What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962653 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4962653?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit To 05/08/24: $891.43 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $173.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962653?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759124-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962653 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4962653?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit To 05/08/24: $891.43 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $173.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962653?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759124-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

445 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962653 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962653 — net $3,329.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing	$138.00		Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing
Water rates	$173.60		Water rates
Rent credit to 05/08/24		$891.43	Rent credit to 05/08/24
Exemplary damages: Requiring more than two weeks		$750.00	Requiring more than two weeks
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain: cockroaches		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain: cockroaches
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain: water ingress		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain: water ingress
Total award	$311.60	$3,641.43
Net award		$3,329.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,329.83

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962653 — net $3,329.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing	$138.00		Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing
Water rates	$173.60		Water rates
Rent credit to 05/08/24		$891.43	Rent credit to 05/08/24
Exemplary damages: Requiring more than two weeks		$750.00	Requiring more than two weeks
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain: cockroaches		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain: cockroaches
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain: water ingress		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain: water ingress
Total award	$311.60	$3,641.43
Net award		$3,329.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,329.83

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Vng Rentals Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,329.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended both in-person hearings. The first hearing was held on 31 October 2024. The second and final hearing was held on 23 April 2024.
Following the early end of the fixed-term tenancy on 6 August 2024, the tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation for over-payment of rent at the start of the tenancy, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises.
On 20 October 2024, the landlord filed a cross-application seeking refund of the bond, rent arrears until a new tenant moved in, compensation for lawn mowing and water rates, and compensation for costs incurred in bringing the fixed-term tenancy to an early end. If successful, the landlord also sought refund of the application fee.
Both parties sought orders for suppression. The tenancy – facts not in dispute
The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy commencing 24 April 2024 and ending 22 April 2025. At the start of the tenancy, the rent was $800 per week, but rent was reduced to $780 per week in May 2024.
During the tenancy the tenant requested the landlord attend to maintenance issues at the premises relating to insects and a leak in the ceiling.
In June 2024, the tenant requested the landlord agree to an early end to the fixed-term tenancy. The agreement reached at that time was that the tenancy would end 28 days from 7 July 2024. The agreement was reached on the condition the tenant would withdraw their application that was on foot in the Tenancy Tribunal (case number 4909199) at that time.
The tenant moved out and returned the keys to the landlord on 5 August 2024. Claims not in dispute
The tenant does not dispute that they owe the landlord $138 for lawn mowing and $173.60 for water rates.
By consent, orders are made for lawn mowing and water rates as sought. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing a claim (the applicant), establish their claim(s) “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Exemplary damages
In the tenant’s claim, the Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary damages and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS DISPUTED BY LANDLORD Was the tenant required to pay more than two weeks in advance at the start of the tenancy?
A landlord must not require the payment of any rent more than two weeks in advance or before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. See section 23(1) of the RTA.
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 23(4) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord required them to pay $1,200 more than they owed at the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement records rent was $800 per week, and the bond required was $3,200 (the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent). The tenancy agreement stated rent was to be paid one week in advance.
The tenant says the move-in costs should have been a total of $4,800, made up of $3,200 in bond, and $1,600 for two weeks’ rent in advance, with rent then to be paid weekly.
However, the tenant says that as at 1 May 2025, they had paid a total of $6,000, being $1,200 more than was required.
The landlord’s own records state the following amounts were paid by the tenant: a. Rent $1,600 received on 24/04/24; b. Bond $800 received on 24/04/24; c. Rent $200 received on 02/05/24; d. Bond $2,400 received on 02/05/24; e. Rent $1,000 received on 02/05/24.
The landlord’s records confirm that as at 2 May 2025, the tenant had paid the landlord a total of $6,000.
As at 2 May 2025, the tenants had paid rent up until 8 May 2024, being two weeks from 24 April 2024, the date the tenancy commenced.
There was no basis for the landlord to require the tenant to pay an additional $1,200 by 2 May 2025.
I am satisfied the landlord 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. Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, I consider the act was committed intentionally, and the award of exemplary damages is appropriate. My reasons are set out below.
The landlord disputed that they required the tenant to pay an extra $1,200 at the start of the tenancy. The landlord stated there was a misunderstanding in that the tenant considered the tenancy commenced on 2 May 2024 because they did not move in until that date despite the tenancy commencing on 24 April 2024. The landlord did not accept that payment of $6,000 by 2 May 2024 equated to an overpayment of $1,200 in rent.
The landlord’s contention that there was a misunderstanding is not supported by the evidence. The landlord’s own record of tenant payments, the document titled Tenant Statement, records that as at 2 May 2025 the landlord had received $6,000 from the tenant.
It was not disputed that the bond was $3,200 and two weeks’ rent, at $800 per week, was $1,600, therefore the total bond and rent in advance payable at the start of the tenancy was $4,800. There was no reasonable explanation provided for why the landlord required a further $1,200 before 8 May 2024, which was when the two weeks’ rent paid in advance would expire. The landlord knew bond and two weeks rent equated to $4,800 and yet demanded the tenant pay $6,000 before they moved in on 2 May 2024. For that reason, I consider the unlawful act was committed knowingly and intentionally.
The effect of the unlawful act by the landlord was to cause confusion and distrust between the landlord and tenant at the start of the tenancy. I accept that the additional payment of $1,200 was accounted for in terms of calculating the total rent paid for the duration of the entire tenancy, and did not result in the landlord benefitting overall, however the landlord’s requirement that the tenant pay that additional amount by 2 May 2025 was unlawful and caused the tenant distress.
The correspondence suggests the landlord did not permit the tenant to move into the premises until the requested payments (total of $6,000) had been made. I take into account the landlord’s delay in providing the tenants with the key in considering the effect of this unlawful act. I do not consider the landlord’s actions equated to a demand for key money, rather it is more accurate to consider the landlord’s actions as a demand for rent in advance in excess of that permitted under s 23.
The maximum that may be awarded in exemplary damages for breach of s23(4) is $1,500. In circumstances where the overpayment in rent was ultimately accounted for, but caused the tenant distress and financial strain at the start of the tenancy, I consider an appropriate award to be half of the maximum available. 1
I order that the landlord pay the tenant $750.00 in exemplary damages for requiring payment of rent more than two weeks in advance or before the expiry of the period for which rent had already been paid.

Did the landlord breach their obligations to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching these obligations 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 of the RTA.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
The tenant says the landlord breached these obligations in two ways: a. Failing to remedy a cockroach infestation at the premises; and b. Failure to repair a hole in the ceiling through which water came into the premises.
For both matters, the tenant seeks a total of $4,800 in compensation, calculated as half of the total rent paid during the tenancy. (a) Cockroach infestation
I find the landlord failed to address the cockroach infestation, and by doing so, committed an unlawful act.
The tenant moved into the premises on 2 May 2024. There were two adult tenants, and one of the tenants had her three children, then aged 13 years, 12 years and 5 years old, also living there.
The tenant says on the day they moved in they discovered cockroaches throughout the premises. The tenant says she cleaned the cockroaches she could see, and they moved in, but over time she noticed cockroaches in the 1 I note that the landlord Rent Summary records that as at 2 May 2025, the tenant was in credit for rent by $1,200. I am therefore satisfied that, while rent was required before rent paid had expired, the overpayment of $1,200 was ultimately accounted for. wood of every internal door of the premises, in the walls, and under the floorboards in the downstairs area where her son was meant to sleep.
On 7 May 2024, the tenant issued the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy. She says by this stage the cockroaches had infested her children’s furniture (beds and drawer) which were in the upper storey. All her children were sleeping in her bed in her bedroom in the upper storey due to the infestation in their bedrooms, including her son’s which was downstairs.
On 11 May 2024, the landlord said they would get a pest exterminator to treat the property. The tenant says the exterminator came on 13 May 2024. The tenant says after the treatment, there was some improvement, but the cockroaches were still present. The tenant says she couldn’t store food in the premises because the cockroaches would infect the food. She says they had a campervan on the property and they cooked using the campervan’s facilities rather than inside the house.
The tenant says that because the cockroaches were so bad, she and her family did not use the two bedrooms on the lower level or the laundry which was also downstairs. She washed her clothes at a laundromat.
The tenant produced a photograph of two gel-based cockroach traps which were full of cockroaches, several photos of cockroach carcasses swept up on the floor, a photo of the inside panel of an alarm control box which appears to show insect dirt over the keypad and photos of live cockroaches on the walls inside the home during the tenancy.
The landlord says when the tenant raised the issue of cockroaches, the landlord arranged for pest control. The landlord said a cleaner came on 3 May 2024 to clean up the cockroaches present when the tenant moved in. The landlord also says that from 11 May 2024 the landlord agreed to reduce the rent from $800 per week to $780 per week in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the cockroaches.
The landlord says she arranged for a cleaner to attend and clean the premises twice and arranged for pest control to attend twice to deal with the problem. The landlord says that from at least 4 July 2024, she understood the issue had been resolved as the tenant had texted the landlord to say pest control had sorted the issue.
The messages referred to on 4 July 2024 are as follows: [Landlord] Hi [Tenant] good morning, hope you are all well. How is about the bugs? Should we book another cleaning and send the gel to you? And what is about the tenancy? Do you want to terminate? [Tenant] Hi good morning, the bugs aren’t as bad however the other tenant wants to go to tribunal.
The landlord says she was aware the tenant was not using the downstairs areas (being two bedrooms and the laundry) because of the cockroaches. The landlord says because of this she continued to organise pest control and also reduced the rent by $20 per week.
I am satisfied the tenant has proved the landlord failed to address the cockroach infestation, and as a result, failed to maintain the premises. While I accept that the landlord arranged for a cleaner and pest control to attend to the premises, that clearly was not sufficient to deal with the issue. In a five bedroom home, the tenant was unable to use the lower two bedrooms or laundry, and even the upper level of the home was impacted by the infestation.
The tenant told the landlord of the problem at the start of the tenancy, and the landlord failed to remedy the issue. A reduction in rent of $20 is not, in my view, sufficient compensation for the impact the infestation had. I find the landlord knew there was a significant cockroach infestation, and failed to remedy it in a reasonable time period. The landlord was aware of their obligations to maintain the property, demonstrated by the actions they took in arranging a cleaner and pest control. On that basis, I find the landlord acted intentionally.
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) of the RTA.
The landlord continued receiving rent, at a rate reduced by only $20 per week, while the tenant continued to live in a cockroach infested home. The landlord did not conduct their own inspection to assure themselves that the cause of the infestation had been remedied. The effect was that the tenant did not use the lower rooms in the home, and did not store food or cook inside the home. That reduced their enjoyment of the home. It is of course in the public interest that homes available for rent are well-maintained and clean.
I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. While the breach had a significant impact on the tenant, I take into account that the landlord did take some action to attempt to remedy (by arranging a cleaner and pest control) and did reduce the rent by $20. Taking those two mitigating factors into account, I consider an award at a low level of the maximum available is appropriate.
I order that the tenant pay $1,000 in exemplary damages for failure to maintain in relation to the cockroach infestation. (b) Ceiling by front door
I find the landlord failed to repair a hole in the ceiling, and by doing so, committed an unlawful act.
On 20 May 2024, the tenant says there was torrential rain and water was falling through the ceiling near the front door. On 21 May 2024, the tenant texted the landlord to tell her.
The tenant says a tradesperson came to look at the issue one week later. The tenant says they fixed the exterior roof above the lounge, which was on the opposite side of the house to wear the ceiling fell down. The tenant says the tradesperson did not repair the damaged ceiling inside near the front door. The tenant says she was worried the ceiling would fall down over time as the ceiling was clearly wet and had slumped.
The tenant produced a copy of the text messages sent to the landlord on 21 May 2024, which included a photograph of the ceiling where water came in.
The landlord says that after being notified of the issue on 21 May 2024, she arranged for a handyman to attend on 26 May 2024. The landlord says the repair to the roof fixed the issue and water no longer came into the house. The landlord says she agreed to have the area repainted, but the tenant decided to move out instead.
I am satisfied that by taking no action in terms of remedying the ceiling near the front door, the landlord failed to maintain the premises.
I am satisfied the landlord 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. Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, I consider the act was committed intentionally, and the award of exemplary damages is appropriate. The landlord was made aware of the damaged ceiling, including that the ceiling was wet and had split. That created a hazard for the tenants who were justifiably concerned that the moisture may cause the ceiling to rot and/or fall down.
I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. The breach had a significant impact on the tenant who was concerned for her safety and her children when passing under the damaged ceiling. While it would cause distress, I note that the damaged ceiling did not damage any of the tenant’s belongings and I therefore consider an award at a low level of the maximum available is appropriate.
I order that the tenant pay $1,000 in exemplary damages for failure to maintain in relation to the ceiling damaged by water. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS DISPUTED BY TENANT

Is the tenant liable for the costs of ending the fixed term tenancy early?

No fixed-term tenancy shall be terminated unless the expiry of the term of the tenancy passes, or any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, and notice is given in accordance with the applicable section. A fixed-term tenancy may also be ended by mutual agreement of the parties.
The landlord seeks orders for compensation. The landlord says they agreed to the fixed term tenancy, which was due to expire on 22 April 2025, coming to an early end on 6 August 2024, however they say the tenant is liable to pay the following costs: a. Credit check of four prospective new tenants: $115; b. Advertising costs: $171.35; c. Break fee of one week’s rent plus GST: $862.50; d. Rent to 31 August 2024: $3,008.57.
The landlord says that in June 2024, the tenant requested the landlord agree to an early end to the fixed-term tenancy. The landlord says the agreement reached at that time was that the tenancy would end 28 days from 7 July 2024, on the condition the tenant would withdraw their application that was on foot in the Tenancy Tribunal (case number 4909199) at that time. That claim sought compensation for failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord says the tenant did not keep to that agreement because, although they did withdraw application 4909199, they then filed a new claim (this current application) the day after moving out, on 6 August 2024. The landlord says the tenants breached the terms of the agreement to end the fixed-term tenancy early, so the parties reverted to the conditions set out in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord relies on the provisions of the tenancy agreement which states the parties may agree to end a fixed-tenancy (clause 15) and the following additional terms:
Tenants agree to pay the administration fees equal to one week rent plus GST to VNG Rentals Ltd to let VNG rentals find new tenants for that tenants are breaking a fixed term lease. Tenants remain liable for the rent up until the lease expiry date or until new tenants are found, which ever is sooner and will continue to pay rent until tenants are informed.
Tenants can find the new tenants by themselves. The new tenant can hand over the lease after their reference and credit check are passed by the VNG Rentals Ltd. The administration fee for contract, inspection and hand over is $200+GST.
The landlord acknowledged the above additional terms do not state the tenant agrees to (separately) pay advertising costs.
The landlord did not at any time give the tenants notice in writing to advise the tenants that the landlord believed they were in breach of the agreement reached.
The landlord has not produced a rent summary to 31 August 2024. The landlord seeks rent to that date on the basis a new tenancy commenced on 1 September 2024.
The tenants agreed with the landlord’s summary of the agreement reached in June 2024 (as described above at paragraph 75), but further say that it was agreed the tenants would receive their bond back in full.
They say that they filed a new application because, on 4 August 2024, the tenants contacted the landlord to raise the issue of the over-payments made at the start of the tenancy, and to request return of their bond. They say the landlord did not respond to their emails and/or texts, therefore on 6 August 2024, they filed a new application with the Tenancy Tribunal, raising these new issues and also their previous claim of failure to maintain.
The tenants say they were only liable for rent to 5 August 2024, as that was what was agreed to in June 2024.
According to the landlord’s rent summary, as at 5 August 2024, the tenants were owed a rent credit of $891.43.
I am satisfied the parties reached an agreement on 7 June 2024 that the fixed- term tenancy would come to an end on 5 August 2024. The tenants made arrangements to vacate the premises by that date, and did so. The tenants also withdrew the claim they had filed in the Tenancy Tribunal. The issues which arose between the tenant and landlord after the end of the tenancy did not mean the agreement reached on 7 June 2024 was “null and void,” as the landlord submitted. It had clearly been adhered to by the tenants.
The parties reached an agreement to end the fixed-term tenancy on 5 August 2024. Given that, the tenants are entitled to compensation in the form of the rent credit owed to them as at that date.

OTHER MATTERS

Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?

As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with their claim the tenant is not required to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the hearing, both parties sought suppression of their name, and for the landlord, the tenancy address also.
As the tenant’s application was substantially successful, the tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The landlord’s counterclaim was not substantially successful. I also consider that the landlord’s conduct in failing to comply with their obligations under the RTA means publication is in the public interest and is justified. I therefore decline to grant the landlord suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962653 — State of repair at 445 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962653 — State of repair at 445 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations to maintain the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the costs of ending the fixed term tenancy early?

OTHER MATTERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations to maintain the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the costs of ending the fixed term tenancy early?

OTHER MATTERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions