Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5429972 — Rent arrears at 32 Glovers Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025
Published 11 May 2026 · Application 5429972
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Exemplary damages
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,411.37
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$3,040.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,371.37
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears (insurance excess | $1,000.00 | Rent arrears (insurance excess | |
| Wall repairs | $316.25 | Wall repairs | |
| Rubbish removal | $70.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Cleaning | $670.45 | Cleaning | |
| Carpet cleaning (stain removal | $230.00 | Carpet cleaning (stain removal | |
| Exterior lawns and garden works | $511.75 | Exterior lawns and garden works | |
| Lock/key change | $263.98 | Lock/key change | |
| Repairs (kitchen light | $140.88 | Repairs (kitchen light | |
| Electricity charges | $180.06 | Electricity charges | |
| Exemplary damages (abandonment | $1,000.00 | Exemplary damages (abandonment | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,371.37 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,371.37 |
Claims and awards for application 5429972 — net $1,371.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears (insurance excess
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears (insurance excess
Wall repairs
- Amount
- $316.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Wall repairs
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $70.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Cleaning
- Amount
- $670.45
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Carpet cleaning (stain removal
- Amount
- $230.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet cleaning (stain removal
Exterior lawns and garden works
- Amount
- $511.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exterior lawns and garden works
Lock/key change
- Amount
- $263.98
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key change
Repairs (kitchen light
- Amount
- $140.88
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs (kitchen light
Electricity charges
- Amount
- $180.06
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Electricity charges
Exemplary damages (abandonment
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exemplary damages (abandonment
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,371.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,371.37
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Chris Ward must pay Gold Real Estate Group Limited as agent for Emma Elizabeth Johnson $1,371.37 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 (number unknown) to Gold Real Estate Group Limited as agent for Emma Elizabeth Johnson immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- On 22 December 2025 the Tribunal terminated the fixed term tenancy for abandonment and granted immediate possession to the landlord. The Tribunal’s order noted that the landlord became aware that the property had been abandoned on 12 December 2025.
How much is owed for rent?
- Section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant who abandons the premises in a fixed term tenancy is liable for rent until the date of the expiry of the fixed term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy at the premises.
- The tenancy was due to end on 5 July 2026; however, the landlord was able to find a new tenant and a new tenancy commenced on 23 January 2026.
- Accordingly, the landlord seeks rent until 22 January 2026 amounting to $5,428.57. The landlord also seeks $1,000.00 insurance excess in respect of the rent arrears. Documentation shows that the landlord received an insurance settlement of $5,537.14 for rent from 3 December 2025 to 24 January 2026, less the insurance excess.
- Accordingly, the landlord has already recovered the full rent arrears sought from insurance. The principle against double recovery applies, a landlord cannot recover the same loss twice and accordingly, I have awarded the insurance excess of $1,000.00. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to be able to claim from both insurance and the tenant and effectively receive a windfall because of the tenant’s abandonment.
- The amount ordered is proved.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
- The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They claim for costs for cleaning ($670.45), rubbish removal ($70.00), carpet cleaning to remove stains ($230.00) and exterior garden and lawn works ($511.75). Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided.
- On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant also did not return the keys, and the landlord was required to engage a locksmith to change the locks at the invoiced cost of $263.98.
- 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The landlord claims that during the tenancy, the tenant damaged the wall in the kitchen dining room and damaged the kitchen light. They claim for the wall repairs costs of $316.25 and the electrical repair costs for the kitchen light of $140.88. Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided.
- On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that he following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damaged wall and broken kitchen light. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- The landlord also seeks the cost of the temporary power connection charge that they say was required to ensure the property had power to carry out the works required to re-tenant the property and have provided an invoice for $180.06 for this.
- The amount ordered is proved. Exemplary damages
- The landlord seeks exemplary damages for abandonment.
- A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- As confirmed in the previous Tribunal order, the tenant did abandon the premises, and the rent was in arrears. The landlord advised that they had no contact from the tenant and have had no further contact since they were granted termination and possession of the premises. I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- I must assume that the abandonment of the tenancy was intentional and have no evidence to the contrary. I am satisfied that the tenant must have known it would have had an impact on the landlord when they eventually determined that the property was empty and that there would be a significant financial loss as a result. The impact is even greater for a fixed term tenancy, where the landlord was not anticipating having to find a new tenant for at least another six months and I have no evidence of any mitigating circumstances for the tenant.
- Accordingly, in consideration of all circumstances I find it appropriate to award $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for abandonment.
- Because Gold Real Estate Group Limited as agent for Emma Elizabeth Johnson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 11 May 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s25, s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s61, s61(5)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429972?
The tribunal order states: Chris Ward must pay Gold Real Estate Group Limited as agent for Emma
How much money was awarded in case 5429972?
Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $670.45 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges: $180.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $511.75 awarded to landlord; Lock/Key Change: $263.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.88 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $70.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429972?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness, Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429972?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13565452-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.