Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5071468 — Cleanliness at 6 Standish Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629
Decided 25 Jul 2025 · Published 25 Jul 2025 · Application 5071468
- Cleanliness
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
- Infinite Property Management Nz Limited Ru Chen, Infinite Property Management Nz Limited Frank Han must pay [The tenant/s] $767.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by an agent, the current property manager, Mr Frank Han from Harcourts. Mr Han (or an employee from the same company) has been the property manager for the premises since 1 April 2024.
- The tenancy commenced on 8 July 2023 and ended on 28 April 2024. Another property manager managed the property for the landlord from 8 July 2023 until 1 April 2024.
- The landlord is based overseas. Burden and standard of proof
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. The tenant’s claims
- At the hearing, the tenant confirmed the claims are: a. Refund of the bond, and a claim for compensation of $641 being interest payable on a loan which the tenant says they had to take out because the bond has not been refunded. b. Compensation of $40 for purchasing a garage door remote which was not provided at the start of the tenancy (breach of s37 of the RTA). c. Exemplary damages for: i. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in breach of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA:
- Insulation standards. ii. Failure to maintain the premises in breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA:
- Gaps in the bedroom ceiling;
- Blocked gutters;
- Broken PVC roof on upper deck;
- Rotten/unsafe decking on back deck. iii. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness in breach of s45(1)(a) of the RTA:
- Heat pump filters.
- The landlord denies all claims. Refund of the bond – no landlord counterclaim
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. While some of the correspondence filed by the tenant indicates the landlord has (or had) a claim against the bond relating to costs incurred in bringing the fixed-term tenancy to an early end, the landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. At the hearing, the landlord confirmed no counterclaim had been filed.
- Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
- The tenant also claims compensation of $641.00 being the interest the tenant is liable to pay on a personal loan of $2,800.00 taken out from a bank on 5 July 2024. The tenant says the loan was required to pay university fees, which the tenant had planned to use the refunded bond to pay. The tenant filed a copy of the personal loan summary which confirmed the loan amount, and the interest payable.
- The tenant has not filed any other evidence relating to the tenant’s financial circumstances.
- The tenant has provided copies of email correspondence between the tenant and property manager in May 2024. That correspondence indicates that, at that time, the landlord claimed a portion of the bond should be refunded to the landlord in compensation for costs incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early.
- If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. 1 The tenant’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal was only filed on 6 January 2025.
- I am not satisfied the tenant has demonstrated a causative link between the landlord’s refusal to agree to the bond being refunded to the tenant and the payment of $641 in interest on a loan for university fees.
- I am also not satisfied that the tenant took all steps to mitigate their loss in that they did not apply to the Tribunal for an order releasing the bond until some seven months after the tenancy ended.
- The tenant’s claim seeking compensation for the interest payable on the personal loan is dismissed. Compensation: garage door remote
- Section 37 of the RTA guarantees the tenant "vacant possession" of the premises on the tenancy start date. This means the landlord is obligated to give the tenant access to the property at the start of the tenancy, which typically includes providing keys, swipe cards and any security devices.
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 37 in that they did not provide a remote control for the motorized garage door at the premises.
- The tenant says as soon as they moved in, they noticed there was no garage door remote. The tenant says they contacted the property manager, who stated a garage door remote was left at the premises. The tenant says that was not correct, and he responded to tell the property manager this.
- The tenant says in August or September 2023, he purchased a replacement garage door remote from Facebook Marketplace for $40 cash. The tenant says he does not have a receipt or any record of the purchase. The tenant says when he left the property, he gave the garage door remote that he had purchased to the property manager.
- The landlord says he needs to see an invoice for the purchase of the garage door remote. The landlord says its correct that the tenant returned a garage 1 See s22B(1) of the RTA. door remote at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says he does not hold a record as to whether a garage door remote was provided at the start of the tenancy.
- I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant purchased a garage door remote and should be reimbursed the cost, being $40. I am satisfied the tenant had no other reason to purchase a garage door remote, other than that one was not provided at the start of the tenancy. Given the landlord has now received the garage door remote purchased by the tenant, the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the cost they incurred.
- The amount ordered is proved. Exemplary damages: breach of HHS re ceiling insulation
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord failed to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
- Breaching the landlord’s HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- In addition, s13A(1A)-(1C) of the RTA states: (1A)The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that provides the following information to the tenant (subject to subsections (1B) and (1C)): (a) whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises: (b) details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises: (1B)Subsection (1C) applies if, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so, the landlord has not been able to obtain some or all of the information required by subsection (1A)(a) or (b) in respect of a particular location (for example, above a ceiling, under a floor, or in a wall). (1C) The landlord’s statement under subsection (1A) does not have to provide the information that the landlord has not been able to obtain in respect of the particular location, so long as the statement instead— (a) describes the information that the landlord has not been able to obtain in respect of the particular location; and (b) explains why the landlord has not been able to obtain that information; and (c) confirms that the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that information.
- Breaching the landlord’s obligations to ensure the tenancy agreement includes certain information is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenant says the premises does not have insulation in the ceiling above the living room and one (of four) bedrooms. 2 The tenant says a builder who attended the premises in December 2023 told him that part of the ceiling is not insulated as there is no cavity (or insufficient space in the minimal cavity) to install insulation due to the particular design of the roof/ceiling in that part of the home.
- The builder was not called as a witness at the hearing, nor was a report or any statement/correspondence from the builder filed as evidence.
- The tenant accepts that an exemption to the HHS insulation standards may apply (that is, that it is not practicable to install insulation in that part of the ceiling), however, the tenant says the landlord breached their obligations to the tenant by failing to inform the tenants that an exemption applied (and that part of the ceiling was not insulated). The tenant referred to information available on the Tenancy Services website which states: a. There is no requirement for landlords to consult a professional to establish if an exemption applies. However, we encourage landlords who have doubts about whether insulation can be installed to consult an experienced professional insulation installer and, if needed, a builder. b. The experienced professional may advise that it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation. If that happens, the landlord should ask for written confirmation of the reasons to include in tenancy agreements
- While the information available on the Tenancy Services website provides tenants and landlords with some guidance, the Tribunal is concerned only with the parties’ legal obligations, as set out in the RTA (or another Act).
- The tenancy agreement includes a Healthy Homes Statement with a section on ceiling insulation. In response to the question, “Does the ceiling insulation above all domestic living spaces meet the requirements of the insulation standard?” the landlord has ticked “Yes – entire premises.”
- The tenant takes issue with this, in that the tenant says the landlord stated the insulation was installed in the “entire premises” which the tenant says is not correct. 2 That is consistent with a Healthy Homes Report commissioned by the landlord and dated 24 April 2024 which noted ceiling insulation could not be installed above the living room, dining room, bedroom 4 and kitchen.
- I do not agree. The statement in the tenancy agreement states the ceiling insulation meets “the requirements of the insulation standard.” The insulation standards include the exemptions. The statement in the tenancy agreement is correct.
- The issue is whether the landlord failed to include in the statement details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with the ceilings. 3
- I am not satisfied the tenant has produced evidence to prove, to the applicable standard, that the landlord knew that, in some locations, the ceiling did not have insulation and failed to disclose that. The tenant says they would not have been interested in the house if they had known it did not have ceiling insulation in some rooms. The tenant has not produced any evidence to show the landlord gave any undertakings in that respect, beyond the statement in the tenancy agreement. Given that, I find the landlord did not commit an unlawful act.
- I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for breach of the HHS re insulation, and/or breach of s 13A of the RTA. Exemplary damages: failure to maintain bedroom ceiling
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in that the landlord did not provide or maintain the bedroom ceiling in a reasonable state of repair.
- Breaching any of the landlord’s obligations under s45 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 tenant says they noticed black dust on their bedsheets during the first few months of the tenancy. They say they initially thought it was dust blown in from outside via an open window. However, they say they realised the cause was in fact gaps in the wooden slats in the bedroom ceiling above the bed which they discovered in January 2024.
- The tenant provided photos taken on 6 January 2024 which show some black debris on the bed linen in the bedroom.
- The tenant says on the same day he discovered the gaps, on 6 January 2024, he applied a timber gap product to seal the gaps visible in the ceiling slats. He says this stopped the black dust from falling on their bedsheets. After he had remedied the issue, on 31 March 2024, during a routine inspection, the tenant told the property manager about the issue, and the steps taken to remedy it. 3 As per s13A(1A)(b).
- The tenant claims exemplary damages for the period prior to the issue being remedied: from the start of the tenancy (8 July 2023) to when the tenant fixed the issue (6 January 2024).
- The landlord says he had no knowledge of the issue. The landlord said the property manager who managed the property prior to 1 April 2024 was no longer available and they had no record of any discussions between that property manager and the tenant on this issue.
- The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to find the landlord committed an unlawful act. The tenant has only provided photographic evidence of the condition of the ceiling on 6 January 2024, the day the gaps were discovered and remedied by the tenant. It is not clear how long the gaps were present, how they were caused, nor whether the landlord was aware of them prior to the tenant informing the property manager in March 2024.
- The last fact is the most significant. Even if I found that the landlord had committed an unlawful act I would decline to award exemplary damages as there is no evidence to suggest the landlord intentionally provided the premises knowing the ceiling was in a state of disrepair. On the tenant’s evidence, the landlord was not informed of the issue until 31 March 2024, at which point the gaps had been remedied.
- I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for failure to maintain the ceiling in the bedroom. Exemplary damages: failure to maintain gutters
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in that the landlord did not maintain the external gutters in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant says the gutters often blocked, causing a “waterfall” at the entrance of the premises, and separately, above the external heat pump unit.
- The tenant produced a photo taken on 2 August 2023 showing water overflowing from a downpipe near an entrance door, and two further photos taken on 12 April 2024: one showing the same downpipe overflowing by the entrance, and the second showing the gutter overflowing near where the heat pump’s external unit is.
- The tenant says he raised the issue with the property manager, who sent a handyman to clear the gutters. The tenant did not have a record of when he raised the issue with the property manager, or when the handyman attended. The tenant said the handyman had to keep returning as the issue kept recurring.
- The landlord says he has no record of the tenant’s complaints about the overflowing gutters prior to 1 April 2024. The landlord says the gutters were cleared again after the tenant moved out on 28 April 2024.
- The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Gutters can overflow in times of heavy rain, or if foliage has become stuck in them. The evidence provided by the tenant does not show any obvious damage to the gutters, such that it would be reasonable to find the landlord failed to provide the premises (or maintain the premises) to a reasonable standard.
- As with the ceiling, even if I found that the landlord had committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the gutters in a reasonable state of repair, I would decline to award exemplary damages as there is no evidence the landlord did so intentionally. To the contrary, the tenant’s evidence is that when he complained of the issue, the landlord sent a handyman to clear the gutters.
- I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for failure to maintain the gutters. Exemplary damages: broken acrylic sheet roof on upper deck
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in that the landlord did not fix the broken acrylic sheet roofing on the upper deck. The tenant says in August 2023, the tenant and property manager observed that the acrylic sheet roof had been broken by tree branches touching it, or falling on it, from a nearby tree. The tenant says soon after it was noticed, the property manager arranged to have the branches cut back but did not fix the broken acrylic sheet roofing.
- The tenant did not produce any written correspondence or other record of when the broken roofing was first raised with the property manager. The tenant produced a photograph showing the broken area, which the tenant says was sent to the property manager by text message on 6 December 2023. 4
- In January 2024, the tenant says he sent the property manager another text message suggesting the tenant would do the work to replace the acrylic sheet roofing. The tenant says the property manager agreed the tenant could carry out the repairs/replacement and the landlord would re-pay the tenant the cost of any materials used.
- On or about 23 January 2024, the tenant completed the replacement of the acrylic sheet roofing. The tenant produced a photograph taken on 23 January 2024 showing the replacement roofing he installed. The tenant says the 4 The text message was not produced as evidence. landlord paid the tenant the cost of materials used. The tenant seeks exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to repair the roof between August 2023 and January 2024.
- The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to find the landlord committed an unlawful act. The tenant has not produced evidence that the issue was brought to the property manager’s attention in August 2023, or at any point thereafter.
- As with the previous claims, even if I found that the landlord had committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the acrylic sheet roofing in a reasonable state of repair, I would decline to award exemplary damages as there is no evidence the landlord did so intentionally.
- I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for failure to maintain the acrylic sheet roofing on the upper deck. Exemplary damages: unsafe decking on back deck
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in that the landlord failed to maintain the back decking in a reasonable state of repair.
- The tenant says in July 2023, soon after the tenancy commenced on 8 July 2023, the tenant was walking on the back deck when the decking gave way and his foot went through the deck. The tenant says the pine deck was clearly old and had not been maintained. The tenant says the deck was unsafe for him and his family to use.
- The tenant says he raised the issue verbally with a handyman who came to the property on 16 July 2023. The handyman had been arranged by the landlord to deal with other issues inside the house and said he had no instructions to do any work on the back deck. The tenant says the handyman attended again on 21 August 2024, again to carry out other work, and the tenant again raised the back deck with him verbally. The handyman repeated that he did not have instructions from the landlord to carry out work on the back deck.
- The tenant says he first raised the issue with the property manager on 31 August 2023. The tenant did not have any record of that discussion. The landlord says the property manager that the tenant spoke to was no longer available and they had no record of any discussions between that property manager and the tenant.
- On 6 December 2023, the tenant took a photograph of the decking. The photograph shows four separate areas where the decking has either completely fallen through, or partially. The tenant says he sent the photograph to the landlord on that date. 5
- The tenant says, as with the acrylic roofing on the upper deck, the tenant offered to do the work himself to replace the rotten pieces of decking. The tenant says the landlord agreed. The tenant says he did not incur any cost for materials used as he had some spare timber which he used to replace the rotten sections.
- The tenant produced a photograph taken 2 January 2024 which shows the pieces he removed from the deck. A further photograph taken 23 January 2024 shows the new decking where the rotten pieces were removed. The tenant seeks exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the decking between July 2023 and January 2024.
- The landlord says the tenant should have notified the property manager, not the handyman, of the issue on 16 July and 21 August 2023. The landlord says if the property manager did not take action after the issue was raised on 31 August 2023, the tenant should have followed up with the property manager.
- The landlord could not confirm whether the deck was made from pine, nor the age of the decking.
- I am satisfied the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the back decking in a reasonable state of repair. The photograph taken 6 December 2023 shows the deck was in poor condition, with several parts of the deck falling through and showing signs of rot. While neither party produced photographic evidence of the condition the back deck was in at the start of the tenancy, I am satisfied the tenant has proved it is more likely than not that the deck was not well maintained as at 8 July 2023. Wooden decking does not deteriorate quickly, and I am satisfied it is more likely than not that parts of the decking were rotten at the start of the tenancy.
- I am satisfied the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Any reasonable person viewing that deck could see that the deck was aged and not in good condition.
- I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages taking into account the tenant and his young family were unable to enjoy the use of the back deck from the start of the tenancy until it was remedied by the tenant in January 2024 (a total of at least six months).
- The maximum amount that can be awarded in exemplary damages for breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA is $7,200. I consider an appropriate award is at the lower end of the amount available because the impact was really of 5 The text message was not produced as evidence. inconvenience. I also taken into account that the tenant did not raise the issue with the property manager until 31 August 2024.
- The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $500 exemplary damages. Exemplary damages: failure to provide heat pump in reasonable state of cleanliness
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under s45(1)(a) of the RTA in that the heat pump was not clean at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant says he emailed the property manager on 11 July 2023 noting the filters in the two heat pumps in the premises were full of dust. The tenant has provided a copy of the email, in which the tenant raised several issues on that date. 6
- The tenant says the property manager agreed to send someone to clean the heat pump filters, but the tenant says he decided to do it himself on the same day as he was conscious his wife and toddler suffer from asthma (or have in the past). The tenant is claiming exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises (and its chattels) in a reasonably clean condition.
- Attached to the tenant’s email of 11 July 2023 are two photos showing the filters of the heat pump were not clean.
- In response to the claim, the landlord questioned why the tenant was bringing the claim given the tenant decided to clean the filters themselves.
- The landlord’s obligation is to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. That includes the chattels provided for the tenant’s use. I am satisfied the evidence produced shows the heat pump filters were not reasonably clean as at 11 July 2023, and the amount of dust at that date indicates the filters would not have been reasonably clean three days earlier, when the tenancy began.
- I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
- I am satisfied the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Any reasonable person checking the premises was in a reasonably clean condition could see that the heat pump filters were not reasonably clean.
- I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages taking into account the tenant had to clean the filters before being able to use the heat pumps.
- The maximum amount that can be awarded in exemplary damages for breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA is $7,200. I consider it appropriate to award a nominal 6 The other issues raised in the email of 11 July 2023 did not relate to the tenant’s claims in this application. amount to recognise the time taken by the tenant to clean the heat pumps themselves on 11 July 2023.
- The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $200 exemplary damages. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant’s application fee?
- As the tenant has substantially succeeded with their claim the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 7
- As the tenant has substantially succeeded in their claim, an order is made suppressing their name.
- At the hearing the landlord confirmed they do not seek suppression.