How much money was awarded in case 4990869?

Cleaning: $161.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Deodorizers and Freshe…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $810.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990869?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11743853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4990869?

Cleaning: $161.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Deodorizers and Freshe…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $810.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990869?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11743853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990869 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990869 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 4990869 — net $2,998.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Deodorizers and Fresheners	$200.00	Deodorizers and Fresheners
Compensation: Cleaning company	$161.00	Cleaning company
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide clean property	$1,800.00	Failure to provide clean property
Compensation: Failure to provide clean property	$810.00	Failure to provide clean property
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,998.00
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,998.00

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

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,998.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fees and refund of the bond.

This was a rehearing of the Tenant’s application. A cross application was made by the Landlord when the Tenant initially applied, however this application has not been considered.

The tenancy commenced on 13 March 2024 and was fixed to 12 March 2025. The Tenant ended the tenancy by agreement on 17 July 2024. Compensation

The Tenant sought compensation for costs to hire an ‘independent cleaning company’ and reimbursement of the cleaning products used to mask the lingering scent in the property.

The Tenants submitted they initially moved in on 13 March 2024 and discovered white fur across the ground floor carpet and a strong odour from the garage and downstairs areas. The landlord visited that day and suggested the fur was from a cat. Photographs were provided of the cat fur. The Tenant cleaned the fur themselves and they believed the landlord had intentionally aired out the house to hide the smell.

Although additional professional cleaning was arranged by the Landlord, the urine odour persisted for 18 weeks, and the Tenant had to use air fresheners to mask it. [Supermarket] receipts were provided for the fresheners purchased. They also repeatedly requested the ingoing inspection report but did not receive it, adding to their concern that the landlord was being dishonest.

On 16 July 2024, a cleaner hired by the Tenant reported a “terrible odour of dog urine” in the lounge, likely in the carpet and underlay, and described the garage as “putrid with the smell of urine and faeces”, recommending deep sanitizing or repainting. An email was provided from the cleaner as evidence.

The landlord claims they were transparent with all potential Tenants about a lingering smell from a previous Tenant who had kept a dog. They stated it is common in New Zealand property management to encounter residual odours that are difficult to eliminate completely. Before the tenancy began, the landlord confirmed with the Tenant that she was comfortable with the level of smell, and the house had been aired out.

To address the issue, the landlord arranged professional cleaning. On 16 March 2024, the garage and accessible carpeted areas were cleaned (other areas were covered by the Tenant’s belongings). On 23 March 2024, cleaners returned but did not undertake further cleaning, advising it would be ineffective. On 28 March 2024, the Tenant again reported the odour to the Landlord. On 11 April 2024, the cleaner reassessed the property and suggested finding another cleaner.

The landlord explained that odours can worsen temporarily as carpets dry and that cleaning may bring embedded fur to the surface. The landlord stated that if the odour had truly been unbearable, the Tenant would not have remained in the property for so long.

In considering the evidence, I find from the reports regarding the odour in the property from the independent cleaning inspection report, ingoing inspection report and outgoing inspection report that the property was not clean. The bad odour was noted in all of the reports. I find the Tenant has proven the costs for the independent cleaner. Receipts for deodorisers were also provided.

The amounts ordered are proved. Moving costs

The Tenant claimed moving costs of $1,012.10 for the relocation to this property as they initially planned to stay for a year, but they ended up staying for only 18 weeks. The costs included truck hire and shifting expenses, with the move from [event location supressed] to the new location being less than 5 km away. Invoices were provided to substantiate the costs.

In considering the evidence, I find the costs for moving would have been incurred in any event.

For this reason, the costs for moving is refused. One weeks rent

The Tenant claimed one weeks rent for the overlap in rent for this property and the new property. The Tenant stated that due to the condition of the property and lingering odour, she chose to overlap her tenancies by one week, allowing time to clean thoroughly while moving out and to avoid bringing the smell into the new home. Her new tenancy began at $780.00 per week to which she provided a tenancy agreement. With limited rental options, she found a property that was suitable and took it, explaining that it was the best solution under the circumstances.

The Landlord responded that the Tenant made the decision to leave unilaterally. The overlap was her choice, and not something he had a say in, noting that while the situation was difficult, the decision to vacate was hers alone.

In considering the evidence, I find it was the Tenant’s choice to overlap her tenancies. It was not clear as to why exactly she needed to remain in the first property besides her belongings needed cleaning before being transferred to the next property. There was also no evidence that her belongings were dirty as a result of the property or retained the odour of the property.

This claim is dismissed. Rent

The Tenant claimed 50% of the rent for 18-week period due to issues with fleas, faeces on the curtains, inability to unpack their belongings, the 14 weeks it took for the Landlord to provide them with an ingoing inspection report, dishwasher not working for five weeks, urine smell for 18 weeks and two weeks to engage a kitchen cleaner.

The Tenant reported fleas on 19 March 2024 and requested a treatment plan. The landlord did not attend until 18 April 2024 - over four weeks later. The Tenant documented the issue, while the Landlord questioned its validity, suggesting the fleas may have come from the Tenant’s previous home. He admitted delays but said treatment resolved the issue within two days once carried out.

The Tenant reported soiled curtains on 16 March 2024 and followed up on 28 March 2024. Cleaning did not occur until 11-12 April 2024, nearly four weeks later. The landlord claimed he was not made aware until early April, then arranged professional cleaning. Some curtains required re-cleaning due to lingering odour. Photographs were provided of the curtains.

Due to ongoing cleaning and pest control, the Tenant could not fully unpack. Furniture was frequently moved, and belongings were stored in the garage for 18 weeks, causing prolonged inconvenience. An independent cleaner found grease, grime, and signs of poor cleaning. Reports were submitted on 27 March 2024 and 16 July 2024.

The Landlord said the home had been professionally cleaned twice and blamed leftover materials on the cleaning team. He believed the Tenant’s expectations exceeded reasonable standards, but the Tenant felt the cleaner’s findings confirmed serious oversight.

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has failed to provide the property was in a reasonable state of cleanliness in terms of the soiled curtains and odour. I accept that the Tenant could not fully unpack due to these ongoing issues and I accept there were fleas likely to be from the dog that was present before. I consider it reasonable to compensate the Tenant 5% of the rent over the 18 week period, as the Tenants still had use of the property.

The amount ordered is proved. Impact on business

The Tenant claimed a loss of $11,000.00 and 115 hours of work in March 2024 due to the issues with the property. She claims she lost additional time due to cleaning, waiting for workers, and dealing with the ongoing disruption from the property condition. She provided invoices to demonstrate how much she would earn typically per month.

The Landlord rejected the Tenant’s claim for lost work hours, stating his responses were timely and the issues raised were outside the scope of the Tenancy Tribunal. He argued the Tenant focused too much on complaints via email and social media instead of maintaining the property, and he should not be held responsible for time spent on communication.

In considering the evidence, the Tribunal is limited in its jurisdiction to award costs 1 . Costs can be awarded if a party is represented by Counsel, if the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought, a party fails to attend without good cause after receiving notice or the dispute ought reasonable to have been settled before the Tenancy mediator.

The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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

Breaching any of 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 landlord failed to provide a clean property. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The property was not cleaned properly when the Tenants moved in and the odour caused significant distress and inconvenience at the property. I find it appropriate to award two weeks rent in this instance.

The amount ordered is proved.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The Tenant is seeking exemplary damages for the bond, paid on 19 June 2024 but not lodged until 4 July 2025—well beyond the legal timeframe. She cited it as part of broader mismanagement 1 Section 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) 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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Landlord acknowledges they did not lodge the bond within 23 working days as they were unclear if the tenancy would end shortly or not. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The Landlord acknowledged the delay, attributing it to uncertainty around a potential early termination, which was only resolved in mid-May. I find the Landlord did not intentionally file late but I accept he was uncertain if this would continue or not because of the ongoing issues earlier on in the tenancy.

In considering the tenancy, there was no intention by the Landlord to lodge the bond late.

The claim is dismissed.

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Landlord shall reimburse the filing fee.

As both parties have been successful to some extent in their claims, name suppression is granted to both parties.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4990869 — net $2,998.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Deodorizers and Fresheners	$200.00	Deodorizers and Fresheners
Compensation: Cleaning company	$161.00	Cleaning company
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide clean property	$1,800.00	Failure to provide clean property
Compensation: Failure to provide clean property	$810.00	Failure to provide clean property
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,998.00
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,998.00

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

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,998.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fees and refund of the bond.

This was a rehearing of the Tenant’s application. A cross application was made by the Landlord when the Tenant initially applied, however this application has not been considered.

The tenancy commenced on 13 March 2024 and was fixed to 12 March 2025. The Tenant ended the tenancy by agreement on 17 July 2024. Compensation

The Tenant sought compensation for costs to hire an ‘independent cleaning company’ and reimbursement of the cleaning products used to mask the lingering scent in the property.

The amounts ordered are proved. Moving costs

In considering the evidence, I find the costs for moving would have been incurred in any event.

For this reason, the costs for moving is refused. One weeks rent

This claim is dismissed. Rent

The amount ordered is proved. Impact on business

The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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

Breaching any of 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 landlord failed to provide a clean property. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The amount ordered is proved.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) 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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Landlord acknowledges they did not lodge the bond within 23 working days as they were unclear if the tenancy would end shortly or not. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

In considering the tenancy, there was no intention by the Landlord to lodge the bond late.

The claim is dismissed.

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Landlord shall reimburse the filing fee.

As both parties have been successful to some extent in their claims, name suppression is granted to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990869 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990869 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions