What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123575 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 5123575?

Compensation: for failure to pay the…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For The Rent Discount: $1,008.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $9.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $232.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $23.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123575?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12450563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123575 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 5123575?

Compensation: for failure to pay the…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For The Rent Discount: $1,008.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $9.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $232.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $23.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123575?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12450563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 317, 127 Newton Road, Eden Terrace, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5123575 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123575 — net $2,209.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 December 2024	$232.00		Rent arrears to 20 December 2024
Water rates	$23.50		Water rates
Light bulbs/batteries	$9.00		Light bulbs/batteries
Compensation: for failure to pay the bond to the		$500.00	for failure to pay the bond to the
Compensation: for the carpet cleaning fee		$138.00	for the carpet cleaning fee
Exemplary damages		$800.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: for the rent discount		$1,008.57	for the rent discount
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$264.50	$2,473.57
Net award		$2,209.07
Bond		$2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,209.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123575 — net $2,209.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 December 2024	$232.00		Rent arrears to 20 December 2024
Water rates	$23.50		Water rates
Light bulbs/batteries	$9.00		Light bulbs/batteries
Compensation: for failure to pay the bond to the		$500.00	for failure to pay the bond to the
Compensation: for the carpet cleaning fee		$138.00	for the carpet cleaning fee
Exemplary damages		$800.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: for the rent discount		$1,008.57	for the rent discount
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$264.50	$2,473.57
Net award		$2,209.07
Bond		$2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,209.07

Order

(This Order was amended on 23 September 2025 to provide that the filing fee is payable by the landlord to the tenant)

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
Gamma Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,209.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s applications that the landlord unlawfully discriminated against the tenant and breached section 111 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are dismissed.
The landlord’s applications that some of the tenant’s claims and evidence be struck out, for compensation for cleaning and the microwave oven and for damages for the carpet are dismissed. Contents

Reasons

........................................................................................................................................................4 RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: ...............................................................................................................4 SHOULD SOME OF THE TENANT’S CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE BE STRUCK OUT? ...................................................5 THE TENANT’S CLAIMS RELATING TO THE ENTRY AND EXIT INSPECTION REPORTS: .........................................6 Background: ........................................................................................................................................................6 Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant? .............................................................................................7 Other claims relating to the entry and exit inspection reports: ..........................................................................7 THE TENANT’S OTHER CLAIMS:........................................................................................................................9 Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond in accordance with the requirements of the RTA? ................................9 Are clauses 13 and 19 of the Tenancy Agreement in breach of section 137 of the RTA?..................................10 THE PARTIES’ CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CLAUSE 20 OF THE TENANCY AGREEMENT: .......................................14 THE LANDLORD’S OTHER CLAIMS ..................................................................................................................15 How much is owed for rent and water arrears? ...............................................................................................15 Is the landlord entitled to an extra week’s rent? ..............................................................................................16 Was the tenancy assigned?...............................................................................................................................16 Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?.........................................................17 Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?..............................................................................19 THE FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION:...............................................................................................................20

REASONS

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 18 August 2025 via video conference. Both of the tenants attended the hearing. Abbas Sharoodi, director of the landlord and Milan Sharoodi, representative of the landlord, attended the hearing for the landlord.
This is a cross application. The tenant claims that the landlord: included clauses in the Tenancy Agreement which were contrary to their rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); beached the terms of the Tenancy Agreement by not giving a rent discount; failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the timeframe specified in the RTA; and discriminated against them contrary to section 12 of the RTA. The tenant is seeking compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has fraudulently signed the tenant’s name on a legal document and in doing so has breached section 111 of the RTA.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, a further one week’s rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenant was given a rent discount and that this discount should be repaid.
The landlord has also claimed that some of the tenant’s claims and evidence should be struck out. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
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”. The applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden of proof. It is particularly important for a landlord to provide photographs showing the damage claimed and, where the damage is disputed, the landlord will need evidence (i.e. photographs, video or an ingoing inspection report) proving the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. SHOULD SOME OF THE TENANT’S CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE BE STRUCK OUT?
The landlord has applied for part of the tenant’s claims and evidence to be struck out. Section 92A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of a proceeding if the proceeding: (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process.
By way of background, on 22 May 2025, the Tribunal issued an adjournment Order directing the parties to file any documents or other evidence no later than 10 working days before the next hearing.
On 30 May 2025, the parties were notified that the next hearing would take place on 18 August 2025.
On 04 August 2025, the landlord filed a summary document. In this document, the landlord referred to the tenant’s allegation that it had fraudulently signed the tenant’s name on the exit and entry inspection forms and said that it wrote the tenant’s name in the signature box to identify the tenant because the tenant had limited English and could not be identified by their signature which would be in Chinese.
On 08 August 2025, the tenant asked for the claim to be amended to include a further claim for discrimination in relation to the writing of the tenant’s name. This claim was based on the landlord’s explanation in paragraph 13 above.
On 12 August 2025, the Tribunal advised the parties that the tenant’s claim for discrimination would be heard at the hearing scheduled to take place on 18 August 2025.
The following day, 13 August 2025, the landlord sent an email to the Tribunal advising of its objections to the additional claim of discrimination and asking for the discrimination claim, other parts of the tenant’s claims and some of the tenant’s evidence to be struck out.
At the hearing, the parties were advised that given the landlord’s assertions that it did not have sufficient time to prepare for the claim of discrimination, the matter would be part heard with the discrimination claim being heard at a later date. However, the landlord said that the landlord’s preference was for the matter to be heard that day. The claim for discrimination was heard and the Tribunal’s findings on this matter are set out in paragraphs 28-31 below.
In the landlord’s email of 13 August 2025, the landlord has asked for: a. The claim of discrimination to be struck out because the late submission prejudiced the landlord; b. All secondary claims (being claims raised after the tenant’s initial application to the Tribunal in January 2025) and any additional evidence provided to be struck out on the grounds that the tenant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and that this failure has prejudiced the landlord; and c. The tenant’s secondary claims to be struck out on the ground they were vexatious.
The landlord claims that the tenant has used the assistance of a lawyer and/or artificial intelligence to prepare submissions and evidence. I am not sure if this correct. However, while there are restrictions on parties being represented by a lawyer at the hearing (see section 93 of the RTA), parties are free to obtain legal advice to assist with submissions or preparation for a hearing. Parties are also free to use artificial intelligence to assist them. Of course, they should take care that the work produced is correct.
I do not consider that the landlord has been prejudiced by the tenant adding the claim of discrimination or by filing evidence within the 10-working day timeframe. The landlord was offered the opportunity for that claim of discrimination to be heard at a later date. This was declined. I also do not find that the tenant’s claims have been vexatious or an abuse of process.
The landlord’s application for the tenant’s secondary claims and further evidence provided to be struck out is dismissed. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS RELATING TO THE ENTRY AND EXIT INSPECTION REPORTS: Background:
The tenant says the landlord forged their signature on the entry and exit inspection forms. These documents have a box on the right had side which reads:

LANDLORDTENANT SIGNED

.................................................................

On both the entry and exit inspection forms, Mr A Sharoodi has signed his name in the landlord signature box. Mr A Sharoodi said he then wrote the tenant’s name in the tenant’s signature box. At first blush, it appears that the tenant has signed the document.
During the hearing, Mr A Sharoodi says he wrote the tenant’s name in the tenant signature box so that he could identify the tenant. Mr M Sharoodi said that it was likely that Mr A Sharoodi did so because he has poor eye sight.
In the landlord’s written submissions. The landlord says that because the tenant’s English was limited and their signature was in Chinese, the landlord wrote the tenant’s name in the tenant’s signature box to identity the tenant.
The landlord referred to a second page of the entry report. The is a blank piece of paper which, unlike the first page, is not typed. Instead, the following has been handwritten “2 door keys 2 access cards 1 letter box”. Underneath this it is written “10.30 3/1/24”. There are two signatures on this page and both parties confirm they have signed this document.
The landlord says this was the second page or back page of the entry inspection report and the tenant’s signature on this page is the tenant’s agreement to the entry report. The tenant says that signature was not his agreement to the entry inspection report but an acknowledgement of receipt of the keys.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Section 12(1) and(2) of the RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to discriminate against any person in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) as to the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination or renewal of a tenancy agreement. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are set out in the HRA and include a person’s: colour; race, ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality or citizenship.
The tenant’s claim is essentially that writing the tenant’s name in the signature box because their English was limited (or the landlord believed their English was limited) and the signature would not clearly identity the tenant is indirect discrimination on the grounds of the tenant’s race, ethnicity or national origins.
The scope for consideration of unlawful discrimination in the Tenancy Tribunal is restrictive (see section 12 of the RTA). I find that the landlord’s actions as described in paragraph 25 above do not amount to unlawful discrimination because the tenant was not discriminated against in the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination or renewal of a tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s claim for discrimination is dismissed. Other claims relating to the entry and exit inspection reports:
Writing a name that is not your own in a signature box is, at best, extremely bad practice. As set out above, when looking at the document it appears that the tenant has signed it. It is clear from the landlord’s written submissions that the tenant’s allegation of fraud has offended the landlord. However, in my view, this practice invites allegations of fraud. The landlord advises that they manage over 100 properties, and I am astonished that a landlord with this level of experience would operate such a practice.
The powers of the Tribunal to make Orders in respect of fraud are limited. The tenant refers to fraud being a criminal offence under the Crimes Act 1961. However, the Tribunal has no power to make findings under the Crimes Act. The Tribunal can set aside an agreement where it believes a party has been induced to enter into it by fraud. (See section 78(1)(g) of the RTA.)
It is also an unlawful act for a landlord to include in certain statements it is required to make in the Tenancy Agreement anything that is false or misleading. (See section 13A(1F) of the RTA.) However, these sections do not apply to these circumstances.
At the hearing, the tenant said that the alleged fraud was a breach of section 111 of the RTA. Broadly, section 97(2) of the RTA provides that if a witness is to provide evidence at a hearing, the witness shall be required to promise to tell the truth. Section 111 of the RTA provides that if a person who has promised to tell the truth under section 97(2) provides a statement they know to be false or misleading they commit an offence.
This section does not apply because neither party attended the hearing as a witness. Therefore, neither party was required to promise to tell the truth in accordance with section 97(2) of the RTA.
I accept the tenant’s submissions that the signature on the blank page was only an acknowledgement of receipt of those items listed on that page. Given that the landlord has not attempted to assert that the handwriting of the name was the tenant’s signature, I accept that he did not write the tenant’s name in the signature box to pass it off as the tenant’s signature. However, the act of writing the tenant’s name in the signature box does, in my view, compromise the integrity of the exit and entry inspection reports. For these reasons, I have placed little weight on these documents when determining whether the tenant is liable for damage to the premises or has failed to comply with the tenant’s obligations under the RTA.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord has breached section 111 of the RTA is dismissed. THE TENANT’S OTHER CLAIMS: Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond in accordance with the requirements of the

RTA?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Section 19(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord must pay any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Lodging the bond with the Bond Centre within the requirement timeframe is a fundamental landlord obligation. This is reflected in Section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the RTA which provide that breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The parties agreed that the tenant paid the bond to the landlord on 21 December 2023. Therefore, the landlord should have paid the bond to the Bond Centre no later than 20 January 2025.
The landlord paid the bond to the Bond Centre on 23 July 2024.
The landlord said the delay was due to human error which had been more likely to occur because there were issues with the website via which bulk bond payments are made to the Bond Centre. The landlord said it would have tried to have lodged the bond within the requirement of 23 working days. The landlord said they are responsible for around 100 properties and usually receive 5-7 bonds per month. The landlord said that issues with the website are a regular occurrence and when they had difficulties with the website and were unable to lodge a bond, they would set it to one side and try again in a few weeks time. The landlord said it is most likely they had tried to lodge the bond on more than one occasion, had difficulties and that it has then been missed in error.
The landlord says that once they became aware that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre, they promptly made payment.
I find that the landlord breached section 19 of the RTA by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days and, therefore, committed an unlawful act.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Section 109 of the RTA provides that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award.
I accept the landlord’s submissions that the bond was lodged late in error. I find that exemplary damages are not available in these circumstances because the landlord did not intentionally fail to lodge the bond. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider the other factors set out above.
Having said that, I consider there is significant room for improvement in the landlord’s systems to ensure compliance with section 19 of the RTA. While there may be issues with the Bond Centre’s website from time to time, the landlord has 23 working days to make the payment.
The tenant says that when they found out the bond had not been lodged with the Bond Centre for a period of 7 months, they felt anxious. I accept this. I consider that finding out that their money had not been securely deposited with the Bond Centre within the required timeframe would cause most tenants some sort of worry or concern.
The landlord said that there was no need for the tenant to feel anxious because the bond was safe at all times in the landlord’s trust account. I disagree. The bond is the tenant’s money, not the landlord’s money. The requirement to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre is to ensure the bond is protected and the tenant’s interests safeguarded. The only place the bond is safe is with the Bond Centre.
While I have not awarded exemplary damages, I do consider it is appropriate that the tenant is awarded compensation for stress caused by the landlord’s failure to comply with section 19 of the RTA. I award $500 general compensation to the tenant. Are clauses 13 and 19 of the Tenancy Agreement in breach of section 137 of the

RTA?

The Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties is not the standard form agreement provided by Tenancy Services. Of course, the parties are free to use a different agreement. However, the landlord must ensure that the agreement complies with the RTA.
Section 11(1) of the RTA provides: Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the Tenancy Agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted.
The combined effect of subsections 11(2) and (3) is that while a landlord can waive its rights under the RTA a tenant cannot.
Section 137(1) of the RTA provides: No person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act.
Breaching the obligation under section 137 of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. (See section 137(2) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.)
In Safer Home Limited v latalya Arohe Tina Rewai [2021] NZTT Porirua 4292331, 4294725, the Tenancy Agreement included a clause that said that the carpets were “to be cleaned to a professional standard ...” at the end of the tenancy. In that case, this Tribunal found that this clause exceeded the tenant’s obligations under the RTA to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and therefore was a breach of section 137.
The tenant asserts that clauses 13, 19 and 20 of the Tenancy Agreement are unlawful. I deal with clause 20 separately in paragraphs 82-92 below.
The first part of clause 19 provides: Before Exit: Tenants: replace consumables. Remove all rubbish, personal items. Clean (commercial if needed). Carpet wash if 10+ months & earlier as required.
The tenant says that the requirement in the clause above for carpet to be washed exceeds the tenant’s obligations under the RTA and that the clause is therefore unlawful. The tenant says they only became aware that the clause may not be lawful after they had paid for the carpets to cleaned. The tenant is seeking repayment of the sum of $138.00 spent on cleaning the carpets and exemplary damages.
Tenants are required under the RTA to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In some circumstances, this may require the carpets to be washed but usually it will not.
The landlord says that the words “as required” in clause 19 mean that the tenant is only required to wash the carpets if it is needed. I disagree, I consider the wording of the clause is that the tenant is to have the carpets washed at the end of the tenancy if: the tenancy has lasted more than 10 months or if the is tenancy was shorter than 10 months, if the carpets need to be washed.
I also do not accept that this was what the landlord intended the clause to mean. In the Exit Moving Out Information provided by the landlord it states: “Carpets: After 12 months or more, carpets should be washed on the last day for hygiene & safety”.
One of the documents provided by the landlord was the previous tenant’s entry inspection form. In this document, the landlord has written: ... tenant agrees to wash the carpet at the end of the tenant and clean the apartment to the state received it. Although it may not be required by law.
I find that the landlord was aware that in most cases a tenant is not obliged under the RTA to wash the carpets. I find that the first part of clause 19 includes a requirement that exceeds the tenant’s obligations under the RTA and is therefore unenforceable and in breach of sections 11 and 137 of the RTA.
The last sentence of clause 19 provides: Pay all amounts owed, including rent up to latter date: A) fixed term end B) keys & possession return C) property returned in/near original condition.
The ways in which a tenancy ends are specified in section 50 of the RTA. Usually, the end date will be the expiry of the required notice period. There is an exception to a tenancy ending on the end date and that is where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated. (See section 60 of the RTA.) In that case, the tenant’s obligations continue until they cease to occupy the premises.
A tenant failing to return keys does not necessarily mean that the tenant has remained in possession of the premises. If a tenant has vacated the premises but retained the key, the usual remedy for the landlord is to have the locks replaced and claim the cost from the tenant. Similarly, a tenant is not obliged to return the premises in/near original condition. The requirement is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If the tenant fails to comply with this obligation, then the remedy is usually for the landlord to have the premises cleaned and claim the cost from the tenant.
I find that the second sentence of clause 19 of the Tenancy Agreement exceeds the tenant’s obligations under the RTA and is therefore unenforceable and in breach of section 137 of the RTA.
Clause 13 of the Tenancy Agreement provides: Indemnity: tenants indemnify the landlord against any losses or damages suffered by the landlord as a consequence of the tenants breach of its obligations.
The tenant says this clause is inconsistent with section 49B of the RTA. Broadly, this section provides that a tenant is only liable for damage which is caused during the course of the tenancy if the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant cannot prove that it was not caused intentionally or carelessly.
I do not consider that this clause is inconsistent with section 49 or any other provision of the RTA because the tenant is only required to indemnify the landlord for a breach of their obligations.
As set out above, breaching the obligation under section 137 of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. (See section 137(2) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.)
I find that the landlord acted intentionally when the landlord included clause 19 in the Tenancy Agreement. This is a different situation than the tenant’s failure to lodge the bond. There, I accepted that the landlord knew its obligations under the RTA but due to human error, the bond payment was missed.
Having found that the landlord intentionally, I must consider the other factors in section 109 of the RTA (see paragraph 48 above).
The unlawful act was including clause 19 in the Tenancy Agreement. The effect of this act was that the tenant had the carpets cleaned. This meant that tenant had to go to the trouble of arranging for the carpets to be cleaned and incur the fee of $138.00. The tenant said, and the landlord has not provided any evidence suggesting otherwise, that the carpets did not need to be washed.
Having this clause in the Tenancy Agreement was not in the tenant’s interests. It meant that regardless of how well the tenant looked after the carpet, they would incur a cost to have it cleaned.
There is a public interest in tenant’s being treated in accordance with their rights under the RTA. Most tenants will not be aware that means landlords must not include clauses in the Tenancy Agreement which exceed their obligations under the RTA. Tenants are likely to take clauses that exceed their obligations under the RTA at face value and comply with them. I consider there is a strong public interest in landlords complying with sections 11 and 137 of the RTA.
In this case, I consider it is just and appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. The maximum I can award for this breach is $1800.00. I consider in these circumstances an appropriate award to be $800.00. THE PARTIES’ CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CLAUSE 20 OF THE TENANCY AGREEMENT:
Clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement provides: Other terms: rent is discounted subject to tenant adherence to all contract terms and valid application information. Tenants indemnify landlord for any breach. Base rent discounted $20 per week in consideration of fixed term tenancy and acceptance of all contract terms. Discount agreed by parties as void and repayable if any contract conditions breached by tenant including number of tenants, duration of tenancy, house rules or obligations ...
The landlord says that the rent was $560 but was discounted to $540. The landlord is claiming $20 per week for the duration of the tenancy from the tenant because, the landlord says, the tenant breached the terms of the Tenancy Agreement and was therefore not entitled to the discount. The tenant says that the rent was $540 and should have been discounted to $520 and is claiming $20 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
Section 32 of the RTA provides that accelerated rent or damages provisions are prohibited. It states: (1) Any provision in a tenancy agreement to the effect that, on breach by the tenant of any term of the agreement or of any of the provisions of this Act or of any other enactment, the tenant shall be liable to pay— (a) the whole or any part of the rent remaining payable under the agreement; or (b) rent of an increased amount; or (c) a sum specified in the agreement by way of damages or penalty,— shall be of no effect.
I find that this clause is essentially a penalty clause and is unenforceable under section 32(1) of the RTA. That, however, is not the end of the matter as section 32(2) of the RTA goes on to provide: Any provision in a tenancy agreement to the effect that, if the tenant does not breach any term of the agreement or any of the provisions of this Act or of any other enactment, the rent shall or may be reduced or the tenant shall or may be granted or paid a rebate, refund, or other benefit, shall be construed as entitling the tenant to that reduction, rebate, refund, or other benefit in any event.
Therefore, the question is: was the tenant given the $20 per week discount? If the answer to that question is no, then the tenant is owed $20 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
The Tenancy Agreement states that the rent is $540 per week. Clause 20 says “Rent is discounted subject to tenant adherence to all contract terms and ...” and “Base rent discounted $20 per week in consideration of fixed term tenancy ...”.
The landlord says that as the word “discounted” is past tense, the clause is clear that the $540 is the rent after the $20 discount.
I find that it is unclear from the Tenancy Agreement as to whether the discount has been applied. I find the contra proferentem rule should be applied. This rule is a legal principle that dictates how unclear clauses in a contract should be interpreted. The rule provides that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous or can be interpreted in multiple ways, it should be read in a way that disfavours the party who originally drafted that specific clause. Here it was the landlord who drafted the clause and therefore, to the extent that it is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in the way it disfavours the landlord.
I find that the rate of $540 per week was the full rent and the tenant has not been given the discount of $20 per week. In accordance with section 32(2) of the RTA the tenant is entitled to that discount, and I award $1,008.57.
Exemplary damages are available for a breach of this clause. However, the tenant has not specifically claimed exemplary damages and I make no such award.
I have not considered this clause under section 137. However, even I did it would not have made a further award for exemplary damages. The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014) is that if there were multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. THE LANDLORD’S OTHER CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

The tenancy ended on 20 December 2024. The parties agreed that 3 days’ rent is owed. The tenant says this should be calculated at $520 per week because of the rent discount (see paragraphs 82-92 above). The landlord says it should be calculated at $540 per week being $232.00.
I award $232 in rent arrears. The tenant has been compensated for the discount up to and including 20 December 2024.
The landlord claims $23.50 for water arrears. During the hearing the tenant said they did not dispute this claim. The landlord is awarded $23.50 for water arrears. Is the landlord entitled to an extra week’s rent?
The landlord claims that the tenant is liable to pay an extra week’s rent because clause 19 states that the end date is the later of the end date and when the premises are returned “in/near original condition” and the tenant failed to do so. The landlord says that it took a week to clean the premises. As set out in paragraph 71 above, I have found this clause to be a breach of section 137 and unenforceable.
In addition, I have found that the landlord’s claim that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy is not proved (see paragraph 111 below). Therefore, I make no award of general damages for this claim.
This claim is dismissed.

Was the tenancy assigned?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage to the premises and failure to comply with obligations under the RTA which may have been caused by the previous tenant (the “original tenant”) because, the landlord says, the tenancy was assigned from the original tenant to the tenant. The landlord says the Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenant was to negotiate the condition of the premises with the original tenant. The landlord refers to the last three sentences of clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement which provide: New Tenant has negotiated & accepted apartment condition with outgoing break lease tenant, who is responsible for condition to satisfaction of landlord. Landlord not responsible for previous tenancy costs including but not limited to cleaning, repairs, pest control, consumable replacement. New tenant shall claim costs directly within 30 days of start, from outgoing tenant, not landlord
Section 2 of the RTA defines an assignment as a transfer to a person of all or the rights that a tenant has under a tenancy agreement.
Section 43B(1) of the RTA provides that a tenant can assign the tenancy provided the tenant has the prior written consent of the landlord and it is made in accordance with any reasonable conditions the landlord may impose.
Section 43B(6) of the RTA provides that a landlord must not unreasonably withhold consent for an assignment or impose unreasonable conditions on the assignment.
Section 43C of the RTA provides that the effect of an assignment of the tenancy is that the original tenant ceases to be responsible to the landlord apart from any obligations which arose prior to the assignment date.
This means that if the assignment date is 01 January 2025, the new tenant is responsible to the landlord from 01 January 2025 and the original tenant is responsible to the landlord for any obligations prior to that point.
Usually, when a tenancy is assigned, the new tenant is given a copy of the Tenancy Agreement between the landlord and the original tenant and agrees to the terms of that agreement to be assigned to him or her from the date of the assignment. In this case, the tenant was not given a copy of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the original tenant, and a new tenancy agreement was entered into with a different end date from the end date that applied to the original tenant.
In Chamkil Sachdev George, Isaacs George v [the respondent/s] [2022] NZTT 4330441, 4330546 the Tribunal found that in a situation where the Tenancy Agreement with the new tenant made reference to an “assignment” was not an assignment because: the landlord had arranged the new tenancy (placed the advertisement, interviewed the tenant etc), the new tenant entered into a new tenancy agreement with the landlord and the new tenant was not given a copy of the previous tenant’s tenancy agreement.
I find that this was not an assignment because the parties entered into a new tenancy agreement. The tenancy started on 03 January 2025. The tenant had no obligation under the RTA to be responsible for damage to the premises caused before that date or for any other responsibility (i.e. to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy) the original tenant owed to the landlord.
The last three sentences of clause 20 place obligations on the tenant which exceed the tenant’s obligations under the RTA. This is a breach of sections 11 and 137 of the RTA (see paragraphs 55-57 above) and this part of the clause is not enforceable.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not replace lightbulbs and removed a microwave oven which belonged to the landlord.
Claim that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: a. The landlord has not provided any photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an exit inspection report. As set out at paragraph 37 above, I consider the integrity of this document is compromised and place little weight on it. b. The landlord’s claim for cleaning of the premises is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for a replacement lightbulb: a. The landlord says that one lightbulb was not working at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says the light was working. Lightbulbs do not last indefinitely. It is quite possible that the bulb expired immediately after the tenant last used it. b. This claim is proved, and I award the landlord the $9.00 claimed.
The claim for compensation for the microwave oven: a. The landlord claims that the tenancy included the provision of a microwave oven and says that the tenant unlawfully took the microwave from the premises. b. The tenant says that the microwave oven was owned by the previous tenant who sold it to them. The tenant has provided text correspondence with the previous tenant as evidence that they were sold the microwave. The tenant has also provided a screenshot of the Trademe advertisement which includes a photograph of the kitchen with no microwave. The landlord advises that this advertisement was placed by the previous tenant and did not represent the kitchen at the time the tenancy was advertised. c. Section 13A of the RTA provides that tenant agreements must include certain information including “... a list of any chattels provided by the landlord”. d. The Tenancy Agreement does not include a list of chattels. The list of chattels is included in the entry and exit inspection form. The landlord said that after the Tenancy Agreement was signed, the landlord met the tenant at the premises, and they went through the entry inspection. The dispute regarding the entry / inspection documents is set out above at paragraphs 32-38 above. As explained, I consider the integrity of these documents is compromised and place little weight on them. e. If the landlord had complied with section 13A of the RTA whether the microwave was a chattel or not would have been clearly stated in the Tenancy Agreement and this dispute would have been significantly less likely to arise. The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the microwave was provided as a chattel. I am not satisfied that this is the case. f. The landlord’s claim for compensation for the microwave oven is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for damage to the carpet. The tenant says the carpet damage was caused by the previous tenant. The tenant has provided photographs showing that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy. The landlord does not have any photographs from the start of the tenancy.
During the hearing, the landlord said that the damage could have been caused by the previous tenant but refers to clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement which states that the tenant is responsible for any damage caused by the previous tenant. As set out in paragraph 108 above, I have found that this clause is contrary to sections 11 and 137 of the RTA and is therefore not enforceable.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. THE FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION:
Both parties have applied for reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of their names.
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I grant the tenant’s application for suppression of their name and award reimbursement of the filing fee.
While the landlord has had success with its claims for rent arrears, water rates and compensation for the lightbulb, it has not been substantially successful with the claim. For this reason, its application for reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of its name are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123575 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Apartment 317, 127 Newton Road, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123575 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Apartment 317, 127 Newton Road, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

REASONS

LANDLORDTENANT SIGNED

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

RTA?

RTA?

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

Was the tenancy assigned?

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

Order

Reasons

REASONS

LANDLORDTENANT SIGNED

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

RTA?

RTA?

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

Was the tenancy assigned?

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