What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5140588 about?

The tribunal order states: Adam Duker must pay [The landlord/s] $3,917.86 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5140588?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; House Keys: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140588?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13298287-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5140588 about?

The tribunal order states: Adam Duker must pay [The landlord/s] $3,917.86 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5140588?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; House Keys: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140588?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13298287-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5B Short Street, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5140588 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5140588 — net $358.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair waste disposal unit	$115.00	Repair waste disposal unit
House keys	$105.00	House keys
Repair of cladding	$60.00	Repair of cladding
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$358.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$358.00

Both parties attended the hearing. During the hearing the tenant said that the claims he had made of breach of quiet enjoyment include events that occurred prior to the landlord’s management of the tenancy and involved actions of the owner.

The matter had been set down for two full days. The owner [the owner/s] is joined as a party to these proceedings and appeared on the second day of the hearing when the related claims were heard.

The tenancy began on 8 January 2023 and ended on 21 May 2025 after being extended by consent from 1 May 2025.

The tenant sought compensation for illegal rent increases, reimbursement of overpaid rent, and exemplary damages for discrimination and breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.

The landlord filed a cross application for repairs, rekeyed locks, and carpet cleaning.

The claims for repairs to the cat door and shower door were withdrawn.

The party bringing the claims to the Tribunal has burden to prove them. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.

For the avoidance of doubt, while I may not have referred to all the evidence and submissions presented in this order, I confirm that I have considered all of the material before me in reaching my decision. The tenants claim.

Adam Duker claims that during the tenancy there were two illegal rent increases taking the rent payable above market rate.

The landlord increased the rent twice during the tenancy, according to their notices of increased rent payments, from $580.00 per week to, •$630.00 on 18 February 2024,and •$695.00 on 16 March 2025

The tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 18 February 2024. There is no evidence of a valid notice given by either party to agree to end the tenancy or to renegotiate a fixed term, so the tenancy automatically reverts to a periodic tenancy.

This is important because under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA if the tenancy is for a fixed term an application for an order reducing rent must be made within three months after the commencement of the tenancy or the last date of the last review of rent whichever is later. On 18 February 2024 this tenancy was still a fixed term tenancy. The application was filed on 30 January 2025 and outside of the required timeframe. On this basis the claim relating to the first rent increase is dismissed.

There are no specific time limits for periodic tenancies so the Tribunal will consider the rent increase that occurred on 16 March 2025.

The premises were a town house that had 3-bedrooms,2 bathrooms and double garage. The tenant claims that the rent increases were made in an attempt get him to leave and now seeks compensation for the rent paid.

The tenant provided a composite document that had, • a rent appraisal of the property next door to his,32B Brooklyn road, which he believed was bigger and had a built-in sunroom this was assessed at $640- 670 per week. •a market comparison of 3 other 3-bedroom 2-bathroom premises in the Claudelands area, not dated, •information from the tenancy services bond held information noting that rents ranged from $580-$610.00 for 3 bedrooms. This was not dated and did not specify bathrooms or garaging or the area that it came from.

The tenant also provided copies of advertisements of rentals in similar areas, that the tenant believed were comparable to his premises with 3 Bedrooms. The rents range was $620 ,$580 and $596 per week.

The landlord said these were not comparable as they did not show the premises or the condition inside, for example the premises close to the tenant, although it listed similar rooms it was much smaller inside. The current premises also had a double garage which many did not.

They said they based their assessment on a CMA report which reflected the rental market at the time. The report they used for this tenancy rent reviews was not available.

The landlord said the market has fluctuated from a time when there were few rentals and high rent, to now when some rents are being reduced to attract tenants. The date and of timing market data is important. Their job is to inform the landlord of the market and then the landlord instructs them to increase the rent or not.

The Tribunal can may make an order reducing rent to an amount that is in line with market rent if it is satisfied that the rent being paid is exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. See section 25 RTA.

This is not the remedy sought by the tenant as the tenancy has ended. Their claim is for compensation for the extra rent paid during the tenancy because they believed that the rent increase breached the terms of the RTA.

Section 25 requires the Tribunal to consider two issues, what is the market rent for the premises and if the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.

The market rent is defined as the rent that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality and other relevant matters.

The tenant said that the Brooklyn road property was exactly like his and a good comparison. In April 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord stating this and that the maximum rent for the property was $610.00 ,claiming that a $50.00 rent increase was not in accord with the market. The rent appraisal provided by the tenant noted $670.00 as the maximum range of rent that could be expected.

Considering the objective evidence of the appraisal including the very similar premises Brooklyn road in April 2024 I find a market rent of $650.00 for the current property would be appropriate.

Is then, an increase to $695.00 substantially in excess of the market rent? This is an increase of $45.00 dollars per week , a 6.9 percent increase from the market rent as assessed.

The Tribunal does not set a fixed percentage but often considers and increase of over 20% or more as generally a substantial increase. An increase of less than 10%, unless there are other aggravating factors, is not viewed as substantial.

The Tribunal considered in Tenant v Jewel Hall [ 2023] NZTT 4575069 While there is no fixed percentage that defines a substantial increase, increases of 20% or more are likely to be scrutinised, particularly if they are not supported by market evidence or are closely linked in time to a dispute between the parties.

This tenancy has come before the Tribunal when the tenant claimed that the termination was retaliatory. An order was issued on 29 April 2025 dismissing this claim and I do not find that this was linked in any way to the second rental increase.

The Tribunal decision Applicants v Fisken & Associates Ltd T/A Professionals [2023]NZTT 4432660,considered a claim for compensation for costs and found. However, nothing on the market rent provisions under section 25 RTA allows the Tribunal to order the landlord to pay a successful applicant on the market rent application the tenant’s costs or compensation. I do not consider that the landlord has necessarily breached the tenancy agreement or the RTA when it proposed to increase the rent to $1,550.00 with effect from 27 December 2022. What the market rent provisions under section 25 RTA provide is a mechanism by which the landlord’s proposed rent increase may be challenged by a tenant resulting in a Tribunal order reducing the rent to an amount that is in line with the market rent on the Tribunal being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. Consequently, there is no basis for me to award the tenant compensation for incurring the valuer’s costs.

The second increase was under 10%, and although alleged that it was motivation to terminate the tenancy there was no evidence of this. The tenant said that he could afford to pay the amount asked and chose to because he liked his home. I am not persuaded that the weekly rent of $695.00 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount and even if I had, I would not have awarded compensation as I do not find that proposed rent increase by the landlord was a breach of the RTA or tenancy agreement.

This claim is dismissed. Over payment of rent

The tenant claimed that he overpaid rent by $594.08 and sought a refund.

When the tenancy was ending the landlord sent the tenant a letter stating the total amount of rent owing until the agreed termination date of 1 May 2025 was $1427.45.

The parties then agreed to extend the termination date to 21 May 2025.

A second letter was sent on 1 May 2025 saying that they acknowledged receipt the notice confirming that the tenant will be vacating on 21 May 2025. It specified that the rent payable up to and including the vacate date was $1427.45.

This amount was wrong and was based on the original agreed end date of the tenancy calculating rent owed to 1 May 2025.

The landlords had agreed to an extension of the tenancy to 21 May to allow the tenant time to find a new property. There is no dispute that the tenant stayed at the premises until this date.

The tenant claimed that based on the error contained in the letter of 1 May 2025 he was only liable to pay the $1427.45 and not the rent owing up to 21 May when the tenancy ended.

A tenancy agreement is a contract and states that the tenant agrees to pay a weekly amount for the right to occupy the premises for the duration of the tenancy. This amount was increased twice during the tenancy.

A rent record was provided by the landlords showing the recorded rent payments up to the 21 May 2026 when the tenancy ended.

The letter contained the wrong amount, but I do not find that this alters the tenant’s obligation to pay the weekly rent as agreed for the length of the tenancy. This letter was not contracting out of any obligations or a document that bound the landlords or recorded any agreement to alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

There was no claim by the tenant that the rent summary was wrong, just that the letter in the tenant’s view, was an agreement that bound the parties. I do not agree and find there are no grounds to award the tenant a refund of any rent.

The credit balance of $63.47 was refunded to the tenant and recorded on the rent summary leaving a zero balance.

This claim is dismissed. Discrimination

When a claim for discrimination is made on the grounds of national identity, religion, or age, a court must consider whether the alleged conduct, practice, requirement, or condition results in differential treatment on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination as defined in section 21 Human Rights Act 1993. These prohibited grounds include national origins (which encompasses nationality or citizenship), religious belief, and age, among others.

Was the tenant treated differently because of his national origin, religion or age?

The tenant claimed that the landlord tried to have an inspection on thanksgiving which he said, being an American, is a large important holiday and event in America. This incident occurred in 2023.

A landlord or a tenant can apply to the Tribunal for an order for exemplary damages on the ground that an unlawful act has been committed. But this cannot be applied for 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. See section 109 RTA.

This was explained in the hearing and because this part of the claim was lodged after this date, it is dismissed.

The tenant said that he had a flag on the fence that he was told to remove. One flag was the American flag and a Jewish flag.

The tenant said that the landlord had told him that an elderly neighbour saw him blow a kiss to her and had complained to them. He was asked by the landlord to he refrain from doing this. The two parties did not get along and had a history of complaints and aggressive behaviour. The tenant disputed doing this, but said that because he was younger, they took the neighbours side, and this was discrimination.

The tenant needed to establish that he was treated differently. The landlord said the flags were on boundary fence and stood well above the fence line. They were obvious to the neighbour, and she did not like it, so they asked to have them taken down. The same with the claimed ‘kiss’. There was no evidence that the tenant was treated differently in either of these incidents because of his age or beliefs, it was just the landlords acting on complaints .

Under section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants, or any person lawfully in the premises, interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants or neighbours. A landlord can be found in breach of this duty if they do not comply.

Section 40 (2)( c) of the RTA also prohibits tenants from causing or permitting interference with reasonable peace comfort or privacy of any other persons in the neighbourhood.

A landlord has a duty to act if a tenants actions affect a neighbour.

I find no grounds establishing that the tenant has been discriminated against or treated differently because of ahis nationality, religious beliefs or age.

This claim is dismissed. Harassment

Adam Duker claims the landlord has harassed them and seeks exemplary damages. Many of the incidents occurred more than a year before ethe application to the Tribunal was made, and accordingly following section 109 RTA they will not be considered.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The tenant claimed that the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment by, a) Making him move a shed. This incident occurred more than 12 months prior to the date of the application and is therefore dismissed. See Section 109 RTA. b) Stealing a drawer. A drawer front and runner in the kitchen was damaged and removed by the landlord in order to get spare parts to repair it. The bent runner was bought to the Tribunal as evidence. The landlord said they still can’t find a matching runner due to the age and style of the drawer. There was no claim by the tenant for failure to maintain and no claim by landlord for tenant damage which would have been the appropriate applications. There is no evidence that this was stolen. c) Shower repair incident. The tenant said that he had on record a plumber saying that a new shower door was needed. The video did not clearly state this, just that it was broken. The parties communicated about the door and the landlord said he was delayed fixing it because the tenant would not allow him to enter. Ultimately a door runner was bent over, and the landlord fixed this and there were no more issues. d) Key incident The landlord sought compensation for rekeying the premises after the tenant had his keys stolen. This claim is dealt with under the landlord application and is a compensation claim not a breach under section 38 RTA. e) 14 day notice On 12 March a 14-day notice was issued by the tenant in 2023 saying his artwork was Gaudy. The tenant had a sign that his child had made standing in a pot that extended over a joining fence. The landlord said they commented about the loud sign as it was sticking up over the fence dividing two properties and a neighbour did not like it. The tenant felt like they insulted his Childs artwork. f)Sending multiple emails/mean spirited. The tenant provided evidence of communications between the property manager and the about issues raised. An agreement was reached to limit communications to reduce the conflict between the parties, but I do not find that the actions of the property managers was excessive. The landlord acted within the boundaries of their responsibilities by addressing the issues raised in relation to the tenancy. This is dismissed. g) On 4 April the tenant said the landlord acknowledge harassment by agreeing that emails and messages would be limited. h) Council The council came to the premises after a complaint from possibly another neighbour about a sign. This did not involve the landlords and is dismissed. i)Stealing package A package arrived at the premise after the tenancy ended and the landlord confirmed that it was found inside the premises and the parties set about co ordinating a place to drop it off. The tenant said they could leave it with a neighbour. By this time the relationship between the party’s had deteriorated and the landlord wanted to deliver it in person so that they would not be accused of anything. This took time to find a time and place convenient to both parties. It was delivered and accusations were made but no charges laid. I do not find any evidence that it was stolen. j)Photos of the tenant’s house The tenant said that neighbour ,who the tenant had a history of incidents with, him came on to his property and took photos. When asked they said that the landlord told her to do it. The landlord confirmed that they told the neighbour that they needed evidence of her complaints and photographs were good proof of events. They did not tell her to go onto another person’s property to do this.

The tenant also included in this claim that the landlord took him to the Tribunal seeking termination based on assault. This was dismissed by the Tribunal and the tenant said it was a breach. The assault involved a party that was not another of the landlords’ tenants and a video was produced. The tenant was charged by the Police. The landlords sought termination on this basis but was not granted it in the Tribunal. The Police case against the tenant was dismissed.

The tenant requested that the video of the alleged assault be viewed, and this was declined. The matter had already been determined by the Tribunal and an order issued. The tenant sought to use this as evidence of the landlord’s motivation and a failure on their part by not seeking his opinion before seeking termination and therefore a breach.

There was enough evidence for the Police to lay charges and require the tenant to attend court. I find the landlord acted appropriately given the information and the requirement under section 40(2)( c )RTA that a tenant shall not interfere with the peace comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

I find that collectively the incidents presented under this do not amount to a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. Many are maintenance claims, and I am not persuaded that the landlords have committed breaches that amount to harassment.

This claim is dismissed. Landlord 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.

The tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy. A cat that the tenant did not own had entered the premises when he was away and fouled the carpet in the bedroom/ second living area. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was still marked and the landlord claimed cleaning costs.

The tenant said that the cat entered through a broken cat door, and he had told the landlord it was broken so it was not his responsibility to fix the stains.

The cat door was located in the garage and for the cat to get into the bedroom there were three doors that had to be open, one into the laundry and one out of the laundry and the last one into the room.

The property managers said that they had first heard about this problem on 18 January 2024.

A video of one property manager testing the door on 26 January 2024 showed that the door was not broken or cracked and could not be pushed open from the outside when pushed.

The second property manager attended the premises on 30 January 2026 and found the cat door cracked in two, off its hinges and leaning against the door. A photograph was provided. This did not look like the door in the video of 26 January. The door was repaired by them and there were no reported cat visits after this.

The tenant had recorded the conversation while repairs were taking place saying that the property manager said it was not working.

The proper manager said that when he said it was a ‘tricky lock’ he believed it meant it was broken and not working. The proper manager said it he had not seen one like this and it was a heavy duty one with a different lock mechanism.

The tenant has had a problem with cats coming into the premises and there was a message dated 26 December to the property manager that a cat was in his property when he returned after a week away.

The landlords’ position is that the cat door can be locked, and this is the tenant’s responsibility to do this to prevent them entering.

The tenant had a cleaner that came once a fortnight and did washing which was hung outside. The laundry was located just off the garage and the door that had the cat door in it .This door was used to provide access to where the washing line was.

The landlords also employed the same cleaner and contacted her when she discovered a cat inside the premises on 18 January 2024 when the tenant was away. They instructed her to lock the cat door to prevent further cats entering and this worked.

The landlords provided evidence that the cat door could be locked to prevent cats entering. The tenant said once the door was repaired the cats did not get in, but the repairs to the door were substantial as shown in the photograph and a lot more than fixing a lock mechanism.

It was clear that there was a problem with cats entering the premises, but the question is if the landlords could be held responsible for this, and I find that they cannot. The cats entered the property when the tenant was not there and when they were. The incident of the carpet could have occurred when the cleaner opened the door to hang out the washing.

The landlords provided a working cat door, and I find that their responsibility ends there. It does not extend to deterring neighbourhood cats from entering into the premises.

On this basis I find that the tenant is liable for the costs to clean the carpet in one room based on the photographs provided.

The amounts ordered are proved. Is the tenant responsible for the cost to rekey of 3 locks.

The tenant’s car was broken into and the keys to the premises were stolen. The tenant was ‘pretty sure’ that his car was locked but could find no damage to it, just his belongings had been removed and some had been left outside.

The landlord said that they were told the keys were taken and arranged to have the premises rekeyed. This was for safety of the tenant.

Some weeks later the keys were returned to the tenant, but the work had been done. Initially the tenant offered to pay for half the costs for two keys as that was what were taken but said he changed his mind after the landlords contacted tenancy services for advice believing that he was to pay the total replacement costs.

The landlord said all they knew was that the keys were stolen, and there were three for the premises, so they replaced three.

A landlord is to provide and maintain locks to ensure premises are reasonably secure. See section 46 RTA. I find no fault in the landlord replacing all three keys and that doing so they complied with the requirements of the RTA.

The loss of the keys was not due to any actions of the landlord. The tenants left the keys to the premises in a car that was not parked in the garage as this was used for other purposes. It is acknowledged that the theft was outside the tenants’ control but the responsibility for the keys was not.

In this circumstance, as this situation is not specifically covered by the RTA, I find the original suggestion of the parties paying half each for the replacement costs is reasonable and $105.00 is awarded to the landlord for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Waste disposal unit.

It was not disputed that the landlord fixed the waste disposal unit on 1 December 2023. He said that this had occurred on many occasions, and he had previously found a metal screwdriver in it. On the occasion claimed here the landlord found a rubber plug in it which prevented it working.

The tenant said that he saw the landlord mess around in the unit but did not see what was removed and disputed that he should be liable for this cost.

This is not maintenance and more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed for repairs is awarded. Exterior cladding

The landlord provided a photograph of an outside wall from a routine inspection dated 25 August 2023 ,with a security camera fixed to bricks on the right and a window with fibrolite cladding and above it. The cladding was unmarked.

A second photo from the last tenancy inspection was produced showing four large screw holes and damage by the bottom 2 holes. I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy.

The tenant claimed that his security camera was put up and that it may have been tried in this position first because he did not screw in the holes.

The owner said that it would have been her nephew who put up the camera and this would therefore have occurred before [the landlord/s] took over management of tenancy on 4 June 2023.

The photograph without damage was taken in August of that year.

The tenant agreed that there was a bracket there that he tried to put a flag in, but it was only there for a few days as it was not secure, and he took it down.

The picture of the damaged fibrolite cladding showed no bracket.

The landlord suggested that the tenant damaged the wall when removing the bracket.

I find that the landlord established the damage occurred during the tenancy and its more than fair wear and tear. I prefer the landlords’ photographic evidence and find that the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount claimed for this damage is awarded.

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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because [The respondent/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5140588 — net $358.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair waste disposal unit	$115.00	Repair waste disposal unit
House keys	$105.00	House keys
Repair of cladding	$60.00	Repair of cladding
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$358.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$358.00