How much money was awarded in case 5022868?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of amenity - drau…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $603.75 awarded to landlord; Shower: $216.63 awarded to landlord; Replace Cooktop: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Lino In The Sleepout Bathroo…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Lino In The Sleepout Kitchen…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11546289-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5022868?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of amenity - drau…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $603.75 awarded to landlord; Shower: $216.63 awarded to landlord; Replace Cooktop: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Lino In The Sleepout Bathroo…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Lino In The Sleepout Kitchen…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11546289-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Ngaroma Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5022868 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5022868 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 5022868 — net $2,019.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$172.50		Cleaning
Replace cooktop	$500.00		Replace cooktop
Repairs: shower	$216.63		Repairs: shower
Replace lino in the sleepout kitchenette	$500.00		Replace lino in the sleepout kitchenette
Replace lino in the sleepout bathroom	$500.00		Replace lino in the sleepout bathroom
Repair damage to paintwork in the main house	$603.75		Repair damage to paintwork in the main house
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity - draughts		$500.00	loss of amenity - draughts
Total award	$2,519.88	$500.00
Net award	$2,019.88
Bond	$6,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,019.88

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

Man Hung Kwong, Melissa Wei Lum Tsoi, Brendon Yiu Gong Tsoi, Ryan Ko Yiu Tsoi and Nicole Tsoi are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,019.88 from the bond calculated as shown in the table below.

[The applicant/s] is to pay Man Hung Kwong, Melissa Wei Lum Tsoi, Brendon Yiu Gong Tsoi, Ryan Ko Yiu Tsoi, Nicole Tsoi $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,019.88 Man Hung Kwong, Melissa Wei Lum Tsoi, Brendon Yiu Gong Tsoi, Ryan Ko Yiu Tsoi and Nicole Tsoi: $4,380.12

The landlord’s application for failure to allow entry to the premises and the tenant’s application for constructive termination of the tenancy are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 14 February 2025 at Auckland District Court.

Representatives of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. One of the tenants, Ms Kwong, attended the hearing for the tenants. An interpreter attended the hearing for Ms Kwong.

On 15 November 2024, a Case Conference was held by a different Adjudicator. In an Order issued that day, the parties’ claims for the Tribunal were recorded as follows: a. The tenant claims that the fixed term tenancy was constructively terminated; and that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to kitchen ventilation and draught stopping. The tenant claims compensation for the termination for emotional distress, medical costs, moving costs and cleaning and repairs to the premises. The tenant also seeks refund of the bond. b. The landlord claims are for damages to the premises and compensation for the property manager’s attendance at the hearing.

While not recorded in the Order of 15 November 2024, the tenant confirmed at the hearing that she is seeking exemplary damages in respect of the claim for breach of the HHS.

The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the claim for compensation for the property’s manager’s attendance at the hearing was withdrawn and that they were also seeking exemplary damages for the tenant’s alleged failure to allow the landlord to enter the premises when they were entitled to do so. A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these expectations is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. B. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS: a. Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and, if so, should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) in respect of ventilation in the kitchen and draughts.

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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The tenancy started on 10 December 2023. Therefore, the date for compliance with the HHS for this premises was 08 April 2024.

The tenant claims that the Ventilation HHS (lack of ventilation in the kitchen) and that the Draught Stopping HHS were not met. The Ventilation HHS 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 HHS 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.

The tenant says that when the tenancy started, they were given a Healthy Homes Standard Report of 18 July 2023. This report provides that the premises failed some of the HHS including the Ventilation HHS and the Draught Stopping HHS.

The landlord advised that following that report, steps were taken to ensure compliance with the HHS. The landlord provided an invoice dated 20 February 2024 showing that a ceiling fan was supplied and installed for the kitchen.

However, the landlord said they were unable to find any evidence that the landlord took steps to meet the Draught Stopping HHS. The landlord says that this appears to be an administrative error.

The tenant said the draughts were coming through the doors. The tenant said they did not complain about the draughts because they do not like to do so. The tenant says the draughts were particularly problematic as Ms Kwong’s son, who resided at the premises, had health issues and a weakened immune system.

I accept the landlord’s evidence that Ventilation HHS was met. I find that the landlord did breach Draught Stopping HHS.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the breach of the HHS.

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 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 the RTA which provides 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.

In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.

Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.

Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92

A second District Court decision of relevance is Peter Stoekeken v Nykala Toheriri and Vince Aso [2022] NZDC 9698. The dispute in that case was included a claim for exemplary damages because the landlord had rented the premises with an exposed electrical wire. The District Court accepted that the landlord did not know the wire was exposed, but importantly confirmed that: ...S 109(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally by the person who committed it before exemplary damages can be awarded.... ...assuming that the landlord is liable for the omissions of his agents as well as his own, I am not satisfied that he or his agents intentionally decided not to carry out an inspection which was sufficiently through to reveal the wire. Even if they ought to have noticed it, that is not equivalent to an intentional act. As the Adjudicator in the second decision stated when declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord, the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations. The evidence does not establish that. In summary, I consider that there are insufficient grounds to award exemplary damages against the landlord in relation to the exposed wire.

I accept the landlord’s evidence that the failure to comply with the Draught Stopping HHS was an oversight. This was negligent and, as set out in the above examples, negligence does not amount to intention.

I have found that the landlord breached the HHS. However, due to lack of intention, it is not open to me to award exemplary damages for this breach.

I accept that the tenant did suffer discomfort from the draughts. This was a particular concern for Ms Kwong because her son who also lived at the premises had health issues and low immunity. While the tenant did not raise the issue during the tenancy, the landlord had been made award of the failure to comply with the Draught Stopping HHS in the healthy homes report. Steps should have been taken to correct this.

I award $500.00 as compensation for loss of amenity due to the failure to comply with the Draught Stopping HHS. b. Did the landlord terminate the tenancy constructively or otherwise?

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the RTA provide that breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00.

The Tenancy agreement provides that the tenancy was for a fixed-term. It started on 10 December 2023 and was due to end on 09 December 2024.

There are few ways in which a fixed term tenancy can be lawfully terminated before the end of the fixed term. It is not open for either party to simply give the other notice apart from in limited circumstances which do not apply here. That said, the parties can agree to end a fixed-term tenancy early.

The tenant says that the landlord constructively terminated the tenancy. The landlord says that the parties agreed to the fixed term ending early.

The relevant background facts are as follows: a. The tenant says that although the Tenancy Agreement restricted the number of tenants to 5, the previous property manager had agreed for additional people to live in the premises. The tenant further says that they had some visitors to the premises who stayed for short periods of time and should not be counted in the maximum tenancy occupant number. b. In early April 2024, Ms W became the property manager for the premises. c. On 23 April 2024, Ms W sent an email to the tenant saying she was concerned that the number of people residing in the premises exceeded the number of 5 as stated in the Tenancy Agreement and that the tenant may have breached clause 31 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to notify the landlord of the people living at the premises. d. On 24 April 2024, the tenant sent an email to Ms W clarifying the number of people who were residing at the premises and said: If my current living situation is not acceptable to the landlord, I am willing to vacate the property with a 90-day notice period. However, I believe we can resolve the matter amicably given the circumstances. e. Ms W responded as follows: After discussing the living situation with the owners of the property, it has come to our attention that they are not satisfied with the current arrangement. As per the terms of the tenancy agreement, only the five individuals listed were intended to reside in the property despite the conversations you had with [previous property manager]. I have attempted to explore various options with the owners to address this matter, but unfortunately they do not feel comfortable continuing the tenancy under the current circumstances. Unfortunately, the owner’s preference is a 90-day notice period would be the most suitable option for all parties involved. This should allow you plenty of time to find a suitable property. f. The tenant responded to the email saying that was fine and asked what the final day of the tenancy would be. g. On 30 April 2024, the landlord sent an email responding to the tenant saying: .... [a]fter several discussions with both yourself and the property owner, we have reached a mutual agreement to terminate the tenancy agreement for ... I understand that this decision may be disappointing or inconvenient for you ... This email serves to inform you that there is a 90-day notice period beginning today, April 30, 2024. As such, your final day in the property will be Monday, July 29, 2024.... h. The tenant responded asking for the end date to be brought forward and that the landlord agreed. The tenancy terminated on 25 July 2024.

The language used by Ms W in her email correspondence on this matter is unfortunate. In the same email in which she referred to the parties mutually agreeing to end the tenancy early, she also referred to giving of notice and apologising for the “decision”. That said, it was the tenant who first suggested reducing the fixed-term of the tenancy and tenant’s further correspondence with the landlord indicated that they agreed with the tenancy ending early. While it is finely balanced, I find that the landlord did not expressly terminate the tenancy and that there was an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to end the fixed-term tenancy early.

That is not the end of the matter because the tenant asserts that the ending of the tenancy was not an express termination but a ‘constructive’ termination. The tenant says that they made the offer to end the fixed-term tenancy early because they were being unfairly pressured by Ms W regarding the number of tenants at the premises. The tenant says the termination was therefore constructive.

There are limited examples of constructive termination of tenancy cases. Constructive dismissal is a well-known concept from employment law which describes situations where it appears that an employee’s employment has been terminated by the employee but is deemed to be a dismissal by the employer. In Auckland etc Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] ERNZ Sel Cas 136; [1985] NZLR 372 (CA), the Court of Appeal said that constructive dismissal can occur in the following three situations: a. Where an employee gives the employee a choice between dismissal and resignation; b. Where an employer carries out a course of conduct with the dominate and deliberate purpose of encouraging the employee to resign; or c. Where the employer breaches a duty owed to the employee to resign.

The tenant is essentially asking the Tribunal to find that the landlord either breached a duty it owed to the tenant or that it carried out a course of conduct designed to illicit the tenant to offer to reduce the term of the tenancy.

I am not convinced that there is or should be a concept of constructive termination in tenancy law. In the Tribunal case of Vogels and Barry Morris as Agent for Xijun Liang [2022] NZTT 4341073, the tenant said she had been constructively terminated. The tenant said that the landlord made comments to her on two occasions which “made her feel she had to move out” and she gave her written notice in response to these comments.

The Tribunal first considered whether a termination can be ended by a constructive termination notice and concluded that it could not saying: ... The RTA makes it clear that a tenancy can only be terminated in limited circumstances with minimum periods of notice and must be in writing – see section 51 RTA. The requirement for the notice to be in writing is essential. While the termination notice will not be invalidated if some of the notice requirements are not met, not being written will do so. See section 51(4) RTA.

The rationale for this provision is no doubt to avoid any misunderstandings, confusion, or attempts to end the tenancy by duress or implication. Certainty of the end date and notice period is paramount. ...

While I am not bound to follow previous Orders of the Tribunal, I agree with this Order. The legislatively framework for employment is different than tenancy and I do not consider that a tenancy can be constructively terminated.

This claim is dismissed. C. THE LANDLORD’S CLAIMS a. Did the tenant breach the RTA by refusing the landlord access to the premises and, if so, should the landlord be awarded exemplary damages?

The landlord claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.

Section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA provide that landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.

Section 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA provides that breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.

In May 2024, the landlord gave notice to visit the premises to conduct an inspection. However, the landlord says that when they visited the premises for the inspection, they were unable to enter because the tenant was not home and the people at the residence were unaware the inspection would take place.

The landlord says an order for exemplary damages should be made because the correct notice had been given and it took approximately 2 hours (in total) of the landlord’s time.

The tenant says that she was confused about the number of inspections the landlord was permitted to carry out. The tenant has provided as evidence email correspondence between the tenant and the landlord and the tenant and Tenancy Services showing that the tenant believed that the landlord was only entitled to carry out quarterly inspections.

The Tenancy Agreement refers to the landlord being able to carry out inspections on 48 hours’ notice and in accordance with the RTA. This is consistent with the relevant provisions of the RTA. I believe the tenant’s confusion was due to an information pack provided by the landlord which suggested inspections would be quarterly. While the landlord may wish to review this wording to avoid any future confusion, I find that in these circumstances, this document does not overrule the Tenancy Agreement or the RTA.

The tenant said the person who opened the door to the landlord’s representatives was her son’s support worker. The tenant further said that the inspection was carried out shortly after this.

While I accept that there was some confusion regarding the landlord’s entitlement to access the premises at that time, I do not find that that in these circumstances the tenant refused access.

Even if I had found that the tenant had breached the RTA by refusing access, I would not have made an award for exemplary damages. As set out in paragraphs 24 to 34 above, exemplary damages are only awarded when the unlawful act is intentional. I do not find that the tenant’s intentionally refused access to the landlord. b. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and has provided two invoices for cleaning; the first is for $217.35 (including GST) and the second is for $450 (including GST). The landlord has provided photographs of the premises after they were vacated by the tenant. The tenant has provided an invoice showing that they paid for the premises to be professionally cleaned.

I have reviewed the photographs provided by the landlord and note that the RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition; only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell the premises. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

I find that for the most part, the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, I also accept that there were some areas in the bathrooms which required further work. I do not accept that the sum of spent by the landlord is reasonable and instead award $172.50 (inclusive of GST) for this claim being 3 hours cleaning at $50 plus GST per hour. c. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.

Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).

Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.

Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.

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.)

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the: cooktop glass; the shower in the sleepout; lino in the sleepout; the kitchen benchtop; the interior walls in the main house; and the interior walls in the sleepout. a) Damage to the cooktop glass:

The landlord is claiming $917.70 for replacement of the cooktop glass. The landlord says that the cooktop glass was brand new and refers to the chattel list as evidence of this.

The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage to the glass. The tenant admits that the damage occurred during the tenancy but says that she used the cooktop for cooking as normal. The tenant said she is not sure what happened.

I consider that the damage is most likely to have been caused carelessly possibly by use or by cleaning. I find that it is unlikely the damage was intentional. As I have found the damage was careless, the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess which is $500.

This claim is proved, and I award $500 (inclusive of GST). b) Damage to the shower in the sleepout:

The landlord has provided photographs of the shower in the sleepout of the tenancy. I agree with the landlord that it appears that instead of (or in addition to) cleaning the mouldy area around the sealant of the shower it has been painted.

The tenant said she tried to clean this area and the damage is reasonable wear and tear. She said that they were not trying to cover up the damage.

I find that this damage was, while possibly well intentioned, intentional and award the full repair cost of $216.63 (including GST). c) Replacement of lino in the sleepout:

The landlord is claiming $1,023.50 to replace the lino in the bathroom and the kitchenette area of the sleepout.

The landlord says that the lino was laid in December 2023. While evidence (such as invoices) of the age of the lino was not provided, the assertion that the lino was laid in December 2023 is consistent with the photographs of the lino.

The landlord has provided photographs showing that both sets of damage to the lino was caused during the tenancy.

The mark on the kitchen lino is significant and I agree that it needed to be replaced. The tenant says that something was accidentally dropped on the kitchen lino leaving a mark.

There was a mark on the lino in the bathroom by the toilet. The tenant says they do not know how that was caused. The tenant said they tried to get it off but was unable to do so.

I find that it is more likely than not that both sets of damage were careless. Therefore, the tenant’s liability is capped at the insurance excess of $500. I accept that this would be two separate claims and award $1,000 (including GST) being $500 for the kitchenette and another $500 for the bathroom. d) Damage to the kitchen benchtop:

The landlord had claimed for damage to the kitchen benchtop. Photographs showing the damage and a quote were provided. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the work was not carried out and the premises were sold with the damage.

The landlord has not satisfied me that it has incurred a loss in respect of this damage.

This claim is dismissed. e) Damage to the paintwork in the main house:

The landlord said the interior of the house was repainted prior to the start of the tenancy, in August 2023. The landlord provided an invoice to support this.

The landlord has provided photographs showing marks on the walls in the main house, living area and hallway. The marks look like some touch up work has been completed. The tenant confirmed that they had hung pictures and they had painted patches up the wall to repair the damage. The tenant said that after painting a patch it took some time for the paint to blend. At the hearing, the tenant showed a video of the premises which she said showed that the repaint blended in with the walls.

I find that the walls were left in an unacceptable condition. I also consider this damage to be intentional: there is always a risk when hanging pictures that the walls will be damaged. I consider it was reasonable for the landlord to have the walls repainted. I award the full sum claimed for this work: $603.75 (including GST). f) Damage to the paintwork in the sleepout:

The landlord said that it had been some time, up to 25 years, since the sleepout had been painted.

While I find that the damage to the paintwork was caused during the tenancy, I make no award for damages. 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 this case, the sleepout was well overdue to be repainted and ordering any compensation or this damage would put the landlord in a better position.

This claim is dismissed. D. OTHER MATTERS:

Neither party has been wholly successful with their claims. The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim. For this reason, I have granted the landlord’s application for suppression and ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

While the tenant has had some success with the claim, I do not consider the success has been substantial. For this reason, the tenant’s application for suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee are dismissed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022868 — net $2,019.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$172.50		Cleaning
Replace cooktop	$500.00		Replace cooktop
Repairs: shower	$216.63		Repairs: shower
Replace lino in the sleepout kitchenette	$500.00		Replace lino in the sleepout kitchenette
Replace lino in the sleepout bathroom	$500.00		Replace lino in the sleepout bathroom
Repair damage to paintwork in the main house	$603.75		Repair damage to paintwork in the main house
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity - draughts		$500.00	loss of amenity - draughts
Total award	$2,519.88	$500.00
Net award	$2,019.88
Bond	$6,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,019.88