How much money was awarded in case 4953913?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,867.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,103.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Gas Hob: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,867.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953913?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11925647-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4953913?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,867.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,103.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Gas Hob: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,867.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953913?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11925647-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953913 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953913 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953913 — net $12,802.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$5,867.00		Cleaning
Cleaning: Garage Floor	$1,103.00		Cleaning: Garage Floor
Carpet Cleaning	$495.00		Carpet Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$1,500.00		Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs: Painting	$5,000.00		Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Carpet	$1,867.00		Repairs: Carpet
Compensation: Gas Hob		$750.00	Gas Hob
Total award	$15,832.00	$750.00
Net award	$12,802.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,802.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Ca Property Investments Limited As Agent For Elizabeth Jarvis (Libby) $12,802.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Ca Property Investments Limited As Agent For Elizabeth Jarvis (Libby) immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for compensation by way of a rent abatement for repair and maintenance issues at the premises. The tenant claimed $8,980.00.

Mr Hughes presented the landlord’s claims at the hearing. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim was for $77,009.10.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)

It has taken some time to review the evidence and documents presented. In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but it has been considered. Tenant Claims

The tenant claimed a rent rebate of $8,980 for alleged repair and maintenance issues at the premises.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant claims that the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. She also claims that there were numerous maintenance issues during the tenancy such as black mould, inadequate ventilation, lack of heat pump maintenance, moss down the side of the house, peeling veneer in the kitchen. This is not an exhaustive list, but I have considered all matters listed by the tenant in an email dated 14 March 2025.

The tenant provided little in the way of corroborative evidence to establish her claims. She did not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached its obligations under s45, except in relation to the gas hob.

The ignition on the hob did not work throughout the tenancy and had to be lit with a lighter. The tenant said this made her reluctant to let her (teenaged) children use the hob and was inconvenient. I accept that evidence. I award the tenant $750 loss of amenity for the hob.

Breaching its obligations under s45 is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The evidence did not establish that the landlord’s breach of s45 (in relation to the hob) was intentional or that it would otherwise be appropriate to award exemplary damages. Landlord Claims – Condition of Property at End of Tenancy

Most of the landlord’s claims arise from the alleged condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed over $60,000 for repairs and associated costs. It has also claimed general and exemplary damages. The landlord’s total claims are $77,009.19.

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.

Where a landlord claims that damage has occurred, it 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(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. See section 49B(1) RTA.

The landlord claims that the premises were “contaminated” by vape residue, cigarette and/or cannabis smoke. Mr Hughes claims that there was extensive damage throughout the premises and that full decontamination was required. The same process was followed as if the premises had been contaminated by methamphetamine.

Mr Hughes’ contractor said that it did not matter what the cause was, the griminess of the walls meant that full decontamination was required. The evidence does not support that conclusion. Curiously, Mr Hughes did not notice the damage or contamination when he carried out the final inspection of the premises with the tenant. He noticed it when he returned with a torch. Similarly, he did not notice it in all rooms until after the cleaning process started.

I find that Mr Hughes and his contractor (who gave evidence) started from an assumption that the premises were “contaminated” and adopted a full decontamination and deep clean process. The correct approach would have been to determine whether there is damage, if so, what is the extent and cause of it and what is the reasonable repair/remediation?

The evidence does show that during the cleaning process, a greyish residue or grime was removed from walls. The tenant claims that it could have been caused by incense, cooking or essential oils. Having heard the evidence, I consider that it could have been caused by a general lack of cleaning throughout the tenancy. In forming this view, I have had regard to the condition of floor surfaces at the end of the tenancy and the tenant’s acknowledgement that certain surfaces and fittings were not cleaned for the duration of the tenancy.

Mr Hughes referred to a range of circumstantial evidence to support his assertion of vaping and smoking cigarettes or cannabis at the premises. There was no direct evidence of any of those activities in the dwelling. I have considered all of his submissions and have dismissed them. I briefly explain my reasons as follows: a. Vape Residue – Mr Hughes says that vaping leaves an oily residue consistent with what was on the surfaces at the dwelling. There was no evidence that vape residue is harmful or causes damage (other than the need to be cleaned). Nor was there any evidence of how much vaping is needed to leave a residue and over what period. The tenant denies that any vaping occurred inside the premises. As above, the griminess demonstrated in the “decontamination” photographs could have been caused by a general lack of cleaning throughout the tenancy. b. Cigarette Smoking – Mr Hughes relies on yellowing of some fittings, carpet burns and the smell on curtains to support a finding that the tenant smoked inside. The tenant denies smoking. I agree with the tenant’s evidence that the carpet marks are more consistent with incense sticks (long and very thin) than cigarette burns. I did not discern any cigarette smell on the curtains provided in evidence. If anything, the curtain smells slightly damp and musty, consistent with the tenant’s mother’s evidence that she washed them and then put them through an 80% drying cycle and intended that they would then hang dry. Plastic fittings yellow over time, that in itself is not evidence of smoking. I accept that some of the fittings (particularly lights) were not cleaned during the tenancy and were not reasonably clean and could not be cleaned by the end of the tenancy. c. Cannabis – Mr Hughes relies on a text from a neighbour very early in the tenancy, a black substance on exterior windowsills, the tenant’s partner having a Lazy-Boy chair in the bedroom and the tenant installing a path from the back gate to the bedroom ranch slider to support a conclusion of cannabis use. He also relied on evidence from the decontamination contractor that the premises smelled of cannabis. At the hearing I reminded Mr Hughes that the landlord bears the onus of proof and indicated that he was “drawing a very long bow”, I remain of that view. Mr Hughes dismissed the text from the neighbour at the time and did nothing to follow it up. The tenant said that the smell complained of in the text could have come from any of several neighbours. Without an explanation as to why someone believes the black substance on the exterior windowsill is cannabis, it looks like it could be a range of things including bird dropping or general environmental pollutant. Put another way, there is no other evidence which supports the view that the black substance is cannabis. The contractor visited the premises months after the tenants had moved out and after others had been at the property.

In summary, the landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the premises were damaged by vape, cigarette or cannabis residue. The landlord has not established that “decontamination” was required. The landlord has established that the premises were not reasonably clean in that the walls and painted surfaces were grimy and had to be cleaned. I have awarded a reasonable contribution to the “decontamination” costs claimed to allow for cleaning of the surfaces and replacing some fittings. The amount awarded also allows for the other general cleaning required at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord also established that the garage floor was stained during the tenancy and had to be cleaned. The landlord provided photographs and evidence of the cost incurred.

I have also awarded replacement carpet to bedroom where there are burn marks. The landlord did not establish its claim for carpet replacement in other areas. As the tenant noted, the damage to the underlay could have occurred during previous tenancies. I have awarded the cost of cleaning the other carpet as it was not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord also established that some repainting was required, particularly where the tenant had attempted repairs itself and the paint was not well matched, or the repairs were substandard. I have awarded $5000 for painting, having regard to the extent of the issues which the tenant is responsible for. Some of the painting was done as part of the “decontamination” process to avoid any residue reappearing after cleaning, I am not persuaded that that was required.

The landlord also claimed loss of rent and general damages as a result of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. Any delay in completing repair work rests with the landlord, not the tenant. The landlord has not established the “decontamination” or extensive repairs were required. Walls and surfaces could have been commercially cleaned within a reasonable timeframe of the tenant moving out.

Except as specifically awarded, the landlord’s claims are dismissed. Landlord Claims for Exemplary Damages

The landlord claimed that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.

Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Following some questioning, and a review of the tenancy agreement, during the hearing this aspect of the claim was withdrawn.

Ca Property Investments Limited As Agent For Elizabeth Jarvis (Libby) claimed that the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.

On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 42B relates to a situation where the landlord has approved a minor change and the parties have followed the procedure set out in s42A Residential Tenancies Act. It does not apply to the current situation. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.

Finally, the landlord claimed that the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by smoking and/or selling cannabis from the premises.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

As noted above, the landlord’s evidence in relation to cannabis use is circumstantial, at best. There is no evidence of the tenant or her partner selling cannabis from the premises; the fact that the tenant’s partner had a Lazy-Boy chair in the bedroom is not evidence of anything, other than a chair in the bedroom. There is no evidence of any police complaints or investigations or anything else which may suggest drug dealing at the premises.

The landlord’s claims for exemplary damages are dismissed.

Given the tenant’s relative degree of success in defending the application, particularly around allegations of drug use and dealing, I have granted suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953913 — net $12,802.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$5,867.00		Cleaning
Cleaning: Garage Floor	$1,103.00		Cleaning: Garage Floor
Carpet Cleaning	$495.00		Carpet Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$1,500.00		Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs: Painting	$5,000.00		Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Carpet	$1,867.00		Repairs: Carpet
Compensation: Gas Hob		$750.00	Gas Hob
Total award	$15,832.00	$750.00
Net award	$12,802.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,802.00