What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418749?

The tribunal order states: Gabrielle Victoria Smith and Francis Weitz must pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 5418749?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $197.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,571.43 awarded to landlord; Wall - Bedroom 2: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Washing Machine: $251.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418749?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13338143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418749?

The tribunal order states: Gabrielle Victoria Smith and Francis Weitz must pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 5418749?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $197.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,571.43 awarded to landlord; Wall - Bedroom 2: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Washing Machine: $251.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418749?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13338143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 7C, 1 Emily Place, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418749 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418749 — net $1,312.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2026	$2,571.43	Rent arrears to 31 January 2026
Lock/key replacement: Letterbox	$197.80	Lock/key replacement: Letterbox
Repairs: Wall - bedroom 2	$264.50	Repairs: Wall - bedroom 2
Repairs: Washing machine	$251.00	Repairs: Washing machine
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,312.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,312.73

Order

Gabrielle Victoria Smith and Francis Weitz must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As The Agent For Lois & David Halsey $1,312.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-00127705) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As The Agent For Lois & David Halsey immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held remotely by video. The tenants did not attend.
The tenants requested an adjournment the day before the hearing on the basis that one of the tenants had been unwell did not think they would be well enough to attend the hearing the next day. The tenant was asked to provide a medical certificate and reasons why the other tenant could not attend and represent both tenants. The adjournment request was then declined as no medical certificate was provided within a given time frame. No reasons were given why the other tenant could not attend the hearing.
The written submissions forwarded by the tenants prior to the hearing have been considered in determining the landlord’s application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2025 for a fixed term, ending on 30 November 2025. The landlord agreed to a further extension until 31 January 2026. Rent was $500.00 a week.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants in their written submission stated that the arrears were “temporary in nature, have arisen due to the structure of my payment cycle, and are being mischaracterised as overdue rent when they include forecasted rent for days that had not passed at the time the application was made.”
The tenants went on to explain that the income they relied on to pay the rent was paid monthly, and that they had been under financial strain as one of the tenants had unexpectedly lost their employment.
The tenants considered the tenancy was due to end on 26 January 2026 as that was the date they moved out.
I find the tenancy ended on 31 January 2026 in keeping with the signed extension/renewal agreement signed by both parties. No evidence was presented by either party that shows the extension/renewal agreement was varied or that there was a separate agreement bringing forward the end date of the tenancy.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. In this instance rent was due weekly in advance of each rent week regardless of when the tenants income was paid.

Did the tenant comply 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.
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys for the letterbox. The landlord provided a photo of the keys provided at the start of the tenants’ initial tenancy 1 which included 2 keys for the letterbox. A photo was also provided showing the keys opening the letterbox, taken before the tenants initial tenancy of the premises started.
The tenants do not deny that they were provided a key for the letterbox or that they did not return a key/s. Their written submissions state: We were provided with a key at the start of the tenancy; however, the key never functioned. As a result, the mailbox was never used during our tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence is that he was never told that the keys did not work.
I find the landlord provided keys for the mailbox to the tenants which were not returned. None of the evidence presented persuades me that the keys provided did not work. I find the tenants are liable for the cost to rekey the letter box.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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. 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. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 1 The tenants initially entered into a fixed term tenancy for the premises for 1 year on 30 November 2024. The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 25 July 2025. The landlord/owner agreed to the tenants having a further opportunity to tenant the premises and the tenancy agreement which this application relates to was entered into as a new tenancy on 26 July 2025.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the wall in bedroom 2.
At the end of the tenancy there was damage to the wall of bedroom 2 which required repairing and painting.
The tenants’ written submissions state that the damage “was caused by contractors engaged to install the new hot water cylinder and by builders storing materials in that room. Items were leaned against the wall, resulting in the damage”.
I am not convinced that the damage was caused as contended by the tenants. The landlord provided a report and photographs from an inspection carried out on 2 September 2025 which records the damage, both in the inspection report and photos. The photos establish that the hot water cylinder had not been replaced at that time. Further evidence provided by the landlord shows that it was replaced in October; that is after the damage had already occurred to the wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Washing machine
The tenant advised the landlord that the washing machine would not spin. At that point in time the washing machine was around 6 months old. The landlord’s appliance repair contractor (ATS Maintenance) looked at the machine and believed there was an item jammed inside the washing machine. As it was under warranty the contractor recommended arranging for a repair under warranty. As a result the Fisher & Paykel/Haier contractor inspected the machine.
The tenants’ written submissions state that they did not cause the issue with the washing machine and that the landlord has obligations under s45 RTA to maintain the premises. Their view is that the landlord should not impose charges on the tenants without prior discussion, consultation or first establishing responsibility and that they have no liability for the repair costs.
The tenants say section 4 of the RTA requires both parties to act reasonably, openly, and honestly in all dealings relating to the tenancy.
However I find the landlord’s evidence convincing that the washing machine required repair as a result of use by the tenants. ATS Maintenance’s evidence was that the drum was jammed. He stated that “[t]he tenant was advised to avoid overfilling the machine. Excessive loads can force items into the outer drum or cause the unit to become unbalanced, leading to suspension damage.”
The Fisher & Pykel/Haier repairer stated the cause of the washing machine failing to spin was that he “found a sports bra wrapped around the motor stopping it from turning.” He said he also “suggested customer use a laundry bag for smaller items and also not to overload the machine.”
As the tenants’ use has caused the failure I find the tenants are liable for the repair costs. I note that the landlord has paid the cost of ATS’ invoice and is only claiming the cost of the Fisher & Pykel/Haier technician’s invoice.
I find the damage in both instances was carelessly caused and that costs claimed are proven.
I note for completion that section 4 RTA states “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”. That is, it does not reference the interpretation the tenants have given to the section. The landlord is entitled to raise a claim against a tenant for damage they believe is caused by the tenant during the tenancy, just as the tenant is entitled to raise claims where they believe a landlord has breached duties owed under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. Other matters
In their written submissions the tenants have also raised: Misrepresentation Regarding Tenancy Termination At the commencement of our tenancy, we were advised that remedial works were scheduled and that the tenancy would therefore be limited to six months. We were later permitted to extend due to delays in the contract works. Subsequently, we were instructed to vacate by the end of January 2026 on the basis that internal works were scheduled and that there would be no option to extend. This placed us under significant stress and pressure, particularly given the difficulty of securing accommodation in the current rental market. We acted on the understanding that the termination was genuine and unavoidable. And we vacated
5 weeks earlier to help the fact the works would be commencing. Although the contractors who I met said that I had been told lies and this wasn’t the case or happening to the extent Amar had told us. However, on 3 February 2026, the property was advertised for short-term rental through to May 2026. This directly contradicts the reason provided to us for requiring vacant possession. Under section 38 of the RTA, landlords must not interfere with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and enjoyment of the premises. Further, any termination notice must be issued on lawful and genuine grounds. Providing misleading information in order to obtain vacant possession is inconsistent with the Act and may constitute an unlawful act. The contractors have been right outside our window from very early in the morning to the afternoon since the work commenced with builders often looking into our house and windows and standing directly outside for some time- a huge disruption and invasion to privacy and peace yet we were lenient understand work was happening.
After considering these submissions and the landlord’s submissions and response I am satisfied that: a) the tenancy agreement set out the period of the fixed term as being from 26 July 2025 to 30 November 2025, which is just over 4 months. The tenants were offered and agreed on 7 November to a further extension until 31 January 2026 which states: This is a short term extension only. The final date for this tenancy will be 31/1/2026, with no further extension and the apartment must be vacated by the end day on 31/01/2026. b) the building the premises is in is under remedial construction works, which are being carried out by the body corporate. The landlord relied on information provided by the body corporate via its project manager for details on when construction work was scheduled to start on the tenancy premises. The extension agreement was completed based on the information told to the landlord at the time the agreement was entered into. I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the landlord did not know there would be a delay of several months in commencing the work until after the tenants vacated. The tenants evidence about what the contractors told them is third hand and does not carry a lot of weight. c) as a result of the landlord being told after this tenancy ended that there would be a delay in the start time of the remedial work, the landlord made the apartment available for lease for a further short term. I find there is no evidence supporting the tenants’ contention that the landlord misled the tenants. Regardless, the tenancy ended on the contractual date set in the renewal. d) the tenants were aware of the end date of the tenancy when they signed the extension/renewal agreement on 7 November 2025. This gave them over 12 weeks to source a new tenancy. e) there is no evidence supporting the tenants were asked to vacate early. The property manager denies this was the case. f) the tenants’ submission that the construction work was disruptive and invaded their privacy is not sufficiently particular for me to make any determination. If the tenants wish to pursue this allegation they will need to file an application with Tenancy Services setting out their claim in more detail and provide evidence in support.
Reimbursement of the filing fee: The tenants submit in their written submissions that they should not have to bear the cost of the application fee as the landlord chose to escalate the matter to the Tribunal and has not used their discretion in doing so.
However section 102(4) RTA requires the Tribunal to order that the respondent party pay the applicant the filing fee when the applicant party has been wholly successful in its claim. As the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418749 — net $1,312.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2026	$2,571.43	Rent arrears to 31 January 2026
Lock/key replacement: Letterbox	$197.80	Lock/key replacement: Letterbox
Repairs: Wall - bedroom 2	$264.50	Repairs: Wall - bedroom 2
Repairs: Washing machine	$251.00	Repairs: Washing machine
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,312.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,312.73

Order

Gabrielle Victoria Smith and Francis Weitz must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As The Agent For Lois & David Halsey $1,312.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-00127705) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As The Agent For Lois & David Halsey immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held remotely by video. The tenants did not attend.
The tenants requested an adjournment the day before the hearing on the basis that one of the tenants had been unwell did not think they would be well enough to attend the hearing the next day. The tenant was asked to provide a medical certificate and reasons why the other tenant could not attend and represent both tenants. The adjournment request was then declined as no medical certificate was provided within a given time frame. No reasons were given why the other tenant could not attend the hearing.
The written submissions forwarded by the tenants prior to the hearing have been considered in determining the landlord’s application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2025 for a fixed term, ending on 30 November 2025. The landlord agreed to a further extension until 31 January 2026. Rent was $500.00 a week.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants in their written submission stated that the arrears were “temporary in nature, have arisen due to the structure of my payment cycle, and are being mischaracterised as overdue rent when they include forecasted rent for days that had not passed at the time the application was made.”
The tenants went on to explain that the income they relied on to pay the rent was paid monthly, and that they had been under financial strain as one of the tenants had unexpectedly lost their employment.
The tenants considered the tenancy was due to end on 26 January 2026 as that was the date they moved out.
I find the tenancy ended on 31 January 2026 in keeping with the signed extension/renewal agreement signed by both parties. No evidence was presented by either party that shows the extension/renewal agreement was varied or that there was a separate agreement bringing forward the end date of the tenancy.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. In this instance rent was due weekly in advance of each rent week regardless of when the tenants income was paid.

Did the tenant comply 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.
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys for the letterbox. The landlord provided a photo of the keys provided at the start of the tenants’ initial tenancy 1 which included 2 keys for the letterbox. A photo was also provided showing the keys opening the letterbox, taken before the tenants initial tenancy of the premises started.
The tenants do not deny that they were provided a key for the letterbox or that they did not return a key/s. Their written submissions state: We were provided with a key at the start of the tenancy; however, the key never functioned. As a result, the mailbox was never used during our tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence is that he was never told that the keys did not work.
I find the landlord provided keys for the mailbox to the tenants which were not returned. None of the evidence presented persuades me that the keys provided did not work. I find the tenants are liable for the cost to rekey the letter box.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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. 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. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 1 The tenants initially entered into a fixed term tenancy for the premises for 1 year on 30 November 2024. The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 25 July 2025. The landlord/owner agreed to the tenants having a further opportunity to tenant the premises and the tenancy agreement which this application relates to was entered into as a new tenancy on 26 July 2025.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the wall in bedroom 2.
At the end of the tenancy there was damage to the wall of bedroom 2 which required repairing and painting.
The tenants’ written submissions state that the damage “was caused by contractors engaged to install the new hot water cylinder and by builders storing materials in that room. Items were leaned against the wall, resulting in the damage”.
I am not convinced that the damage was caused as contended by the tenants. The landlord provided a report and photographs from an inspection carried out on 2 September 2025 which records the damage, both in the inspection report and photos. The photos establish that the hot water cylinder had not been replaced at that time. Further evidence provided by the landlord shows that it was replaced in October; that is after the damage had already occurred to the wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Washing machine
The tenant advised the landlord that the washing machine would not spin. At that point in time the washing machine was around 6 months old. The landlord’s appliance repair contractor (ATS Maintenance) looked at the machine and believed there was an item jammed inside the washing machine. As it was under warranty the contractor recommended arranging for a repair under warranty. As a result the Fisher & Paykel/Haier contractor inspected the machine.
The tenants’ written submissions state that they did not cause the issue with the washing machine and that the landlord has obligations under s45 RTA to maintain the premises. Their view is that the landlord should not impose charges on the tenants without prior discussion, consultation or first establishing responsibility and that they have no liability for the repair costs.
The tenants say section 4 of the RTA requires both parties to act reasonably, openly, and honestly in all dealings relating to the tenancy.
However I find the landlord’s evidence convincing that the washing machine required repair as a result of use by the tenants. ATS Maintenance’s evidence was that the drum was jammed. He stated that “[t]he tenant was advised to avoid overfilling the machine. Excessive loads can force items into the outer drum or cause the unit to become unbalanced, leading to suspension damage.”
The Fisher & Pykel/Haier repairer stated the cause of the washing machine failing to spin was that he “found a sports bra wrapped around the motor stopping it from turning.” He said he also “suggested customer use a laundry bag for smaller items and also not to overload the machine.”
As the tenants’ use has caused the failure I find the tenants are liable for the repair costs. I note that the landlord has paid the cost of ATS’ invoice and is only claiming the cost of the Fisher & Pykel/Haier technician’s invoice.
I find the damage in both instances was carelessly caused and that costs claimed are proven.
I note for completion that section 4 RTA states “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”. That is, it does not reference the interpretation the tenants have given to the section. The landlord is entitled to raise a claim against a tenant for damage they believe is caused by the tenant during the tenancy, just as the tenant is entitled to raise claims where they believe a landlord has breached duties owed under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. Other matters
In their written submissions the tenants have also raised: Misrepresentation Regarding Tenancy Termination At the commencement of our tenancy, we were advised that remedial works were scheduled and that the tenancy would therefore be limited to six months. We were later permitted to extend due to delays in the contract works. Subsequently, we were instructed to vacate by the end of January 2026 on the basis that internal works were scheduled and that there would be no option to extend. This placed us under significant stress and pressure, particularly given the difficulty of securing accommodation in the current rental market. We acted on the understanding that the termination was genuine and unavoidable. And we vacated
5 weeks earlier to help the fact the works would be commencing. Although the contractors who I met said that I had been told lies and this wasn’t the case or happening to the extent Amar had told us. However, on 3 February 2026, the property was advertised for short-term rental through to May 2026. This directly contradicts the reason provided to us for requiring vacant possession. Under section 38 of the RTA, landlords must not interfere with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and enjoyment of the premises. Further, any termination notice must be issued on lawful and genuine grounds. Providing misleading information in order to obtain vacant possession is inconsistent with the Act and may constitute an unlawful act. The contractors have been right outside our window from very early in the morning to the afternoon since the work commenced with builders often looking into our house and windows and standing directly outside for some time- a huge disruption and invasion to privacy and peace yet we were lenient understand work was happening.
After considering these submissions and the landlord’s submissions and response I am satisfied that: a) the tenancy agreement set out the period of the fixed term as being from 26 July 2025 to 30 November 2025, which is just over 4 months. The tenants were offered and agreed on 7 November to a further extension until 31 January 2026 which states: This is a short term extension only. The final date for this tenancy will be 31/1/2026, with no further extension and the apartment must be vacated by the end day on 31/01/2026. b) the building the premises is in is under remedial construction works, which are being carried out by the body corporate. The landlord relied on information provided by the body corporate via its project manager for details on when construction work was scheduled to start on the tenancy premises. The extension agreement was completed based on the information told to the landlord at the time the agreement was entered into. I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the landlord did not know there would be a delay of several months in commencing the work until after the tenants vacated. The tenants evidence about what the contractors told them is third hand and does not carry a lot of weight. c) as a result of the landlord being told after this tenancy ended that there would be a delay in the start time of the remedial work, the landlord made the apartment available for lease for a further short term. I find there is no evidence supporting the tenants’ contention that the landlord misled the tenants. Regardless, the tenancy ended on the contractual date set in the renewal. d) the tenants were aware of the end date of the tenancy when they signed the extension/renewal agreement on 7 November 2025. This gave them over 12 weeks to source a new tenancy. e) there is no evidence supporting the tenants were asked to vacate early. The property manager denies this was the case. f) the tenants’ submission that the construction work was disruptive and invaded their privacy is not sufficiently particular for me to make any determination. If the tenants wish to pursue this allegation they will need to file an application with Tenancy Services setting out their claim in more detail and provide evidence in support.
Reimbursement of the filing fee: The tenants submit in their written submissions that they should not have to bear the cost of the application fee as the landlord chose to escalate the matter to the Tribunal and has not used their discretion in doing so.
However section 102(4) RTA requires the Tribunal to order that the respondent party pay the applicant the filing fee when the applicant party has been wholly successful in its claim. As the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418749 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 7C, 1 Emily Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418749 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 7C, 1 Emily Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply 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 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