What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967615 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 21 February 2025 in

How much money was awarded in case 4967615?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967615?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967615?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967615 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 21 February 2025 in

How much money was awarded in case 4967615?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967615?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967615?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4967615 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4967615 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Order

This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 21 February 2025 in respect of these matters and was required to remedy a miscalculation in water rates.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $5,159.31 immediately, as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (bond number unknown) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages relating to alleged breaches of landlord obligations including Healthy Homes Standards. Background
The tenancy commenced on 3 April 2021.
The landlord’s claims originally had a hearing scheduled for 1 November 2024. The day before the hearing, the tenant filed the cross application and there was insufficient time for the landlord to respond to the claims made.
I issued an order adjourning both claims so they could be considered together. However, due to the level of rental arrears and to ensure the landlord was not in a worse position by the adjournment, I included a conditional termination order, requiring the tenant to continue to pay weekly rent until the rescheduled hearing.
The tenant did not continue to pay weekly rent. Accordingly, her tenancy was terminated and she vacated on around 23 December 2024. After that date, there were significant belongings left at the property (including a boat, together with large quantities of furniture and clothing), and arrangements were made for the tenant to collect these. Landlord claims

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records he says prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy of $4,428.43.
The tenant disputes the amount of rent being claimed.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not use a running total and at times rent payments were applied to the incorrect and later rent period. In addition, 60 days’ notice was not given for rent increases throughout the entire tenancy.
Section 24(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date that notice is given.
The tenant says that the outstanding rental amount when remedying the issues is $2,729.14.
The landlord says that he did not know he was required to give 60 days’ notice for a rent increase.
I accept the errors found by the tenant and order the amount of rental arrears as submitted in the tenant’s remedied rental arrears statement of $2,729.14.

How much is owed for water?

The landlord claims for outstanding water rates of $5,837.84.
The tenant disputes the amount sought on the basis that usage has been charged and says that the outstanding water amount is substantially less as a result. The tenant has provided a new calculation of $1,016.57 for outstanding water.
The landlord says that he did originally charge only for usage but once the tenant stopped paying anything towards water, he stopped splitting the amounts out and started requested payment for the entire bill amounts.
The tenant is only responsible for usage, and accordingly I agree with the tenant’s calculation of outstanding water.
As discussed as the hearing, the amount owed by the tenant for water is $1,386.57 and includes the two payments that were inadvertently included in both the tenant’s rent and water schedules of $170.00 (29/12/23) and $200.00 (04/02/22) which I have recalculated to reduce rent, but not water.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claims he was required to engage professional cleaners and arrange for rubbish and furniture removal from the property. The landlord has provided several invoices. Cleaning and furniture removal (24 December 2024) for $1,725.00, cleaning after the removal of all furniture (15 January 2025) for $207.00. In addition, the landlord claims four additional amounts related to furniture and rubbish removal of $385.00 (Gorilla skip 24 December 2024), $890.00 (8 January 2025), $740.00 (9 January 2025) and $164.90 for a Flexi-bin left at the property.
The tenant disputes the amounts claimed and queried why two separate cleans were required, and why so many additional skip bins and rubbish removal costs were incurred.
The landlord states that the first clean was while there was furniture at the property and once the furniture was removed, it was clear that additional cleaning was required. He says that the additional rubbish removal costs were required due to the large amount of rubbish and belongings that were left at the property. Some of which had been moved to the carport and had still not been collected at the date of the hearing.
Photographs of the property have been provided and I am satisfied that the costs are reflective of what was required to clear and clean the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant also did not return the keys. The landlord was required to engage a locksmith to have the locks changes. The landlord has provided an invoice for $393.73.
Two smoke alarms (chattels) were also missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that based on the evidence that these were in the property prior to the tenancy ending. The landlord had to replace the smoke alarms and claims the cost of $50.00 for this.
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. Damage to the walls
The landlord submits that the walls were damaged throughout the tenancy, including considerable drawing and stickers over the walls and doors. Photographs have been provided. The landlord says that painting was required to three bedrooms because of this damage.
The landlord claims the costs of plaster, repair and paint of the damaged walls and has provided an invoice for $2,300.00.
I accept that some of the damage was caused by the tenant, particularly in relation to the drawings in the photographs and marks left by stickers. However, I would have expected some general wear and tear on the walls during the four-year tenancy, and accordingly have reduced the amount ordered to $1,500.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Handy man repairs
The landlord also submits that significant work was required by a handy man at the property. This included a floorboard hole patch, repair of burnt carpet, laundry floor fix, living room scratch repair, bathroom cabinet door fix, new shower curtains, two window latches and sliding door replacement. An invoice has been provided for these works of $2,771.50 (noting that the invoice provided by the landlord included the cost of smoke alarms already referred to above and so is deducted here).
The tenant admits to the carpet burn but says that the floorboard hole and laundry floor damage was already there (the former appeared to have been used for television wires to come through), and further submits that the bathroom cabinet door and window latches are not caused by the tenant but are maintenance required by the landlord.
I accept from the evidence provided, including the photographs that the bathroom cabinet door and window latches are not the responsibility of the tenant. These appear to be general maintenance items. I also accept that the damage to the floor is general wear and tear and to be expected in this length of tenancy.
However, I find that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet burn, laundry floor fix, bedroom door handle and lock missing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The invoice provided unfortunately does not split the different repairs in the same manner as I have above. I have ordered the amount of $1,160.00 (which includes half of $1,500.00 for the carpet repair, the amount for laundry floor fix, bedroom door handle and lock and the call-out fee).
The amount ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other claims
The landlord claims for the cost to enforce the Tribunal’s previous order for termination and has provided a Ministry of Justice invoice for this totalling $258.00.
The costs were incurred as the tenant did not continue to pay weekly rent as directed in my previous order, and the landlord was required to use court services to evict the tenant.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenant claims
The tenant makes several claims against the landlord relating to tenancy agreement breaches, non-complaint rent increases and water charges, failure to maintain the property and healthy homes breaches. Tenancy agreement breaches
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Act in respect of the tenancy agreement. In particular, the tenant claims: a. There is an unlawful professional cleaning clause. b. There are no insurance details included. c. The address for service for the landlord (which is a company) differs from the company’s office.
There is no requirement in the RTA that the landlord’s address for service in the tenancy agreement be the same as the company’s registered office. In addition, although having a professional cleaning clause is likely to be unenforceable (as it goes beyond what is required in the RTA), there is also no unlawful act through its inclusion in the tenancy agreement. These claims are dismissed.
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states that the landlord must include the following information about the insurance of the premises: (b) If the premises are insured, a statement – (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenancy’s liability for destruction or of damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request...
The tenancy agreement does advise that there is insurance cover for the rental property relevant to the tenant’s liability for damage, and it does say that the policy is available for the tenant if they request it. The only omission is the failure to set out each relevant insurance policy and its excess(es).
Under the RTA, the landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to comply with section 13(A)(2).
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA. The maximum award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act as detailed in Schedule 1A of the RTA is $750.00.
As the landlord did comply with some of the requirements, I order that the landlord pay $200.00 in exemplary damages for a partial non-compliance with section 13(A)(2). Rent increases and water charges
The tenant seeks exemplary damages against the landlord for implementing rent increases without the required 60 days’ notice, incorrectly calculating rent, and unnecessarily taking the tenant to the Tenancy Tribunal twice when rent was actually not in arrears.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for being charged fixed water charges.
Rent increases are governed by section 24(1) of the RTA, and as detailed above, require 60 days before the increased rent becomes payable. The RTA does not determine that failure to do this, however, is an unlawful act, and accordingly, there is no ability for me to award exemplary damages. This claim is dismissed.
Similarly, although the RTA only requires that the tenant pay for outgoings attributable to their occupation (see section 39(1)(3)), being billed for fixed charges is also not considered to be an unlawful act. This claim is dismissed.
Although a tenant can seek exemplary damages for a landlord acting to terminate without reasonable excuse, that is not the case before me. I issued a conditional termination order requiring the tenant to continue to pay weekly rent pending this hearing, and this was not adhered to. This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain and breach of healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (failure to maintain) and under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).of the RTA. The Law
Pursuant to section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age of the premises.
Section 45(1)(bb) additionally requires landlords to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The claims
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to comply with healthy homes obligations. The claims included that: a. The property had significant mould, b. The deck was rotten and unsafe. c. The wallpaper was coming off the walls due to condensation. d. There was a water leak upstairs and leaking downstairs into toilet when it rained. e. The heat pump only blowed out cold air. f. There were broken window latches and draughts around the window. g. There were animals coming down the chimney (was rectified). h. There were electrical issues. i. There were no extractor fans in either bathroom resulting in water dripping off the ceiling. Analysis
The tenancy was originally a fixed term tenancy commencing on 3 April 2021. On 2 April 2022 it automatically became a periodic tenancy. In my view, in April 2022 when the tenancy converted from a fixed term to a periodic tenancy, that was sufficient to be considered a renewed tenancy and as a result, the landlord was required to ensure the property complied with the HHS within 90 days of the change from a fixed term to a periodic tenancy.
Healthy homes inspection reports have been provided by both the landlord and the tenant. The healthy homes assessment done prior to the tenancy by the landlord did not identify any issues.
A report by [Assessor 1] dated 1 February 2024 was provided by the tenant. The report notes that there were draughts from the windows, sliding door and front door. The ventilation was said to comply; however, mould was cited on guttering and some damage was identified to downlights as well as a missing doorknob and railing. An email has been provided where [Assessor 1] has contacted the landlord directly following his assessment to talk through the issues. The email reiterates that there were issues with draughts in the house, and [Assessor 1] offered to work with the landlord on finding solutions. At the hearing, the landlord stated that he did not believe the report identified any issues for him to remedy.
Following the assessment there were ongoing communications between the parties where the tenant asked the landlord to rectify the issues, as she was concerned about the health of her family. The landlord’s response to these was usually that the property complied (with reference to the healthy homes report done prior to the tenancy), he had not been advised of any issues or that he had already rectified any genuine issues at the property. The landlord also suggested that if the tenant wasn’t happy, she should move.
Photographs provided show issues around the outside of the property, including significant mould and rotting wood.
On 9 August 2024, the tenant issued a 14-day notice on the landlord advising that the landlord was in breach of his responsibilities as a landlord because of the issues raised by [Assessor 1]. The notice required that the situation be remedied by 22 August 2024.
A further healthy homes assessment report done by [Assessor 2] from [Company] dated October 2024 found issues that hadn’t been remedied since the previous report, including: a. Water was leaking through the toilet, into the ground level bathroom wall and rotting floor. b. Draughts from windows, sliding door and front door. c. Damaged downlights (flickering). d. Missing doorknob and railing. e. The deck outside of bedroom was unstable and on a lean, this is a major danger with signs of rotting wood the deck is a push away from falling over. f. Mould cited on guttering, in the children’s rooms and in the top bathroom.
The report found that the heating, insulation, and ventilation were all compliant.
A report done after the tenancy was terminated from [Assessor 3] did not note any issues with respect to health homes standards, although there may have been works undertaken to the property since the tenant vacated.
The tenant has provided considerable medical evidence that shows her family has suffered constant illness, including respiratory illness, throughout the tenancy, that she believes is as a result of the issues with the property.
With respect to the failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, the landlord has provided several maintenance invoices from through-out the tenancy as evidence that he has always organised repair when requested. This includes a plumber and electrician to try and sort issues.
The landlord may have resolved some of the issues and had endeavoured to send some tradespeople to the property for repair. However, I find that the landlord was on notice by February 2024 that there were more major issues with draughts, and other maintenance and health concerns related to the property. The landlord should have engaged with the content in [Assessor 1]’s assessment report, and the correspondence from the tenant. The issues identified required more than just sending plumbers and electricians to resolve discreet issues.
By October 2024, and as identified in the report by [Assessor 2], the balcony was in such a state of disrepair it was deemed ready to fall.
The landlord mistakenly seemed to rely on the healthy homes assessment he had received years earlier, responded minimally, and as a result has not kept the property in a state of repair to the extent required. I also find that the landlord failed to ensure the property continued to comply with healthy homes standards, particularly in relation to draughts.
I find [The landlord/s] 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord is liable for exemplary damages of $3,000.00 to reflect all failings in respect of the HHS and failure to maintain. I have reduced this from the maximum to recognise that the landlord did try and sent individual tradespeople out to rectify reported issues.
However, he did not respond to the 14-day notice adequately and the reality is that the property was falling into disrepair. Although the tenant sought multiple amounts for exemplary damages, the unlawful acts all relate to exemplary damages under section 45 of the RTA and accordingly there is only one set of exemplary damages. See Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited. 1
As both parties have had some level of success, I have not awarded the application fee to either party. Filing fee costs are to be absorbed by each party.
In addition, both parties have sought suppression, and as both parties have some level of success with each of their claims, I have granted name suppression to both parties. R Harvey-Lane 25 February 2025 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014).

Order

This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 21 February 2025 in respect of these matters and was required to remedy a miscalculation in water rates.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $5,159.31 immediately, as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (bond number unknown) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages relating to alleged breaches of landlord obligations including Healthy Homes Standards. Background
The tenancy commenced on 3 April 2021.
The landlord’s claims originally had a hearing scheduled for 1 November 2024. The day before the hearing, the tenant filed the cross application and there was insufficient time for the landlord to respond to the claims made.
I issued an order adjourning both claims so they could be considered together. However, due to the level of rental arrears and to ensure the landlord was not in a worse position by the adjournment, I included a conditional termination order, requiring the tenant to continue to pay weekly rent until the rescheduled hearing.
The tenant did not continue to pay weekly rent. Accordingly, her tenancy was terminated and she vacated on around 23 December 2024. After that date, there were significant belongings left at the property (including a boat, together with large quantities of furniture and clothing), and arrangements were made for the tenant to collect these. Landlord claims

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records he says prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy of $4,428.43.
The tenant disputes the amount of rent being claimed.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not use a running total and at times rent payments were applied to the incorrect and later rent period. In addition, 60 days’ notice was not given for rent increases throughout the entire tenancy.
Section 24(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date that notice is given.
The tenant says that the outstanding rental amount when remedying the issues is $2,729.14.
The landlord says that he did not know he was required to give 60 days’ notice for a rent increase.
I accept the errors found by the tenant and order the amount of rental arrears as submitted in the tenant’s remedied rental arrears statement of $2,729.14.

How much is owed for water?

The landlord claims for outstanding water rates of $5,837.84.
The tenant disputes the amount sought on the basis that usage has been charged and says that the outstanding water amount is substantially less as a result. The tenant has provided a new calculation of $1,016.57 for outstanding water.
The landlord says that he did originally charge only for usage but once the tenant stopped paying anything towards water, he stopped splitting the amounts out and started requested payment for the entire bill amounts.
The tenant is only responsible for usage, and accordingly I agree with the tenant’s calculation of outstanding water.
As discussed as the hearing, the amount owed by the tenant for water is $1,386.57 and includes the two payments that were inadvertently included in both the tenant’s rent and water schedules of $170.00 (29/12/23) and $200.00 (04/02/22) which I have recalculated to reduce rent, but not water.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claims he was required to engage professional cleaners and arrange for rubbish and furniture removal from the property. The landlord has provided several invoices. Cleaning and furniture removal (24 December 2024) for $1,725.00, cleaning after the removal of all furniture (15 January 2025) for $207.00. In addition, the landlord claims four additional amounts related to furniture and rubbish removal of $385.00 (Gorilla skip 24 December 2024), $890.00 (8 January 2025), $740.00 (9 January 2025) and $164.90 for a Flexi-bin left at the property.
The tenant disputes the amounts claimed and queried why two separate cleans were required, and why so many additional skip bins and rubbish removal costs were incurred.
The landlord states that the first clean was while there was furniture at the property and once the furniture was removed, it was clear that additional cleaning was required. He says that the additional rubbish removal costs were required due to the large amount of rubbish and belongings that were left at the property. Some of which had been moved to the carport and had still not been collected at the date of the hearing.
Photographs of the property have been provided and I am satisfied that the costs are reflective of what was required to clear and clean the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant also did not return the keys. The landlord was required to engage a locksmith to have the locks changes. The landlord has provided an invoice for $393.73.
Two smoke alarms (chattels) were also missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that based on the evidence that these were in the property prior to the tenancy ending. The landlord had to replace the smoke alarms and claims the cost of $50.00 for this.
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. Damage to the walls
The landlord submits that the walls were damaged throughout the tenancy, including considerable drawing and stickers over the walls and doors. Photographs have been provided. The landlord says that painting was required to three bedrooms because of this damage.
The landlord claims the costs of plaster, repair and paint of the damaged walls and has provided an invoice for $2,300.00.
I accept that some of the damage was caused by the tenant, particularly in relation to the drawings in the photographs and marks left by stickers. However, I would have expected some general wear and tear on the walls during the four-year tenancy, and accordingly have reduced the amount ordered to $1,500.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Handy man repairs
The landlord also submits that significant work was required by a handy man at the property. This included a floorboard hole patch, repair of burnt carpet, laundry floor fix, living room scratch repair, bathroom cabinet door fix, new shower curtains, two window latches and sliding door replacement. An invoice has been provided for these works of $2,771.50 (noting that the invoice provided by the landlord included the cost of smoke alarms already referred to above and so is deducted here).
The tenant admits to the carpet burn but says that the floorboard hole and laundry floor damage was already there (the former appeared to have been used for television wires to come through), and further submits that the bathroom cabinet door and window latches are not caused by the tenant but are maintenance required by the landlord.
I accept from the evidence provided, including the photographs that the bathroom cabinet door and window latches are not the responsibility of the tenant. These appear to be general maintenance items. I also accept that the damage to the floor is general wear and tear and to be expected in this length of tenancy.
However, I find that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet burn, laundry floor fix, bedroom door handle and lock missing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The invoice provided unfortunately does not split the different repairs in the same manner as I have above. I have ordered the amount of $1,160.00 (which includes half of $1,500.00 for the carpet repair, the amount for laundry floor fix, bedroom door handle and lock and the call-out fee).
The amount ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other claims
The landlord claims for the cost to enforce the Tribunal’s previous order for termination and has provided a Ministry of Justice invoice for this totalling $258.00.
The costs were incurred as the tenant did not continue to pay weekly rent as directed in my previous order, and the landlord was required to use court services to evict the tenant.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenant claims
The tenant makes several claims against the landlord relating to tenancy agreement breaches, non-complaint rent increases and water charges, failure to maintain the property and healthy homes breaches. Tenancy agreement breaches
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Act in respect of the tenancy agreement. In particular, the tenant claims: a. There is an unlawful professional cleaning clause. b. There are no insurance details included. c. The address for service for the landlord (which is a company) differs from the company’s office.
There is no requirement in the RTA that the landlord’s address for service in the tenancy agreement be the same as the company’s registered office. In addition, although having a professional cleaning clause is likely to be unenforceable (as it goes beyond what is required in the RTA), there is also no unlawful act through its inclusion in the tenancy agreement. These claims are dismissed.
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states that the landlord must include the following information about the insurance of the premises: (b) If the premises are insured, a statement – (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenancy’s liability for destruction or of damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request...
The tenancy agreement does advise that there is insurance cover for the rental property relevant to the tenant’s liability for damage, and it does say that the policy is available for the tenant if they request it. The only omission is the failure to set out each relevant insurance policy and its excess(es).
Under the RTA, the landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to comply with section 13(A)(2).
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA. The maximum award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act as detailed in Schedule 1A of the RTA is $750.00.
As the landlord did comply with some of the requirements, I order that the landlord pay $200.00 in exemplary damages for a partial non-compliance with section 13(A)(2). Rent increases and water charges
The tenant seeks exemplary damages against the landlord for implementing rent increases without the required 60 days’ notice, incorrectly calculating rent, and unnecessarily taking the tenant to the Tenancy Tribunal twice when rent was actually not in arrears.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for being charged fixed water charges.
Rent increases are governed by section 24(1) of the RTA, and as detailed above, require 60 days before the increased rent becomes payable. The RTA does not determine that failure to do this, however, is an unlawful act, and accordingly, there is no ability for me to award exemplary damages. This claim is dismissed.
Similarly, although the RTA only requires that the tenant pay for outgoings attributable to their occupation (see section 39(1)(3)), being billed for fixed charges is also not considered to be an unlawful act. This claim is dismissed.
Although a tenant can seek exemplary damages for a landlord acting to terminate without reasonable excuse, that is not the case before me. I issued a conditional termination order requiring the tenant to continue to pay weekly rent pending this hearing, and this was not adhered to. This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain and breach of healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (failure to maintain) and under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).of the RTA. The Law
Pursuant to section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age of the premises.
Section 45(1)(bb) additionally requires landlords to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The claims
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to comply with healthy homes obligations. The claims included that: a. The property had significant mould, b. The deck was rotten and unsafe. c. The wallpaper was coming off the walls due to condensation. d. There was a water leak upstairs and leaking downstairs into toilet when it rained. e. The heat pump only blowed out cold air. f. There were broken window latches and draughts around the window. g. There were animals coming down the chimney (was rectified). h. There were electrical issues. i. There were no extractor fans in either bathroom resulting in water dripping off the ceiling. Analysis
The tenancy was originally a fixed term tenancy commencing on 3 April 2021. On 2 April 2022 it automatically became a periodic tenancy. In my view, in April 2022 when the tenancy converted from a fixed term to a periodic tenancy, that was sufficient to be considered a renewed tenancy and as a result, the landlord was required to ensure the property complied with the HHS within 90 days of the change from a fixed term to a periodic tenancy.
Healthy homes inspection reports have been provided by both the landlord and the tenant. The healthy homes assessment done prior to the tenancy by the landlord did not identify any issues.
A report by [Assessor 1] dated 1 February 2024 was provided by the tenant. The report notes that there were draughts from the windows, sliding door and front door. The ventilation was said to comply; however, mould was cited on guttering and some damage was identified to downlights as well as a missing doorknob and railing. An email has been provided where [Assessor 1] has contacted the landlord directly following his assessment to talk through the issues. The email reiterates that there were issues with draughts in the house, and [Assessor 1] offered to work with the landlord on finding solutions. At the hearing, the landlord stated that he did not believe the report identified any issues for him to remedy.
Following the assessment there were ongoing communications between the parties where the tenant asked the landlord to rectify the issues, as she was concerned about the health of her family. The landlord’s response to these was usually that the property complied (with reference to the healthy homes report done prior to the tenancy), he had not been advised of any issues or that he had already rectified any genuine issues at the property. The landlord also suggested that if the tenant wasn’t happy, she should move.
Photographs provided show issues around the outside of the property, including significant mould and rotting wood.
On 9 August 2024, the tenant issued a 14-day notice on the landlord advising that the landlord was in breach of his responsibilities as a landlord because of the issues raised by [Assessor 1]. The notice required that the situation be remedied by 22 August 2024.
A further healthy homes assessment report done by [Assessor 2] from [Company] dated October 2024 found issues that hadn’t been remedied since the previous report, including: a. Water was leaking through the toilet, into the ground level bathroom wall and rotting floor. b. Draughts from windows, sliding door and front door. c. Damaged downlights (flickering). d. Missing doorknob and railing. e. The deck outside of bedroom was unstable and on a lean, this is a major danger with signs of rotting wood the deck is a push away from falling over. f. Mould cited on guttering, in the children’s rooms and in the top bathroom.
The report found that the heating, insulation, and ventilation were all compliant.
A report done after the tenancy was terminated from [Assessor 3] did not note any issues with respect to health homes standards, although there may have been works undertaken to the property since the tenant vacated.
The tenant has provided considerable medical evidence that shows her family has suffered constant illness, including respiratory illness, throughout the tenancy, that she believes is as a result of the issues with the property.
With respect to the failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, the landlord has provided several maintenance invoices from through-out the tenancy as evidence that he has always organised repair when requested. This includes a plumber and electrician to try and sort issues.
The landlord may have resolved some of the issues and had endeavoured to send some tradespeople to the property for repair. However, I find that the landlord was on notice by February 2024 that there were more major issues with draughts, and other maintenance and health concerns related to the property. The landlord should have engaged with the content in [Assessor 1]’s assessment report, and the correspondence from the tenant. The issues identified required more than just sending plumbers and electricians to resolve discreet issues.
By October 2024, and as identified in the report by [Assessor 2], the balcony was in such a state of disrepair it was deemed ready to fall.
The landlord mistakenly seemed to rely on the healthy homes assessment he had received years earlier, responded minimally, and as a result has not kept the property in a state of repair to the extent required. I also find that the landlord failed to ensure the property continued to comply with healthy homes standards, particularly in relation to draughts.
I find [The landlord/s] 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord is liable for exemplary damages of $3,000.00 to reflect all failings in respect of the HHS and failure to maintain. I have reduced this from the maximum to recognise that the landlord did try and sent individual tradespeople out to rectify reported issues.
However, he did not respond to the 14-day notice adequately and the reality is that the property was falling into disrepair. Although the tenant sought multiple amounts for exemplary damages, the unlawful acts all relate to exemplary damages under section 45 of the RTA and accordingly there is only one set of exemplary damages. See Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited. 1
As both parties have had some level of success, I have not awarded the application fee to either party. Filing fee costs are to be absorbed by each party.
In addition, both parties have sought suppression, and as both parties have some level of success with each of their claims, I have granted name suppression to both parties. R Harvey-Lane 25 February 2025 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967615 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967615 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?