What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5113150 about?

The tribunal order states: This order amends and replaces the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 12

How much money was awarded in case 5113150?

2 Bottled Of Gas: $309.53 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,165.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $494.30 awarded to tenant; Repainting Interior: $633.05 awarded to landlord; Replacing The Carpet: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Replacing The Shower Lining: $189.38 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $437.66 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5113150?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5113150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12828246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5113150 about?

The tribunal order states: This order amends and replaces the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 12

How much money was awarded in case 5113150?

2 Bottled Of Gas: $309.53 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,165.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $494.30 awarded to tenant; Repainting Interior: $633.05 awarded to landlord; Replacing The Carpet: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Replacing The Shower Lining: $189.38 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $437.66 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5113150?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5113150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12828246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5113150 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5113150 — net $4,481.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to install fibre	$500.00		Failing to install fibre
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain the premises	$1,080.00		Failing to maintain the premises
Repainting interior	$633.05		Repainting interior
Rent arrears to 16 January 2025		$494.30	11. The landlord claims: a) rent arrears, b) water rates arrears, c) compensation for: i.the cost for 2 x 45kg bottles of gas at the end of the tenancy ii.remo…
Exemplary damages: Terminating the tenancy without		$2,165.00	Terminating the tenancy without
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Water rates		$437.66	Water rates
2 bottled of gas		$309.53	2 bottled of gas
Replacing the carpet		$150.00	Replacing the carpet
Replacing the shower lining		$189.38	Replacing the shower lining
Total award	$2,213.92	$6,695.00
Net award		$4,481.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,481.08

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5113150 — net $4,481.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to install fibre	$500.00		Failing to install fibre
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain the premises	$1,080.00		Failing to maintain the premises
Repainting interior	$633.05		Repainting interior
Rent arrears to 16 January 2025		$494.30	11. The landlord claims: a) rent arrears, b) water rates arrears, c) compensation for: i.the cost for 2 x 45kg bottles of gas at the end of the tenancy ii.remo…
Exemplary damages: Terminating the tenancy without		$2,165.00	Terminating the tenancy without
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Water rates		$437.66	Water rates
2 bottled of gas		$309.53	2 bottled of gas
Replacing the carpet		$150.00	Replacing the carpet
Replacing the shower lining		$189.38	Replacing the shower lining
Total award	$2,213.92	$6,695.00
Net award		$4,481.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,481.08

Order

This order amends and replaces the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 12 October 2025 by correcting the landlord’s name. In all other respects the Order is unchanged.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $4,981.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The remainder of the tenant’s and the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Amended Order:

On 12 October 2025 I made an order determining both parties’ claims under applications 5113150, 5186491. In that order, I recorded the landlord’s name as [The landlord/s] as is stated on the tenancy agreement and in most of the landlord’s communications to the tenant.
The landlord’s cross application is made in the name of [The landlord/s]. The landlord requested her desire to be known as [The landlord/s] at one of the hearings held in relation to these claims. The amendment corrects and replaces my earlier order to reflect that the landlord is known by both surnames and to include the landlord’s middle name as is shown in her application.
Any reference in the Reasons section of my order to [The landlord/s] is also to be read as if I have typed [The landlord/s].
In all other respects the order my reasons for the order remain unchanged. Reasons for the order:
The claims were heard over several hearings: 13 March, 11 and 12 June, 8 July 2025. The landlord and the tenant attended all the hearings, and both had a supporter present with them throughout. The last hearing was heard by telephone, and all earlier hearings were in-person hearings.
Both parties filed an application. Background
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy. The first term was from 24 November 2019 until 26 November 2020. The tenancy was verbally renewed each year on the expiry of the term for a further year until 26 November 2024 when the landlord advised that she was extending the fixed term to 10 December 2024. On 9 December 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice that the tenancy would not be renewed and the tenant had to vacate the premises by 10 January 2025.
The property is a three bedroomed property with a lounge, dining/kitchen, and attached garage. The property was built in 2005. It is located on the right rear of a large site. There is a second older house at the front of the site, which is also owned by the landlord. During the tenancy the landlord was renovating the house at the front (referred to as “the old house”) for her and her husband to live in. The landlord moved into the old house in early 2024.
Both houses have decks that lookout onto a large backyard. The decks are around 3 meters apart. The claims
The tenant claims refund of the bond ($1,200.00) and exemplary damages for the landlord: a) failing to lodge the bond b) giving an invalid notice to end the tenancy c) the notice to end the tenancy being retaliatory d) withholding fibre installation e) charging fixed water rate charges and gas bottle rental charges f)failing to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard relating to: failing to replace the dishwasher and not maintaining the deck g) breaching the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment to the extent that amounts to harassment
The landlord claims: a) rent arrears, b) water rates arrears, c) compensation for: i.the cost for 2 x 45kg bottles of gas at the end of the tenancy ii.removal of garden waste iii.the missing dishwasher iv.repainting the interior of the premises v.replacing the carpet vi.damage caused to the towel rail, vanity, and shower lining vii.damage to the oven viii.damage to the kitchen cabinetry ix.laundry tub repairs x.damage to the front door lock xi.damage to the vinyl
In general the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making the claim. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party making the claim must establish with evidence that what is claimed is proven to be “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”, including the amount they are claiming.
The tenant’s claim is for exemplary damages and the landlord’s claim is for compensation. Compensation and exemplary damages and are different remedies.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has breached the tenancy agreement or has breached provisions contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and where the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. It is a well-accepted principle when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in but for the breach.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses, which is the case and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The landlord’s compensation claims are for actual losses.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court, noting the decision of the Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No.2) Auckland TT 2378/92, confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors in considering how much compensation should be awarded: a)the nature of the breach; b)the duration of the breach; and c)the effect of the breach on the party.
When a provision of the RTA is breached which is stated to be an unlawful act then the Tribunal can consider awarding exemplary damages (see s109 and Schedule 1A, RTA). Exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature, but are a penalty that is awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion in cases of serious breach where a party has intentionally engaged in an unlawful act and it is considered just, having regard to certain factors, to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval of the manner in which that occurred and deter a party from future such offences.
Claims for exemplary damages must be made within certain time limits 1 . An application for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond or to keep records in respect of bonds must be made no later than 12 months after termination of the tenancy. For any other unlawful act, an application must be made no later than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. 1 Section 109(2) RTA The tenant’s claim:

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required by the RTA?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment is received from the tenant. This applies whether a bond is paid in part or whole, and regardless of whether the tenant has signed the bond lodgement form. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 2 .
The tenant paid $1,200.00 in bond on 16 December 2019 when he signed the tenancy agreement, which was after the tenancy started. Under s19(1) the bond was required to be forwarded by the landlord to the Bond Centre by the end of the day on 21 January 2020.
The landlord did not lodge the bond. As the bond has not been paid to the Bond Centre more than 23 working days after it was received a breach of s 19(1) has occurred and the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
This tenancy is the first time the landlord has rented out a property. The landlord confessed to not knowing “much at all” about being a landlord. It was apparent to me that the landlord had not realised until after the tenant requested the bond lodgement number on 22 December 2024 that she had to forward the bond to the Bond Centre, let alone that it had to be lodged within a required time period. The landlord said she tried to lodge the bond after the tenant contacted her, but says her computer skills let her down and she believed she could not lodge the bond as she was out of time.
The landlord did not ring Tenancy Services to ask about lodging the bond even though she had called them seeking advice on other matters. Likewise she had gone to Tenancy Services’ office in Tauranga, and a lawyer also seeking advice on other matters relating to the tenancy, but did not ask either about lodging the bond. The bond has remained in the landlord’s bank account since December 2019.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or made a mistake, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies 3 ; the landlord is experienced 4 ; and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant. 5 2 See section 19(1) and (2) and Schedule 1A, RTA. 3 Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01 4 Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02 5 Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373
While I accept this is the landlord’s first experience as a landlord that does not provide a defence to her failure to meet her obligation to lodge the bond. I am not satisfied this is a situation where the landlord forgot or was mistaken in lodging the bond. In my view she simply did not investigate what her lawful obligations and responsibilities were before becoming a landlord. When the tenant’s request brought to her attention that she had to lodge she did not take reasonable steps to do so. I infer intention on the part of the landlord at least from the time the tenant requested the bond lodgement number.
The tenant realised the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre when he rang Tenancy Services help line in November 2024 regarding other issues he had relating to the tenancy. The effect on him is that he was concerned he would never see the bond money again.
A bond is the tenant’s money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interest. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the RTA.
I am satisfied that this is a situation where it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. I find an award of $750.00, being 50% of the maximum amount that can be awarded is appropriate having considered all of the factors. The award is made particularly to deter the landlord from failing to lodge any future bonds.

Did the landlord give an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

Under section 60AA, RTA 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.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00 6 .
As set out above, the tenancy is a fixed term tenancy. The fixed term which was due to expire on 26 November 2024 was extended by the landlord on 22 November 2024 to a new end date of 10 December 2024. On 9 December 2024 the landlord gave the tenant a notice advising the fixed term tenancy would not be renewed and that the tenant had to vacate by 10 January 2025.
Section 60A, RTA sets out when parties to a fixed term tenancy can end the tenancy and when it continues as a periodic tenancy. Section 60A(1) provides that when a fixed term tenancy of more than 90 days expires the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as contained in the expired tenancy. 6 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 60A(2) sets out situations where the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy (ie as under section 60A(1)), including when a landlord is able to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term tenancy.
Section 60A(2) has been amended a number of times. In this instance as the tenancy was granted before 11 February 2021 the landlord was able to give notice ending the fixed term. However the notice had to be given no more than 90 days and not less than 21 days before the day on which the fixed term expired 7 .
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was not valid as she did not give the tenant the required days of notice before the end of the fixed term. That is, the landlord did not give the tenant more than 90 days and not less than 21 days’ notice that the tenancy would end at the expiry of the fixed term. Instead she gave the tenant 1 days’ notice (on 9 December) that the fixed term would not be renewed on 10 December and then gave the tenant until 10 January 2025 to vacate.
The landlord’s notice/s do not comply with her legal obligations under s 60A for the following reasons: a) To be able to end the tenancy the landlord needed to give no less than 21 days’ notice and no more than 90 days’ notice before the end of the fixed term. This period of notice should have been given to the tenant before 26 November 2024. b) The landlord‘s notice to extend the fixed term from 26 November to 10 December is not valid, as any extension of the term has to be agreed to by the tenant. One party to an agreement cannot unilaterally change the terms of the agreement. From the evidence I understand that the tenant did not agree to the extension but was simply informed the term was extended. However even if the tenant did agree, the landlord needed to give the same notice of not less than 21 days and not more than 90 days to end the tenancy before 10 December 2025. Instead she gave 1 days’ notice on 9 December 2025. c) Under the landlord’s notice the tenant had to vacate by 10 January 2025. The tenancy continued after the expiry of the fixed term, regardless of whether it is considered the fixed term expired on 26 November or 10 December, and in doing so became a periodic tenancy 8 . 7 See section60A version that was inserted in the RTA on 1 October 2010 by s 42 o the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2010 and the transition provision in schedule 1AA, Clause 34 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 8 See s 60A(1) d) As the tenancy became a periodic tenancy the landlord had to give notice in keeping with notice required to end a periodic tenancy. At that time 9 a landlord could give either 63 days’ notice or 90 days’ notice to terminate a periodic tenancy if their reason to do so complied with the reasons set out in section 51. Here, regardless of the reasons given to end the tenancy, the landlord only gave 32 days’ notice which is far less than the required notice.
Therefore, the landlord was not entitled to give the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy.
For there to be a breach of s 60AA the landlord must have given the notice knowing she was not entitled to do so. The generally accepted legal definition of “knowledge/knowing” is that a person has actual knowledge, full awareness and consciousness. It also covers a person who should have known of the circumstance or result and includes acting with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard, often described as wilful blindness or indifference.
I have considered whether the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the landlord terminated the tenancy knowing she was not entitled to. In my view there are several factors which persuade me that the landlord knew, or ought to have known, she was not entitled to give the termination notice: a) The landlord presented a standard form Tenancy Services’ notice letter which she says she relied on in deciding she could give the tenant notice to end the tenancy. The letter is the correct notice letter for landlords who intend not to continue a fixed-term tenancy past the expiry date where the tenancy started before 11 February 2021 (which is the case here). The letter says: The letter serves as notice that the fixed-term tenancy at the above address will expire on [tenancy agreement date] and will not be continued past this date. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires this notice to be served not more than 90 days and not less than 21 days before the date on which the tenancy expires. b) However, the landlord’s notice is not in keeping with what is in the letter as it does not comply with the time frames for service. So while the landlord said she has relied on it as giving her the ability to end the tenancy she has not conformed with it as she gave the tenant 1 day’s notice instead. c) When I pointed out to the landlord that her notice was not given to the tenant within the ‘less than 90 days but more than 21 day’ before 10 December (the expiry date of the tenancy, she said she misunderstood what the letter said. The time requirement for notices is clearly set out in the standard form letter.
In my view the landlord must have read the standard form letter to know it was the correct notice letter for her to use. She said she relied on the content in the 9 Under the 2023 version of the RTA letter, which also persuades me that she must have read it. As I have stated, the wording is clear. If the landlord did not understand what it meant she should have sought assistance before acting. Accordingly, I find the landlord had knowledge and has committed an unlawful act under s 60AA.
I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages should be made for this breach. I award $2,165.00 being one-third of the maximum award available. In making this award I have considered: a)The landlord’s intention: It is not necessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, simply that they intended to commit the act or omission that amounts to a breach. 10 The landlord’s intention is proven as she intended to give the tenant the notice to end the tenancy. b)The effect of the tenant: the tenant and his family had lived in the premises for 5 years and found getting notice in mid-December to move by 10 January very stressful. The tenant said it was difficult to find rental properties at that time of the year, and that the move had meant they were packing up over Christmas, which was not as joyful as it should have been. The tenant said he contacted the landlord 11 after calling Tenancy Services and told her that her notice was invalid, but did not get a response. The tenant said his wife’s health was significantly affected by the notice. c)The public interest: It is in the public interest that a landlord only gives notice to terminate a tenancy when the law enables them to do so. Terminating a tenancy is a serious matter which can cause major upheaval and disruption for tenant/s. Is the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?
Under s 54, RTA a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that a termination notice, which complies with the requirements of s 51, was retaliatory on the grounds that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising or proposing to exercise, any right, power authority, or remedy they have under the RTA. If a notice is declared to be retaliatory, the giving of the notice is an unlawful act and exemplary damages to a maximum of $6,500.00 may be awarded.
However, this notice is not a valid notice under s 51.
Section 51 sets out various reasons when a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by either giving 63 day’s notice, or 90 days’ notice 12 . As stated above as 10 Parton v Fifita DC Auckland TT1815/00, 1 May 2001 11 By either text or email 12 On 30 January 2025, section 51 was amended to enable the landlord of a periodic tenancy to give 90 days’ notice to terminate without specifying a cause or reason. However the law that applies is the version of section 51 that was in effect at the time the notice was given. the tenancy continued past the expiry of the extended fixed term it became a periodic tenancy. However the landlord has given 31 days’ notice, therefore it does not comply with section 51 regardless of the reasons stated to terminate.
For that reason the notice cannot be considered to be retaliatory and this part of the tenant’s application is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to permit and facilitate installation of fibre connection to the premises?
Section 45B(1), RTA requires a landlord to permit to install a fibre connection in tenancy premises if: a) there is no fibre connection; and b) it is possible to install a fibre connection; and c) the tenant requests a fibre connection; and d) the fibre connection can be installed at no cost to the landlord.
Section 45B(2) sets out various circumstances when a landlord is not required to permit installation of fibre, including if the installation would materially compromise the weathertightness, character or structural integrity of the building, breach an obligation or restriction that is relevant to the premises (such as a bylaw or covenant), or impede extensive alterations, repairs or redevelopment of the premises.
A landlord who is required to permit the installation of a fibre connection must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the installation within a reasonable period of time (see s 45B(3)).
A landlord commits an unlawful act if the landlord, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with 45B(3), (4) or (5) for which exemplary damages may be awarded to a maximum amount of $1,500.00.
The tenant said [Electricity Provider] commenced installing fibre in the area in 2021. He contacted [Electricity Provider] to arrange fibre to be installed at the tenancy premises. [Electricity Provider] came to the premises in April 2021 and the tenant provided [Electricity Provider] with the landlord’s contact details. The tenant’s evidence is that [Electricity Provider] three times were told not to install fibre by the landlord’s husband, [redacted], as he was not happy with the position that [Electricity Provider] suggested for the fibre connection. The tenant said when fibre was eventually installed it was into the same route [Electricity Provider] had proposed in 2021.
The tenant said he had regularly raised having fibre installed at inspections since 2021, including during the last inspection in October 2024.
The landlord agreed that the tenant had approached her about having fibre connected and that she agreed to “look at it” but could not remember when that occurred. She said in doing so, the tenant told her there was “no hurry” as he had a package with a supplier which included power and internet. The landlord said it “was news to [her]” that [Electricity Provider] had been turned away from installing fibre to the tenancy premises, and that she only discussed fibre connection once with the tenant. She has no recall of discussing connection to fibre at inspections.
Having considered both parties’ evidence I am persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that he had requested fibre connection regularly from April 2021, and that [Electricity Provider] had not been given permission to install it at the premises by the landlord. In making this finding I am persuaded that [The landlord/s]’ husband had acted as her agent in dealing with [Electricity Provider].
The landlord’s evidence does not establish she is not required to permit the installation of fibre under s 45B(2).
I find the landlord has breached her obligation under s 45B and has committed an unlawful act. I am satisfied that exemplary damages may be considered as I am persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that he asked the landlord for fibre to be installed within 12 months prior to making his application and it was not installed in a reasonable time.
I am satisfied that breach is intentional as the landlord did not take any action to arrange for fibre to be installed and her husband, as her agent, prevented fibre installation until after October 2024.
The effect on the tenants is that they have not had the benefit of fibre connection. The tenant and his family were reliant on the internet for their business and study. I am satisfied they had to pay more for internet connection than they would have, had fibre been installed.
It is in the public interest that landlords meet their legal obligations. The government has provided free installation of fibre in order to ensure households have access to a faster, more reliable and higher-capacity internet connection. The landlord was not aware that fibre installation did not involve a cost to her.
I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages should be made for this breach. I find an award of $500.00, being one-third of the maximum that can be awarded, is appropriate. Can exemplary damages be awarded in favour of the tenant for being charged fixed charges for water rates and gas bottle consumption?
Section 39, RTA sets out that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. That means tenants are liable for (for example) the cost of water used during the tenant but not the fixed charges charged by the Council.
The tenant claims he was charged fixed charges relating to water and gas during the tenancy. However, such a breach by a landlord is not deemed to be an unlawful act under section 39, therefore exemplary damages for breach of this section cannot be claimed. The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The fixed charges for water and gas bottle rental are discussed below as part of the landlord’s claim.

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable standard?

Section 45(1)(b), RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s obligations under s 45(1)(b) requires the landlord to respond in a reasonable time to requests that arise from maintenance issues affecting the tenant’s use of the premises.
The tenants’ claim the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) in relation to the matters set out below. Failing to replace the dishwasher
The tenant said the dishwasher stopped working on 20 October 2021. The landlord was advised the next day during an inspection of the premises. On 30 November 2021 the landlord told the tenant that [The electrician], an electrician she knew, would be coming to look at the dishwasher. [The electrician] later advised the landlord that he did not know why the dishwasher had stopped working.
The tenant maintains he asked the landlord at inspections after that when the dishwasher was going to be fixed or replaced, and that as neither occurred he purchased a replacement refurbished dishwasher ($350.00) on 14 January 2023 and installed it.
The landlord says the tenant offered to purchase a second hand dishwasher which is why she did nothing more after [The electrician] had looked at it. The landlord said it was difficult for her to get to [Town] during the time the dishwasher was not working as she was based in Auckland which was subject to Covid lockdown.
I find that the landlord has breached section 45(1)(b) as she knew the dishwasher did not work from 21 October 2021 and did not fix or replace it in reasonable time. It took the landlord a month to organise [The electrician] to look at the dishwasher and she took no further action after that. I am persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that he did not offer to purchase a second hand dishwasher during 2021 or 2022, as had he done so I am satisfied he would have organised a replacement dishwasher much sooner than January 2023.
I am not persuaded that Auckland was in lockdown at any time on or after 21 October when the landlord was told about the dishwasher 13 . However, even if the landlord was in lockdown when she was told the dishwasher had failed she could have organised for the repair or replacement of the dishwasher by telephone.
I find the landlord has breached her obligation under s 45(1)(b) as she did not take repair or replace the dishwasher in a reasonable time after being notified it had failed.
However an award of exemplary damages is not made as the tenant’s application is made outside of the relevant time limit. That is, the breach of failing to maintain was remedied when the tenant purchased the replacement dishwasher in January 2023. The tenant’s application was made more than 12 months after that. Therefore this part of the claim is dismissed. Maintaining the deck
The tenant claims the deck by the front door was slippery and dangerous. He said he water blasted the deck once a year from the start of the tenancy as mould was ingrained in the wooden decking and the lack of sun on the deck and leaves from surrounding trees caused it to be slippery. In early June 2022 his wife slipped on the deck and damaged her knee.
The tenant believed the deck needed a chemical treatment to prevent its ongoing slippery condition. He asked the landlord to provide the appropriate chemicals for spraying the deck and to put chicken wire on the treads for safety but that did not happen. The tenant claims the landlord promised that her husband would spray the deck with chemicals from time to time but that did not happen.
The landlord said she was not aware the tenant found the deck slippery and was not told about the tenant’s wife’s fall. She said the tenant told her he would apply chemicals to the deck, which she had purchased.
The landlord is responsible for carrying out maintenance to the outside of the premises, such as water blasting and spraying decks when they become mouldy, slippery or otherwise in poor condition. It was apparent to me from the landlord’s evidence, that she considered maintenance of this nature was the tenant’s 13 The NZ Royal Commission COVID-19 Lessons Learned Report records in its timeline that all of New Zealand went into lockdown on 18 August 2021 and that Auckland stayed in lockdown until 22 September while the rest of NZ came out of lockdown on 1 September 2021. See www.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/reports-lessons-learned/main-report/part-two/1-1-timeline- of-key-events. responsibility. I note the landlord provided incorrect statements, generated by [AI], which said the tenant was liable for such work.
The evidence for much of this issue consists of memories the parties have of what occurred throughout the tenancy. However, there are texts between the parties sent on 18 July 2022 which establish that the landlord knew the deck was slippery, that she had discussed it with the tenant and that he was to clean the mould and lichen off the deck “asap for health and safety”. The next day she texted the tenant her husband would address the problem when he was there at the weekend and that the tenants should enter the house through the front garage doors until the deck is cleaned 14 .
The landlord’s evidence is that during the tenancy the tenant had not swept the deck and had allowed it to stay dirty, and that at the end of the tenancy debris and dirt had built up on the deck.
It is my view that the photographs provided establish that the deck needed water blasting at the end of the tenancy and that the dark surface on the treads was mould rather than dirt. I am not convinced that the landlord sprayed the deck in July 2022 or any other occasion, or water blasted the deck throughout the tenancy.
The fact that the tenant water blasted the deck does not alleviate the landlord of her responsibilities. I see the tenant’s actions simply as actions he took to keep his family safe as the landlord was not maintaining the deck.
I find the landlord has continued to breach s 45(1)(b) by of failing to maintain the deck throughout the tenancy. I am satisfied that an award for exemplary damages should be made for this breach.
I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages should be made for this breach. I award $1,080.00 being 15% of the maximum award available. In making this award I have considered: a)The landlord’s intention: I find the landlord knew the deck needed ongoing maintenance as this was brought to her attention by the tenant a number of times during the tenancy. The landlord had said she would organise for the deck to be sprayed but failed to do so. b)The effect of the tenant: the tenant and his family did not use the deck as much as they would have had the deck been maintained so that it was not slippery. After the tenant’s wife slipped on the deck they stopped using the front door entrance. 14 This is one of the instances the tenant has referred to when the landlord said she would do work on the deck but did not do so. c)The public interest: It is in the public interest that a landlord understands what their maintenance requirements are in tenancy premises and ensures maintenance is carried out on a regular basis. Did the landlord breach the tenants right to quiet enjoyment? If so, does it amount to harassment?
A tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent (s 38(1), RTA). In addition, the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises (s 38 (2)). Effectively this imposes a duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises and preserves the tenant’s right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly or unreasonably impaired by actions of the landlord or their agent/s.
Where a landlord breaches s 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may also be awarded to a maximum limit of $3,000.00. See sections 38(3), 109 and Schedule 1A RTA.
“Harassment” is not defined in the Act. The District Court in MacDonald v Dodds 15 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was appropriate in the context of s 38(3). The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as meaning “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
The tenant claims the landlord breached their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises as: a) Fence
The landlord promised before the tenancy started that a fence would be built between the tenancy premises and the old house. The landlord recorded in the tenancy agreement that the fence would be finished within a month of the tenancy starting (that is by 19 December 2019). On 30 November 2020 the landlord told the tenant by text that the fence would be built by late January 2021. After further enquiries about when the fence would be erected the tenant was told in 2024 that it would be built when the renovations to the old house were finished. A fence was not erected before the end of the tenancy. 15 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The deck and living areas of the tenancy premises and the deck for the old house look out on the same rear yard. The tenant was aware of what part of the yard he could use regardless that there was no fence. However, the landlord piled demolition and construction debris and other building materials associated with the renovation in part of the rear yard she used. The tenant said that without a fence it was too dangerous for his twin grandchildren children to play outside. The twins were born in early August 2022 and lived at the property.
The distance between the deck of the tenancy premises and the deck of the old house is around 3 meters at the most. The tenant was concerned the twins would go into the old house’s yard and be injured by nails, screws or other building equipment, or escape out of the old house’s driveway that did not have a gate. As a consequence the tenant claims he and his family could not use the outside of the premises as much as they would have liked or use it in the manner they wanted. b) Construction noise, hazards and visual impact
The tenant was told before the tenancy commenced that the landlord was going to be renovating the old house at the front of the site to live in. The tenant said renovation work on the property started some time before September 2022, when he started keeping a diary of when the landlord or her husband were at the premises 16 . He said noise from renovations was ongoing until he moved out in January 2025. He said skill saws, nail guns and other building construction noise occurred most if not all weekends until 2024. From early 2024 building work was being done at least 5 and up to 7 days a week at the old house property. The renovation was not complete by the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said in addition to the ongoing noise at weekends the outlook onto the partly renovated property, with demolition debris and construction materials in the yard and the ongoing work at the weekends, meant they did not invite family and friends to visit as much as they would have otherwise. c) Lack of privacy
The tenant said the landlord and her partner increasingly used their deck during 2024 and he and his family felt they were staring into the tenancy premises. The tenant was concerned that other persons on site associated with the renovation work were staring into the tenancy premises which worried him due to the presence of his two daughters. 16 The tenant said he started keeping the diary because of the increased presence at the property of the landlord, the noise from construction/renovation work that was occurring and general concerns of lack of privacy.
The question as to whether a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been significantly impacted by the actions of the landlord will often arise in situations where the landlord undertakes remedial work or renovation on the tenant’s property or on a property nearby. Where tenants have prior knowledge before they started the tenancy that renovation work was to be undertaken, reasonable expectations need to be considered in determining what amounts to reasonable interference. Each case will be determined on the facts proven and require an objective assessment as to whether the intrusion impacting the quality of the tenancy is over and above that which a tenant could be reasonably expected to endure in the circumstances.
In Smith v Floris Auckland 17 , the Tribunal stated “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.
In Lucas v Paterson 18 , the District Court held that where landlords were renovating the property, tenants were required to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance. The Court stated 19 : Were every landlord who embarked on renovations to be in immediate jeopardy of quiet enjoyment breach, we would have an unworkable state of affairs. Proportionality must not be forgotten.
The Court in Lucas considered the definitions of “peace, comfort and privacy” to be: “Peace” in the use of the premises is freedom of the mind from annoyance, distraction, dissension, anxiety, insecurity or noise that might arise from unwarranted attendance, challenge or intrusion. “Comfort” in the use of the premises is a state of ease and satisfaction, and overlaps with “peace” to the extent that it also includes freedom from anxiety. “Privacy” in the use of the premises is freedom from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life; the freedom to be left alone. It overlaps with “peace” to the extent that it includes freedom from unwarranted attendance or intrusion.
The word “premises” includes the right to quiet enjoyment in relation to all aspects of the tenancy premises including lawns and gardens.
In my view the landlord or her agent/s have interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy for the following reasons: a) The landlord told the landlord she was renovating the old house but did not explain the extent of the work that was going to be done, that the work was being done gradually over an extended period of time, or that at least to start 17 TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6 18 [2005] DCR 76 19 at [36] with the work was to be done mainly over weekends. Given that, I find the tenant’s expectations that the renovations probably included some painting and some construction work, but that he did not expect the work to be as extensive and take as long as it did, were reasonable. b) The work carried out was major work. The landlord’s evidence is that she thought the work started in December 2020. The landlord’s husband carried out most of the work until 2024 when a builder stated working part time and then almost if not full time. The work involved repiling part of the house; recladding the exterior; replacing the roof; replacing window joinery; replacing 50% of the internal wall and ceiling cladding; rebuilding the deck and adding a roof to the deck; replacing the kitchen and bathroom. The exterior and the interior of the house is to be repainted. The landlord said little work was done in 2023 husband had a shoulder operation and was not able to work). c) The renovation debris in the back yard was the view the tenant had from the tenancy premises deck and living room. The photos show the amount of debris was extensive and unsightly, and included the toilet and shower box that had been taken out of the old house. The landlord could not know with certainty how long they sat there but believed that it was for “maybe a year”. She confirmed the piles of wood removed out of the old house were left in piles in full view of the tenancy premises for similar periods of time as they were being cut up for firewood. d) The reasonable expectation of the tenant was that a fence would be built soon after the tenancy started between the properties. The landlord should have given the tenant an oversight of the type of fence that would be built but that was not discussed. Even if a fence had been built that did not have panels providing some privacy, it would have given the tenant peace of mind that his grandchildren were secure and eased the anxiety levels of the tenant and the rest of his family. The landlord raised that she could not erect a solid fence, such as a timber fence, due to Council rules but did not provide evidence establishing that was the case. e) The construction work has gone on for years. The tenant’s privacy has been affected more than had the work been completed within say six months, or even a year. The tenant had no prior knowledge that the renovation work was extensive and would take as long as it did. I am satisfied that this caused ongoing intrusion on the tenant’s life’s particularly during weekends. In addition, as there was no fence or barrier between the properties, the tenant and his family were left not knowing if or when someone associated with the building work might arrive and wander into the tenant’s area of the yard.
Ultimately it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the renovation work on the old house did not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. I find the landlord has failed to meet that obligation and that this has resulted in interference and intrusion over and above that which a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure in the circumstances.
I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages should be made for this breach. I award $1,000.00 being one-third of the maximum award available. In making this award I have considered: a) the landlord’s intention is proven as she, or her agents including her husband, have undertaken the actions that have caused the interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy in his and his family’s use of the premises. It does not appear that the landlord has given sufficient thought to the effect her actions have had on the tenant and his family; b) The effect on the tenant has been significant in terms of how they have used the premises and how much they have been able to enjoy living there. The tenant says the effect on the family has been great, particularly in terms of the stress and anxieties caused. c) It is in the public interest that the tenants live in tenancy premises without the landlord interfering with their right to peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. The landlord’s claim:

How much is owed for rent?

The rent summary provided by the landlord was not correct in that: a) the rent summary shows the tenant paid two weeks rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, however only one week’s rent was credited towards rent b) rent paid was not always applied to the week the rent was paid in but was often applied to the week after. This meant the some of the weeks the landlord said rent was not paid were incorrect c) the calculation of rent paid at the bottom of each page in the summary is not always correct.
The tenant has supplied bank statements for a number of rent payments. I am satisfied all of the payments on the bank summary show on the rent summary. The tenant said he paid rent in cash on occasions, however he has not produced any proof, such as a receipt from the landlord, for these payments. The landlord denies receiving any cash for rent payments.
I find the tenant owes $494.30 for rent. I have totalled the amount of rent shown as paid in the rent summary during the tenancy ($121,460.00) and deducted that from the total rent owed for the length of the tenancy ($121,954.30). In calculating the rent owed I have not considered any credit relating to the dishwasher as it is not included in the rent summary provided by the landlord.

How much is owed for water rates?

Under section 39, RTA the tenant is responsible for all outgoings, such as water rates, in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 20 It is well established in New Zealand that the supply (fixed) water charges cannot be charged to the tenant 21 .
The tenant paid the water rates invoices forwarded by the landlord from the start of the tenancy to and including the invoice dated 15 February 2023 22 . The tenant paid the invoices in full, including the fixed charges. The tenant did not pay invoices after that as he disputed he was responsible for the fixed charges included in the water rates. To and including the 15 February 2023 invoice I find the tenant had paid $457.78 in fixed charges.
The landlord seeks $1,521.12 in unpaid water rates.
I find the tenant owes the landlord $437.66 for water consumed from 31 January 2023 as calculated below: Water consumption charged: 31 January 2023 to 1 August 2023$273.82 1 August 2023 to 2 February 2024$306.27 2 February 2024 to 16 July 2024$225.35 16 July 2024 to 16 January 2025$ 90.00 $895.44 Less fixed charges paid by the tenant $457.78 $437.66
The landlord did not pay all of the Council’s water rates invoices on time and has incurred penalties. The tenant is not liable for the penalties charged as it is the landlord’s responsibility to meet her contractual obligations with the Council by paying the invoices by the date required.
The tenant raised that the site, including the tenancy premises and the old house, only had one meter and that water being used at [Tenancy address suppressed] was being paid for by him. He said he saw water bottles being filled and a hose being used from a tap on the side of the old house. The landlord’s evidence is that the water pipes to the old house were disconnected 20 The landlord provided an earlier version of section 39 which was replaced by the current section on 1 October 2010. 21 Also see the Tenancy Services Website https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/rent-bond-and-bills/water-and- wastewatercharges/ 22 The invoice was for water consumed between 1 August 22 and 31 January 2023. before the tenancy started and were reconnected with a separate meter in March 2025. Before March the landlord said they used tanks of water which were stored around the far side of the old house and brought drinking water with them.
The tenant has not provided any corroborating evidence such as a photo of a tap on the side of the house being used. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the landlord was using water at the old house from the tenancy premises metered supply.

Is the landlord entitled to the cost of 2x 45kg gas bottles?

The landlord seeks $309.53 for 2x 45kg of gas (ie not the gas bottle rental) as she supplied 2 full bottles when the tenancy started. The tenant did not leave full gas bottles at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said the landlord’s husband’s comments to him about how much gas was being used for “long showers” caused him decide to change the gas account into his name (bottle rental and gas supply). He did not advise the landlord he had transferred the account into his name. He said received a refund of $200.00 when the gas bottles supplied by the landlord were returned to [Gas Provider]. He said he paid that into the landlord’s bank account for payment of gas used until the account went into his name. He said the landlord’s husband knew he had made the payment.
The tenant did not specify the payment was for gas use when he deposited it into the landlord’s account, and it was applied by the landlord as payment of rent.
I find the landlord is entitled to the cost claimed for 2 full bottles of gas at the end of the tenancy as she supplied 2 full bottles of gas at the start. I find the landlord had no knowledge the tenant had transferred the gas account into his name or that the payment was for gas use. Consequently, I find it reasonable for the landlord to apply the $200 towards rent. The $200 has been included as rent in determining the amount the tenant owes for rent.
Effectively that means the tenant has not paid the landlord for the gas she supplied at the start of the tenancy. I find the tenant is liable to provide to 2 gas bottles of gas at the end of the tenancy. The tenant has had the benefit of using the gas supplied and receiving a credit for the gas returned to [Gas Provider].
The tenant raised that he has paid the annual rental fee for the gas bottles and believes that should be set off against the landlord’s claim for 2 bottles of gas. However, I find the tenant has no right in this instance to any credit or reimbursement for the gas bottle rental costs as he contracted with the gas supplier directly. When the tenant transferred the account into his name he became contractually responsible for the supply of gas to the property. In doing so, he took away any ability for the landlord to determine who was to supply the gas; that is her ability to bargain with a supplier. The tenant is not paying the landlord for the gas; he was paying the gas supplier and cannot seek rental costs for the bottles from the landlord in those circumstances.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. Garden waste
The landlord claims $405.00 for removal of garden waste at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs supporting her claim were taken before the tenancy ended. The invoice for the work is dated 4 January 2025. The tenant denies that the garden waste claimed for was as represented by the landlord.
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord I find she has not proven this part of her claim to the standard required. Accordingly, this part of the claim is dismissed. Dishwasher
The tenancy agreement records that a dishwasher was provided with the tenancy premises. It stopped working. The tenant sourced, paid for and installed a replacement second hand dishwasher. At the end of the tenancy the tenant took the dishwasher as he did not consider that he had received payment from the landlord or a credit for it.
The landlord claims $350.00 on the basis she provided rent credit to the tenant.
The rent summary provided by the landlord with her application does not include a credit for the dishwasher and neither does the updated rent summary provided for the hearing on 11 June 2026.
Documentation the landlord sent to the tenant on 22 November 2024 along with a 14 day notice seeking rent arrears showed a credit for this sum. However, the landlord’s rent summary was not correct as the tenant did not owe the amount of arrears the rent summary recorded. The tenant challenged the landlord’s rent record on 7 December as he quite correctly believed it did not include all rent paid.
Therefore, while I am satisfied there were discussions about a rent credit in favour of the tenant for $350.00, as it is not documented on the rent summary, I find the tenant has not received a rent credit. For clarity, I have not also not considered the $350.00 cost of the dishwasher as a credit in determining the water rates and gas bottle charges.
Accordingly, I find the tenant was entitled to take the dishwasher as he had provided it. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy either carelessly or intentionally: Repair and repaint the interior of the premises:
The landlord claims that damage was caused, that is more than fair wear and tear, to walls, ceilings, doors and window sills in the hallway, living room, 3 bedrooms, the toilet, study and the garage. The landlord made a claim to her insurance company and received a settlement less 6 excesses of $750.00 each for the hallway, living room, 3 bedrooms, and the garage. The landlord claims $4,500.00 for the excesses she has paid.
The landlord withdrew her claim for $82.80 for masking film, sandpaper and painters tape at the hearing held on 12 June 2025.
After considering both parties evidence I find that: a) damage was caused to walls which the tenant had plastered before the tenancy ended. The tenant did not paint any of the plastered areas. The plastered areas are considered as being damage as they have not been restored to the condition they were in at the start of the tenancy. I am satisfied that generally such areas cannot successfully be spot painted as the new paint will invariably be a different colour to the remainder of the wall. Instead the wall that the plastered areas are on needs to be painted. b) painted walls and doors have been damaged when 3M and Command products (such as hooks) were removed. The tenant said they did not remove any of the hooks and other products but left them on walls and doors. After considering both parties’ evidence I am satisfied the tenant caused damage when one 3M or Command hook or similar product was removed, and that the landlord caused damage when she removed the remaining 3M and Command products. I am satisfied that there are correct methods for removing such products so that no damage is caused and that instructions for removal are easily found online. I am not satisfied the landlord used the correct method in removing the products and find the tenant has no liability for damage the landlord caused in removing these products. c) other marks and dents on walls and doors are of a minor nature apart from a hole in a wall in bedroom 3. I find the marks on the walls in the study to be fair wear and tear, and the cracking in the corner of the toilet walls not to be damage caused by the tenants. d) the marks/stains on the lounge ceiling were caused during the tenancy. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that they are result from colour from some occurrence before the tenancy started bleeding though the paint. e) the landlord’s evidence is not sufficient for me to find the tenant has caused damage to windowsill/s in the property. The landlord said a number of window sills were damaged, she believed as a result of the tenant’s cat/s. The landlord provided a photo of one windowsill which was not of sufficient quality for me to see any damage. The tenant denies damage to any windowsills. He says the cat/s only went in and out of the premises through one window and that he had sanded and repainted that windowsill. f) the garage floor is concrete. It was originally painted red and was painted grey before this tenancy started. There are some marks on the floor to the garage which I attribute to damage caused by the tenant, however the red paint has significantly worn or come off in areas where people would walk through the garage into the house. I find this to be fair wear and tear rather than damage caused by the tenant. The marks made by the tenant to the floor are not significant damage to the floor compared to this wear. g) I find the damage to the wall in the garage is minor and is fair wear and tear. I find the garage ceiling has been plastered but not painted and therefore is considered to be damage that the tenant is liable for.
All the walls and ceilings in the rooms claimed for have been, or are being, repainted. The landlord has not proven that this amount of work was needed to remedy the damage caused by the tenant. That is, only the walls and ceilings that were damaged needed to be painted. After considering the landlord’s evidence I am satisfied that the damage caused did not need a full repaint of all of the walls and ceiling in any of the rooms claimed for.
The landlord says the painting has not yet been completed and did not present an invoice for the work. She confirmed the painter and gib stopper, whose quotes the insurance company relied on in settling the insurance claim, are doing the work.
The landlord presented 1 quote document from the painter for $8,643.40, to paint the ceiling, walls, window frames, and doors in the lounge and the 3 bedrooms. It does not include the hallway or garage, but does include painting surfaces I find the tenant has not damaged. There is reference to a larger quote for $13,517.26 however a copy of the quote was not supplied and I have no knowledge what work was included in the quote.
The insurance company spreadsheet (“the insurance document’) sets out quoted costs for each room. It contains some details of damage observed per room but without the copy of the quotes the insurer has relied on I remain uncertain what work is quoted for.
The landlord’s evidence that provides the most certain evidence of cost for repainting the lounge and 3 bedrooms is the quote for $8,643.40 as it sets out the costs for painting various surfaces in each room; that is costs for ceiling, walls, window frames and doors are separately listed.
Based on the landlord’s evidence on the number of walls/ceiling in each room that were damaged and the details in the painter’s quote for $8,643.40 I find the cost to repaint the damaged walls in the lounge and 3 bedrooms is $1,200+gst. The cost to paint the lounge ceiling is $516.00 +gst. This totals $1,973.40 inc gst.
In relation to the hallway the landlord confirmed 2 walls in the hallway were damaged. Given the lack of evidence for the cost of painting the hallway I find the reasonable cost per wall for the hallway is $200.00 (inc gst), which is the approximate midway cost between the cost of painting a wall in the lounge in the $8,643.40 quote ($244.38) and the bedrooms ($158.13). I find $400.00 is the reasonable cost to repaint walls damaged in hallway.
I find $600.00 is the reasonable cost to paint the garage ceiling based on the cost charged for the lounge ceiling.
Therefore I find the cost of repainting the areas damaged in the lounge, the hallway, the 3 bedrooms and the garage ceiling during the tenancy amounts to $2,973.40. The gibstopping cost was $1,750.00 which results in a total cost of $4,723.40.
In terms of considering what compensation the landlord is entitled to, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. Everything, including painted walls and other surfaces, is subject to wear and tear. All painted surfaces will eventually need repainting. If tenant damage means repainting is needed sooner than expected, the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position than if the damage had not happened.
The property was repainted at the start of the tenancy. Generally I consider painted surfaces have a life span of around 10 years in tenanted premises. That means the painted surfaces had 50% of their life expectancy remaining at the end of the tenancy. Therefore the appropriate compensation after considering betterment and depreciation is $2,361.70 (being 50% of $4,723.40). However as the landlord has received $1,728.65 for these rooms in settlement of her insurance claim. This results in a loss to her of $633.05 which I find the tenant is liable to pay.
Turning to the garage floor, as stated above I find the damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy is minor compared to the wear and tear caused by foot traffic. The insurance company spreadsheet records the cost to paint the floor is $4,975.33. No other evidence on the cost to paint the floor has been provided by the landlord. Once depreciation at 50% is applied, compensation is assessed at $2,487.67.
The landlord has received a settlement of $4,225.33 for painting the garage floor from her insurance company. Therefore the insurance settlement is more than the compensation entitlement after depreciation is considered. As the landlord has not proven she has a loss, no award is made. Carpet:
The landlord claims the carpet in the lounge and the three bedrooms was stained to the extent it needed replacement. An excess of $750.00 for each room is claimed (4 x $750.00 = $3,000.00).
The pre-tenancy inspection report records for the master bedroom: “3 large marks on carpet images taken”, and “Carpet marked images taken” for the lounge and the other two bedrooms.
I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that the lounge carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The stain at the end of the tenancy is large and the pre- tenancy photos and report do not establish there was a large stain at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said the carpet in the lounge did not look like the photograph shows after he had it cleaned, however the tenant has not presented any corroborating evidence, such as a photograph or statement from the carpet cleaner, to support his view.
The landlord could not provide pre-tenancy photographs for any of the three bedrooms and acknowledged at the hearing that she could not remember where the marks that existed before the tenancy started were located.
I find the landlord has not proven that the carpets in the bedrooms were damaged during the tenancy. In making this finding I have considered the landlord’s view that damage in the master bedroom was caused by pet urine, however apart from hearsay evidence, which I cannot give much to, she has not proven this allegation. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord believes the carpet, which was a wool carpet, was about 8-9 years old at the end of the tenancy. The tenant believes the carpet was of the type installed in the early 2000’s, was more likely installed when the house was built in 2005 and was around 19-20 years old.
After considering the parties’ submissions and evidence I find the carpet was more likely over 10 years old at the end of the tenancy.
In making this finding I have considered the landlord’s evidence that no one lived in the house for “at least” 3 years before the tenancy started in November 2019, and that the carpet was marked in every room in the house. The amount of marks on the carpet indicates to me that the carpet was ‘used’ for at least one year before the property sat vacant and more likely for longer than that.
I find 10 years is the average expected life of a wool carpet in tenanted premises and that the carpet’s reasonable economic life span had expired at the end of the tenancy. While I understand this house was not tenanted previously, the landlord has said an elderly relation lived there for a time before the house sat vacant.
However I find the damage caused by the tenants accelerated the need for the carpet to be replaced and on that basis I find the tenant is liable to pay $150.00 towards the replacement of the carpet. Damage to the bathroom vanity, shower lining and towel rail
The landlord claims that during the tenancy the clips on the heated towel rail were broken, the shower lining was damaged and the vanity top, drawers and doors were damaged. The landlord claims her insurance excess ($750) for replacing the vanity, and repairs to the shower lining. Heated towel rail:
I find the damage to the heated towel rail clips is a result of fair wear and tear. Wear and tear is damage that naturally and inevitably occurs as a result of normal wear or aging. I am satisfied that the plastic clips have broken as they have become brittle with age and that the tenant has not intentionally or carelessly caused them to break. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Vanity:
The photos taken by the loss adjuster after the tenancy ended show there were two cracks in the vanity top, a crack in a drawer, damage to a drawer front and damage to a door. The pre-inspection report records the vanity was new at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said the vanity was “a cheap vanity” and that moisture and damp in the room likely caused the laminated surfaces came away from the mdf/particle board. He said the drawer front was not broken at the end of the tenancy as shown in the assessor’s photos.
After considering the parties’ evidence I find the vanity was damaged during the tenancy as claimed by the landlord.
In considering the life expectancy of the vanity I am persuaded that the vanity was a low-end vanity and that its life expectancy would be influenced by usage and moisture/humidity. I note the bathroom had an extractor fan and the window could be opened to relieve effects of humidity and moisture. Regardless the bathroom would have had reasonably heavy use given it was the sole bathroom for the tenant, his wife, 2 children and 2 grandchildren.
In my view the range for life expectancy of a vanity of this nature in tenancy premises and with this use is around 7.5 years. That means the vanity had one- third of its life expectancy remaining at the end of the tenancy.
The cost to replace the vanity is $1,276.50. Therefore the appropriate compensation after considering betterment and depreciation is $425.50 (being one third of $1,276.50). However the landlord has received $526.50 in settlement from her insurer for the replacement vanity. As the landlord has not shown she has suffered a loss no award is made for damage to the vanity. Shower lining:
I find the shower lining was damaged during the tenancy, in that it was cracked and was repaired.
The tenant said the shower was leaking and there was water ingress into the hallway as a result. The tenant arranged for a plumber to fix the leak, which is the reason he says the lining had a hole which was then repaired. The landlord was not aware that the tenant had repairs carried out.
A tenant is obliged to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of any need for repairs. The tenant should have told the landlord about the leak so that she could determine the repair/action needed. As the tenant did not notify the landlord and instead arranged the repair himself, he is considered to have damaged the lining.
The landlord’s builder has quoted $2,242.50 inc gst for the repair. At the hearing I noted that the aqua gib was betterment as the previous gib was not of that quality. On reflection my view is that aqua gib is likely being installed to prevent water penetration and is in keeping with current Building Code requirements.
I find wall panelling of the nature that was in the bathroom has a reasonable life expectancy of around 20 years. The landlord said the shower was renovated before the tenancy started but that did not include new wall panels. On that basis I find the wall panelling was 25% through its life expectancy when the tenancy ended. Therefore the appropriate compensation after considering betterment and depreciation is $1,681.88 (being 75% of $2,242.50). The landlord has received $1,492.50 in settlement from her insurer. This results in a loss to her of $189.38 which I find the tenant is liable to pay. Replacement of the oven
The landlord seeks her insurance excess of $750.00 as the oven door hinges were broken at the end of the tenancy and the timer knob was missing. The oven was new when the house was built in 2005, and replacement hinges are no longer available. I find the hinges likely failed due to the age of the oven rather than the use of the oven during the tenancy. Likewise I apply the same reasoning to the missing knob.
Even had I found the tenant had caused the damage carelessly or intentionally I find the landlord has not proven she has a loss. The replacement oven cost $2,499.00 and the landlord received $1,998.00 in settlement from her insurer. I find the oven has well exceeded its life expectancy, including the around 3 years when it was not used as the property was vacant. The claim is dismissed. Replacement of the kitchen cabinetry
The landlord claims the kitchen cupboards were damaged during the tenancy. In particular that some drawer facings were loose or had fallen off; some hinges were broken or missing; the bottom of some of the cupboard doors were damaged; there is water damage (swollen cabinet carcass) to the cabinets where the dishwasher had been and to the cabinet under the sink; and the pantry door hinge is broken.
The kitchen is the original kitchen from when the house was built in 2005 and is 19- 20 years old.
The tenant said he replaced a number of hinges before the tenancy ended and told the landlord in 2020 that the overflow pipe under the sink needed attention.
In my view having looked at the landlord’s photographs the kitchen cabinetry is made of lower end materials, probably mdf, and has a life span of around 15-20 years. I am not satisfied that the damage that has occurred to the kitchen is any more than fair wear and tear given the cabinetry’s age and materials. Therefore this part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Laundry Tub repairs
The landlord claims the laundry tub was damaged during the tenancy and required replacement hinges ($39.80) and new taps/control handle ($224.21).
I find the tenant’s evidence persuasive that the supertub door did not have a hinge but has a pin mechanism. There are no photographs showing the supertub hinge broken or any comment in the insurance assessor’s report about a broken hinge.
The tenant sent a message to the landlord the day after he vacated advising he had turned the water off at the toby, and left the washing machine hose in the supertub sink when he disconnected the washing machine, as the cold water feed would not turn off. I am not persuaded that the failure of the taps/control handle was caused by careless of intentional damage. I find it more likely was a fair wear and tear failure as the supertub was 19-20 years old. The tenant’s washing machine had been connected to the supertub for 5 years and I find it likely that the taps and handle failed when they were disconnected.
I find the landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed. Entrance door lock damaged
The landlord claims the cost of a new lock for the front door. She says the lock was broken at the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies knowing that it was broken. He said the door was locked early on in the tenancy and they did not use it due to the slippery deck.
There is no evidence presented which corroborates that the landlord found the lock broken at the end of the tenancy. I have read the assessor’s report and can find no mention of such damage. The lock was the original lock and is around 19-20 years old. The age of the lock and that it was locked for a period of years by the tenant raises doubt in my mind that the lock failed due to careless of intentional actions during the tenancy. I find it more likely than not was a fair wear and tear failure. On that basis the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Damage to vinyl
The landlord claims damage was done to the vinyl in the entranceway from the garage and in the kitchen/dining area. An amount of $39.60 is claimed.
The pre-tenancy inspection report records “lino has some marks” in the kitchen and dining room. The landlord did not present photos showing the pre-tenancy damage. As a result I am uncertain whether the damage claimed is the pre- existing damage or additional damage.
The landlord has provided a photo of damage to the vinyl in the entranceway to the garage taken prior to the start of the tenancy. In my view having looked at the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photos I find the further damage to the vinyl in the entranceway was caused by fair wear and tear rather than careless or intentional damage done by the tenant.
I find the remainder of the damage to the vinyl as listed by the landlord, including the lifting of the vinyl where the fridge was, is reasonably considered fair wear and tear. I find the landlord has not proven the tenant has carelessly or intentionally caused damage to the vinyl. The claim is dismissed.
For clarity, the landlord at the hearing on 12 June 2025 raised a larger claim for $3,500.00 in relation to the vinyl flooring. The claim was to remove the lino, prepare the surface of the floor and lay tiles. The tenant had no earlier notice of this claim. Notice of an additional claim raised in this manner does not given adequate notice to the other party and the claim was not heard. Other matters The Bond
Having considered both the tenant’s and the landlord’s claim I determine that the landlord has no call on the bond. That is, the conclusion of the claims is that an award has been made in favour of the tenant.
As set out above the landlord has kept the bond through the tenancy and has not lodged it with Tenancy Services. The bond is the tenant’s money and is to be paid by the landlord to the tenant. Filing Fee Reimbursement
As both parties have been partly successful in their claims reimbursement of the filing fee by the other party is awarded. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Suppression is granted as both parties have been partly successful in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5113150 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5113150 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required by the RTA?

Did the landlord give an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable standard?

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the landlord entitled to the cost of 2x 45kg gas bottles?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required by the RTA?

Did the landlord give an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable standard?

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the landlord entitled to the cost of 2x 45kg gas bottles?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions