What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119577 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 1 December 2025 due to an

How much money was awarded in case 5119577?

Bin Collections: $133.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,080.50 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $969.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,694.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119577?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12913329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119577 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 1 December 2025 due to an

How much money was awarded in case 5119577?

Bin Collections: $133.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,080.50 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $969.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,694.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119577?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12913329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5119577 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119577 — net $4,447.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 February 2025 (Order 1 April	$1,694.29		Rent arrears to 24 February 2025 (Order 1 April
Electricity	$969.30		Electricity
Bin Collections	$133.50		Bin Collections
Key/lock replacement	$250.00		Key/lock replacement
Cleaning	$800.00		Cleaning
Smoke and heat alarm replacement	$300.00		Smoke and heat alarm replacement
Door handle replacement	$300.00		Door handle replacement
Curtain Cleaning	$2,080.50		Curtain Cleaning
Exemplary Damages: Interference with smoke	$700.00		Interference with smoke
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$7,227.59	$500.00
Net award	$4,447.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,447.59

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119577 — net $4,447.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 February 2025 (Order 1 April	$1,694.29		Rent arrears to 24 February 2025 (Order 1 April
Electricity	$969.30		Electricity
Bin Collections	$133.50		Bin Collections
Key/lock replacement	$250.00		Key/lock replacement
Cleaning	$800.00		Cleaning
Smoke and heat alarm replacement	$300.00		Smoke and heat alarm replacement
Door handle replacement	$300.00		Door handle replacement
Curtain Cleaning	$2,080.50		Curtain Cleaning
Exemplary Damages: Interference with smoke	$700.00		Interference with smoke
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$7,227.59	$500.00
Net award	$4,447.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,447.59

Order

This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 1 December 2025 due to an inadvertent bond calculation error.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,447.59 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application for exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment.
There was a previous Tribunal order issued on 1 April 2025. A rehearing application was made by the landlord applicant, and this was granted.
There have been adjournments, and a further rehearing was held in October 2025. Background
The periodic tenancy commenced on 30 November 2024 and ended on 27 February 2025 after the tenant gave a notice to end the tenancy.
The tenancy address was located in a rural setting and the landlord lived on the same piece of land. After the tenancy commenced, a small home was moved onto the wider property and was also tenanted by the landlord.
As part of the rental agreement, the landlord maintained a portion of the tenancy property for storage, that had its own sliding door access.
The tenancy agreement enabled the tenant to have two small dogs on the property.
The tenancy and relationship between the parties was initially very good, however it started to break down in late 2024 and escalate into a dispute resulting in extensive applications being made by both parties.
Significant evidence has been provided, including videos, photographs and copies of correspondence and I confirm I have reviewed everything even if there is no direct reference to it. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Exemplary damages
Both parties have sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages and if that discretion is 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 [1986] NZLR 732. used, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. Landlord’s claims
The landlord claims for: a. Rent arrears. b. Outstanding electricity. c. Bin collections. d. Curtain cleaning. e. Repairs and general cleaning f. Exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent, utilities and rubbish collection?

The tenancy ended on 24 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing of $1,694.29 at the end of the tenancy.
Rent arrears was awarded in the previous tribunal order and was to be refunded directly from bond. However, the bond was not paid out, and this is included in this order for completeness. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014.
The landlord claims for outstanding electricity costs. Electricity records have been provided that show the outstanding amount for electricity is $969.30 to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also claims for the cost of rubbish collection during the tenancy and has provided evidence for a total claimed amount of $133.50.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Did the tenant 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.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They were required to carry out cleaning for 20 hours at a rate of $40.00 per hour (totalling $800.00), and a schedule of what was cleaned has been provided, together with a pre-tenancy report, routine inspection letters and post-tenancy photographs. The photographs include the vacuum cleaner contents, staining, and areas where further cleaning was required.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the property as not left reasonably clean and tidy, and the amount ordered is proved.
The landlord says at the commencement of the tenancy, there were four keys provided (coded red, blue, purple and green) and this was recorded on the tenancy agreement. The landlord says that the tenant did not return keys, and she was required to engage a lock smith at the invoiced cost of $250.00.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claims for the cost to replace smoke alarms that were missing from the property at the end of the tenancy. This included both heat and smoke alarms, and based on the provided photographs, there appears to have been eight taken. Evidence of replacement for these have been provided at $49.08 each for smoke alarms and $35.50 for heat alarms. I have awarded $300.00 towards the cost of replacement of these, due to it not being entirely clear the exact number that was taken.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). 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 (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 says that due to several animals in the property, the curtains were covered in cat hair, had some holes in them and smelled of marijuana. The landlord claims for the invoiced cost to clean the curtains of $2,080.50. Photographs have been provided.
The landlord also claims for missing door handles at the total replacement cost of $800.00. Photographs have been provided of at least four of these. These were not new however, and although I am satisfied that they were missing at the end of the tenancy, I have reduced the amount awarded to reflect betterment and depreciation. The amount of $300.00 is awarded towards the cost of the door handles.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Curtains and missing door handles. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord also says that the carpet requires replacing due to the pet urine stains in the property. However, no compensation claim has been made for carpet replacement. Instead, the landlord claims for a loss of future rent due to the damaged carpet and the impact that has on rental income.
There is a duty to mitigate loss, and the landlord could have replaced the carpet to prevent long term losses. 4
The claim for lost rent is therefore dismissed. Injury to cat
The landlord says that her cat suffered an injury, due to a fight with the tenant’s cats that were not permitted to be on the property.
The landlord claims the veterinary invoice of $529.70.
Although the landlord has provided text messages where the tenant had offered to pay for the vet bill, I do not consider I now have sufficient evidence to find that the damage or injury to the cat was more likely than not, caused by the tenant’s cat.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages Breach of quiet enjoyment by the tenant
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed the neighbours and their peace. A map provided shows there are around five to six properties within a relatively close proximity for rural settings.
At the hearing, witnesses gave evidence, and the landlord has also provided witness statements from some of the neighbouring properties that detail issues with the tenants shortly after they moved into the property, including: a. Dog(s) going onto their properties, defecating and showing aggression when confronted on several occasions. b. Frequent screaming, yelling and swearing loudly as well as loud and abusive fighting, door slamming, sounds of breaking, and reckless driving out of the driveway. 4 See section 49 of the RTA. c. Abusive gestures and yelling abuse directly at neighbours. d. Extremely loud music played through the windows after confrontations between the landlord, tenants and neighbours. e. Threatening to arrange to kill or harm other neighbours or the landlord. f. Police attending after particularly aggressive interactions.
The landlord has also provided several police reports on the occasions when the police were called to the property.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
On review of the evidence, I find that the tenant did cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the landlord, their other tenants and neighbours. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This was a relatively short tenancy, and issues started immediately. The tenant’s must have known that their actions were threatening, and I consider at least some of the actions were intentional. The intent at times by those living at the property did seem to be to scare people, and the effect was to create awful living situations for neighbouring properties resulting in numerous complaints to the landlord.
Although I consider that the actions of the tenant breached the RTA, and had a real impact on the neighbours, the award of exemplary damages is discretionary. The relationship between the parties had broken down and both parties likely did not act in the best way possible as a result.
In this case, and to reflect all wider circumstances, I have not used my discretion to award exemplary damages.
The claim is dismissed. Removal of smoke alarms
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) RTA. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find that the tenant, or invitee of the tenant, did remove smoke and heat alarms, as detailed further above. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Smoke alarms are a crucial part of occupancy safety, and it is imperative that tenants do not tamper or remove these, not only for their own safety but for the safety of buildings and people around them.
Accordingly, it is also in the public interest. I consider that it is just and appropriate to award exemplary damages in the amount of $700.00 in addition to the cost to replace the smoke and heat alarms awarded above.
The landlord included other claims for exemplary damages in a summary table, including relating to carpets, and loss of rent. However, there are no particular breaches identified within the RTA that allow exemplary damages for these tenant breaches, and I also consider that these claims have been dealt with by way of compensation claims. Tenant’s claims
The tenant claims exemplary damages for: a. Failure to lodge bond. b. Unlawful entry. c. Breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant also seeks compensation for a broken car window. Exemplary damages Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As detailed above, as an agreed part of the tenancy, the landlord retained a portion of the rented premises for storage.
However, this arrangement did not preclude the landlord from being obliged to comply with the RTA in terms of the required notice or consent.
On review of the correspondence provided, I consider that this occurred around four to five times during the tenancy, but at each time, the tenant’s consent was sought and provided.
I am not aware of any compelling evidence of the landlord entering the property without obtaining consent. There also does not appear to be any contemporary evidence of the tenant requesting more notice, and when the tenant had said it didn’t suit, the landlord did change the time in response and to suit
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them. The tenant says that the landlord allowed her dog to wander freely over the premises rented by the tenant, and this continued even after the tenant requested that the dog not do that. She says that the landlord’s dog acted aggressively to her own dog.
In addition, the tenant says that the landlord moved a tiny home onto the wider property against the tenant’s fence line, removing privacy from her bathroom as the tiny house can allegedly see straight into the bathroom resulting in the room being unusable.
The tenant further said that another of the landlord’s tenant abused the tenant, and the landlord did nothing to stop it.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
There was substantial evidence given by both parties about whose pets were or acted aggressively to the other, with both parties maintaining that their pet was never aggressive, and based on the evidence received it is impossible for me to determine either way.
However, there is some evidence that show the landlord’s dog on the tenant’s property, and I accept that it may have been concerning to the tenant and her dogs and may even had made her fearful for her dogs and/or family.
The landlord breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
A landlord is deemed to know tenancy law and their obligations around the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. So, I consider any breach is intentional. However, I do not consider that the actions of the dog going onto their property met the level required for harassment.
The landlord was also dealing with several complaints from neighbours about the tenants, and their dogs, in a rural setting (with multiple animals and pets on several properties) and these events occurred in a broader context of the breakdown in relationship between the parties that I have detailed above.
I also find that the installation of the tiny home on a neighbouring piece of land did not amount to harassment.
I therefore do not consider that it is just to award exemplary damages and this claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant claims that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant says that the landlord received the bond on 29 November 2024 and did not lodge the bond until 5 February 2025.
The landlord says that she spoke to the tenant several times about payment of the bond and the tenant continued to advise that she would sort it out, but she didn’t. On 5 February 2025 the landlord sought external assistance and was advised to pay in whatever the tenant had paid, and it could be topped up later.
The landlord says that the delay in lodging was accordingly due to the incomplete payment of bond, and the landlord waiting until full payment was received until lodging with the bond centre. Copies of correspondence and call logs have been provided in support of this.
On review it appears that the full bond was never paid by the tenant, hence the different amount being held at the bond centre than recorded on the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement noted that the bond was to be $3,840.00 and only $2,280.00 was ever actually paid by the tenant.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
As already mentioned, a landlord is deemed to know the law relating to tenancies and it is clear from the correspondence that this landlord was experienced. Any failure to follow the RTA must be considered intentional.
In consideration of the concern the tenant had about the whereabouts of the bond money, as well as the public interest in ensuring bonds are lodged as a mechanism for effectively dealing with any monetary disputes at the end of the tenancy, I have awarded an amount of $500.00 for failure to lodge the bond.
This is awarded because despite not receiving the full payment, the RTA is worded as “any payment” (rather than full payment), however the award is at the lower end in consideration of the failure by the tenant to pay the full bond that she was liable for as part of the tenancy. Compensation for broken window
The tenant claims for the cost to repair a broken car window that she says was likely caused from a stone thrown from the lawn mower when the lawns were being mowed, based on the existence of gravel in the vehicle. Photographs have been provided.
The neighbour who mowed the lawn provided a witness statement stating that he “absolutely did not break the window” and that it was broken before he had mowed the lawns.
On review of the evidence, I cannot be sure enough of the cause of the broken window and accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Other matters
As both parties have had some success, I consider that the filing fees should lie where they fall.
Both parties requested name suppression and for the same reason, this is granted. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 23 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119577 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119577 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, utilities and rubbish collection?

Did the tenant 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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, utilities and rubbish collection?

Did the tenant 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