What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4998142?

The tribunal order states: Kelly Papesch must pay Leroy Tama Marshall $324.83 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4998142?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998142?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11618700-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4998142?

The tribunal order states: Kelly Papesch must pay Leroy Tama Marshall $324.83 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4998142?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998142?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11618700-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998142 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998142 — net $324.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond	$150.00		Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Utility compensation		$150.00	Utility compensation
Carpet Cleaning: Wall damage		$150.00	Carpet Cleaning: Wall damage
Remaining bond balance		$234.83	Remaining bond balance
Total award	$210.00	$534.83
Net award		$324.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$324.83

Order

Kelly Papesch must pay Leroy Tama Marshall $324.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Background and Jurisdiction

This dispute arises from a room-by-room tenancy at a residential property that began on 6 February 2024 and ended on 24 August 2024. Rent was set at $250 per week and the tenant paid a bond of $750 at the start of the tenancy. Initially, the parties entered into a “House Sharing Agreement”. However, on 2 December 2024, the Tribunal determined that the agreement constituted a residential tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Accordingly, both parties’ rights and responsibilities must be determined under the RTA.
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond balance ($234.83) and $1,000 in compensation for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord, in turn, seeks to retain the balance of the bond and makes further claims for rent arrears, utility charges, property damage, lock replacement, and cleaning costs.
The onus is on each party to prove their respective claims to the civil standard of proof — on the balance of probabilities. The tenant’s claims

Did the Landlord Fail to Lodge the Bond?

Under section 19(1) of the RTA, a landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. The landlord failed to do so, stating that she did not believe the arrangement was covered by the Act. That belief is not a lawful excuse for non-compliance.
The Tribunal has already determined that the RTA applies to this tenancy. As a result, the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is a breach of section 19. This breach justifies an award of exemplary damages, which may be ordered under section 109(1) of the Act where the breach is intentional. While the landlord may not have acted maliciously, she deliberately chose not to lodge the bond, even though she accepted a substantial sum from the tenant. The obligation to lodge a bond is a fundamental protection for tenants and landlords alike.
Taking into account the nature of the breach and the landlord’s partial refund of the bond ($515.17), I find that exemplary damages are warranted but at the lower end of the scale. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $150.00 in exemplary damages.

Were Utility Charges Lawfully Imposed?

Under section 39 of the RTA, a landlord may only charge tenants for outgoings such as electricity and water if the charges reflect actual usage. The tenant disputes the fairness of the landlord’s utility charges, which were based on an arbitrary equal division among occupants rather than metered or actual consumption.
The landlord’s approach is not compliant with section 39. Although the monetary value of the disputed charges is minimal, the principle is important. Since the charges were imposed contrary to the RTA and no accurate recalculation is possible, I find it fair and pragmatic to award the tenant $150.00 as compensation for incorrectly applied utility charges.

Did the Premises Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must comply with all requirements in relation to buildings, health, and safety, including the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant alleges that the property was cold, damp, and drafty, citing faulty windows and mould. However, the tenant has not provided any independent evidence such as inspection reports, photographs, or ventilation assessments to support these claims.
The landlord denies any breach and argues that the house was warm and dry when appropriately ventilated, and that mould developed due to the tenant’s failure to open windows. While the Tribunal does not dismiss the tenant’s lived experience, a claim of non-compliance must be supported by objective evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal dismisses this claim.

Can the Tribunal Order the Landlord to Comply with Legal Requirements in Future?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining current disputes under the RTA. It does not operate as a general oversight body or issue directions in anticipation of future tenancies. This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s scope. The landlord’s claims Rent Arrears and Lock Change
The landlord claims one day’s rent ($35.71) and the cost of a lock change ($253.76) on the basis that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputes this, stating that there was a breakdown in the relationship, and he could not to return to the property on the end date to return the keys.
Lock replacement is generally the landlord’s cost unless the tenant has lost or withheld the keys. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant failed to return the keys or caused a security concern. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Utility Charges
As addressed above, the landlord’s method of dividing utilities was not compliant with the Act. The claim for $0.44 is dismissed. Wall Damage and Cleaning Costs
During the tenancy, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage, or permit an other person to damage the premises. See section 40(2)(a) RTA.
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA..
The landlord seeks $437.00 for damage to bedroom walls and $120.00 for cleaning costs, including dog excrement and general mess. She has provided photographs and a statement from another occupant. However, the tenant disputes these claims and points to pre-existing wear and tear, as well as damage not attributable to his dog.
Regarding the wall damage, the full claim of $437 for wall damage appears excessive given that some damage was pre-existing. However, the evidence is not conclusive regarding the full extent of the damage or whether it exceeded normal wear and tear. I allow a partial deduction from the bond of $150 for minor repairs.
On cleaning, the photos indicate that additional work was required, but the claim is not fully supported. Given the evidence and competing narratives, I allow a partial cleaning cost of $60.00. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998142 — net $324.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond	$150.00		Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Utility compensation		$150.00	Utility compensation
Carpet Cleaning: Wall damage		$150.00	Carpet Cleaning: Wall damage
Remaining bond balance		$234.83	Remaining bond balance
Total award	$210.00	$534.83
Net award		$324.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$324.83

Order

Kelly Papesch must pay Leroy Tama Marshall $324.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Background and Jurisdiction

This dispute arises from a room-by-room tenancy at a residential property that began on 6 February 2024 and ended on 24 August 2024. Rent was set at $250 per week and the tenant paid a bond of $750 at the start of the tenancy. Initially, the parties entered into a “House Sharing Agreement”. However, on 2 December 2024, the Tribunal determined that the agreement constituted a residential tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Accordingly, both parties’ rights and responsibilities must be determined under the RTA.
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond balance ($234.83) and $1,000 in compensation for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord, in turn, seeks to retain the balance of the bond and makes further claims for rent arrears, utility charges, property damage, lock replacement, and cleaning costs.
The onus is on each party to prove their respective claims to the civil standard of proof — on the balance of probabilities. The tenant’s claims

Did the Landlord Fail to Lodge the Bond?

Under section 19(1) of the RTA, a landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. The landlord failed to do so, stating that she did not believe the arrangement was covered by the Act. That belief is not a lawful excuse for non-compliance.
The Tribunal has already determined that the RTA applies to this tenancy. As a result, the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is a breach of section 19. This breach justifies an award of exemplary damages, which may be ordered under section 109(1) of the Act where the breach is intentional. While the landlord may not have acted maliciously, she deliberately chose not to lodge the bond, even though she accepted a substantial sum from the tenant. The obligation to lodge a bond is a fundamental protection for tenants and landlords alike.
Taking into account the nature of the breach and the landlord’s partial refund of the bond ($515.17), I find that exemplary damages are warranted but at the lower end of the scale. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $150.00 in exemplary damages.

Were Utility Charges Lawfully Imposed?

Under section 39 of the RTA, a landlord may only charge tenants for outgoings such as electricity and water if the charges reflect actual usage. The tenant disputes the fairness of the landlord’s utility charges, which were based on an arbitrary equal division among occupants rather than metered or actual consumption.
The landlord’s approach is not compliant with section 39. Although the monetary value of the disputed charges is minimal, the principle is important. Since the charges were imposed contrary to the RTA and no accurate recalculation is possible, I find it fair and pragmatic to award the tenant $150.00 as compensation for incorrectly applied utility charges.

Did the Premises Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must comply with all requirements in relation to buildings, health, and safety, including the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant alleges that the property was cold, damp, and drafty, citing faulty windows and mould. However, the tenant has not provided any independent evidence such as inspection reports, photographs, or ventilation assessments to support these claims.
The landlord denies any breach and argues that the house was warm and dry when appropriately ventilated, and that mould developed due to the tenant’s failure to open windows. While the Tribunal does not dismiss the tenant’s lived experience, a claim of non-compliance must be supported by objective evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal dismisses this claim.

Can the Tribunal Order the Landlord to Comply with Legal Requirements in Future?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining current disputes under the RTA. It does not operate as a general oversight body or issue directions in anticipation of future tenancies. This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s scope. The landlord’s claims Rent Arrears and Lock Change
The landlord claims one day’s rent ($35.71) and the cost of a lock change ($253.76) on the basis that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputes this, stating that there was a breakdown in the relationship, and he could not to return to the property on the end date to return the keys.
Lock replacement is generally the landlord’s cost unless the tenant has lost or withheld the keys. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant failed to return the keys or caused a security concern. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Utility Charges
As addressed above, the landlord’s method of dividing utilities was not compliant with the Act. The claim for $0.44 is dismissed. Wall Damage and Cleaning Costs
During the tenancy, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage, or permit an other person to damage the premises. See section 40(2)(a) RTA.
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA..
The landlord seeks $437.00 for damage to bedroom walls and $120.00 for cleaning costs, including dog excrement and general mess. She has provided photographs and a statement from another occupant. However, the tenant disputes these claims and points to pre-existing wear and tear, as well as damage not attributable to his dog.
Regarding the wall damage, the full claim of $437 for wall damage appears excessive given that some damage was pre-existing. However, the evidence is not conclusive regarding the full extent of the damage or whether it exceeded normal wear and tear. I allow a partial deduction from the bond of $150 for minor repairs.
On cleaning, the photos indicate that additional work was required, but the claim is not fully supported. Given the evidence and competing narratives, I allow a partial cleaning cost of $60.00. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998142 — Cleanliness at 42 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998142 — Cleanliness at 42 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord Fail to Lodge the Bond?

Were Utility Charges Lawfully Imposed?

Did the Premises Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Can the Tribunal Order the Landlord to Comply with Legal Requirements in Future?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord Fail to Lodge the Bond?

Were Utility Charges Lawfully Imposed?

Did the Premises Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Can the Tribunal Order the Landlord to Comply with Legal Requirements in Future?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions