetic, rather than say a burn or a hole. The landlord has suffered a loss of amenity value only due to the staining and for this I award compensation of $200.00.
The landlord gave evidence that she cleaned the premises over 2 days. She said she provided her premises ‘spotless’.
A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
From the photos produced in evidence I award the landlord compensation of $150.00 for cleaning – 5 hours’ labour at $30.00 per hour which is the usual rate the Tribunal awards for landlord labour. The cleaning included cleaning the oven which the tenant agreed required further cleaning.

Can the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The landlord’s proven claims exceed the amount of the bond, so the tenant’s application for a bond refund cannot succeed. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears, compensation for damage (other than the repair cost of a bi-fold door and a retaining wall and carpet replacement) is successful as is the claim for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full.
The tenant will pay the landlord $7,466.30 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301353 — Rent arrears at 9 Devonport Lane, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301353 — Rent arrears at 9 Devonport Lane, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

Can the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

Can the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions