What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121938 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5121938?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121938?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121938?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121938 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5121938?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121938?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121938?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121938 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,253.36 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,253.36 [The tenant/s]: $346.64

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for failure to maintain and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has made a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond. Introduction
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. Landlord’s claims

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They say that spot cleaning was required to the walls and skirting boards, window frames, door frames and 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. bathrooms/toilet. Additional rubbish had to be removed (including rubbish left in the recycling bin), and exterior gardening was required to the entrance garden beds and in front of the garage doors.
The cost sought is for labour and materials, however the amounts have been combined with the amounts for repairs which will be considered further below.
The tenant says that the property was cleaned, and that rubbish was removed and that any rubbish left at the property was not theirs. They also say that they were never contacted to return to rectify any of the issues.
I have reviewed the photographs and am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that some further cleaning work was required.
The amount ordered will be considered further below.

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. 2
The landlord claims that there were several areas throughout the property where the walls required repairs, patching and painting. This was due to damage including pen marks. In the kitchen/dining area the wallpaper had to be stripped, gib-stopped, sanded, and painted. The landlord also had to purchase and fit two lightshades. They say the stairwell had an extensively damaged wall, and the exterior door required painting. Photographs have been provided.
The cost being sought is $1,253.36 for labour and materials, however, this includes cleaning and rubbish removal as referred to above. The landlord has provided evidence that shows that the cost paid was significantly higher than the amount sought, and as the works were carried out by friends and family, lower than if contractors had been engaged.
The tenant says that the wallpaper was old and was already hanging off the wall at the commencement of the tenancy. They also say it was a long tenancy (from 2016), the damage was therefore reflective of normal wear and tear and that they never caused any intentional damage. They advised that they had told the landlord that the wallpaper was starting to lift, and it was not remedied.
I am satisfied that the tenant did cause some damage to the walls during the tenancy, even if it wasn’t intentional. However, I also accept that due to the age of the property and length of tenancy, that some reasonable wear and tear would be expected. Therefore, the amount ordered is reduced to $1,000.00 to reflect this wear and tear.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall damage. 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 considered 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. 2 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Tenant’s claims Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
The tenant says that the property was an older house, and that they would advise the landlord of issues immediately. For example, they advised about wallpaper lifting when they first moved in and the latch on the window in the toilet room that had fallen off. Nothing was done about these items. In addition, there were issues with the bamboo/trees at the property.
The landlord says that they always tried to act as quickly as possible in responding to any requests for maintenance.
Correspondence has been provided between the parties, however, much of this relates to works towards the end of the tenancy or discussions after the tenancy had ended.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I have reviewed all information and consider that I do not have sufficient evidence that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 38 of the RTA.
The tenant says that issues commenced when the landlord put a new tenant in the downstairs granny flat in around 2018. This included often running out of hot water, foul smells drifting upstairs from regular cigarette and marijuana use, littering in the driveways, serious domestic incidents amongst the tenants with several police calls outs, visitors staying for long durations, items stolen from the yard, and complaints by neighbours about wildly growing bamboo and a large driveway tree.
The landlord says that the property was always rented out as two tenancies and that there were also receiving complaint communications from the downstairs tenants about the tenant.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person.
However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, 3 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “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.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder, 4 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
Although I appreciate that the tenant was frustrated and felt as though their peace was being impacted on by the downstairs tenants, I am not satisfied that the evidence and/or events reach the threshold of harassment. 3 MacDonald v Dodds, (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 4 Whatiura v Shoulder, Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987.
This claim is dismissed. Other matters
Both parties have had some level of success and as such, I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party. This cost is to instead be absorbed by each party.
I have also granted name suppression to both parties. The property manager had sought to have their name removed from the decision due to their limited involvement, however, I am satisfied that name suppression for the landlord resolves this issue. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 14 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121938 — Tenancy dispute

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121938 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?