What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5141714 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 5141714?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Failure To Maintain: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5141714?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5141714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394597-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5141714 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 5141714?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Failure To Maintain: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5141714?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5141714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394597-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Clarke Street, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5141714 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

13A Clarke Street, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5141714 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5141714 — net $2,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: - cleaning at start of tenancy		$100.00	- cleaning at start of tenancy
Compensation: - failure to maintain		$140.00	- failure to maintain
Refund of the Bond - held by landlord		$2,060.00	Refund of the Bond - held by landlord
Total award	$200.00	$2,300.00
Net award		$2,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,100.00

Claims and awards for application 5141714 — net $2,100.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Compensation: - cleaning at start of tenancy

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - cleaning at start of tenancy

Compensation: - failure to maintain

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - failure to maintain

Refund of the Bond - held by landlord

Amount: $2,060.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Refund of the Bond - held by landlord

Total award

Landlord $200.00 · Tenant $2,300.00

Net award

Tenant $2,100.00

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — , as I understand the tenant did not remove rubbish for which this compensation was to be provided for. RELEVANT LAW - HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited As Agent For Rentcare Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearings heard over two separate hearing days.
The tenancy relates to a property in Tauranga.
The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2023 and ended on 25 July 2024. The tenancy was for a fixed term with a contractual end date of 24 October 2024.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The tenant filed their application in the Tribunal on 21 January 2025.

CLAIMS

The tenant’s claimed: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation for breach of Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) and for a failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord has filed a counter claim. The landlord claims: a. Rent arrears. b. Compensation for rubbish removal. c. Compensation for gardening.

PROCEDURAL NOTE

Prior to the hearing the landlord sought to add the owner of the premises to the proceedings. At the hearing this was not pursued. I note that at some point prior to the end of this tenancy the landlord owner changed the property management firm however the tenant said the subsequent property management firm, did not notify them of the change in writing. This has created a situation where the first property manager has been named as the respondent in this claim, has obtained the Bond from the Bond Centre at the end of the tenancy and paid the Bond to the landlord owner and subsequent property manager, however they have been unable to provide information about how the tenancy ended and address matters raised in the hearing in relation to how the Bond has been used following its release from the Bond Centre.
Prior to the hearing the landlord also sought to bind the tenant to settlement they had entered into prior to the Tribunal hearing. At the hearing the landlord did not pursue this matter.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. REIMBURSEMENT OF CLEANING / REMOVAL OF ITEMS
The tenant claims compensation of $300 for cleaning that they say they attended to at the commencement of the premises and for removing some items in the garage.
The tenant says when they moved into the house, the house had rubbish and items from the previous tenants which they agreed to remove and be compensated for. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
The landlord suggested that the tenant did not attend to the cleaning or the removal of rubbish that the $300 was meant to compensate them for.
The tenant accepted that they did not remove some of the items that it appears they were to be compensated for.
The tenant said they bagged some of the belongings and litter left in the garage from previous tenants and I understand these remained in the premises at the end of this tenancy.
I accept that the tenant would have attended to some cleaning at the commencement of the tenancy and should be compensated for that, given this was agreed to by the landlord (and an email was provided as evidence of this). This is effectively compensating the tenant for the landlord not providing the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the commencement of the tenancy, which is an obligation on the landlord pursuant to s45 of the RTA. I find that $100 is reasonable to clean the surfaces in the kitchen for which photographs were provided from the commencement of the tenancy showing that they required cleaning.
The balance of the claim is dismissed, as I understand the tenant did not remove rubbish for which this compensation was to be provided for. RELEVANT LAW - HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS)
The RTA requires compliance with the HHS: 2 a. The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. b. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: i. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, or 120 days for tenancies for tenancies starting between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. ii. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. iii. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
I set out the requirements of the standards below. a. Heating standard: 2 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA i. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. ii. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ iii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. b. Insulation standard: i. The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. ii. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. iii. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. c. Ventilation standard: i. The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. ii. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. iii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. d. Draught Stopping Standard: i. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. ii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. e. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard: i. The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. ii. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. iii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE IN THIS CASE:
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Neither party suggested any exemptions applied in this case.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes report (HH report) completed, with the “live document” dated 20 September 2023 provided to the tenant and the Tribunal.
The HH report recorded the premises was compliant with: a. The heating standard b. The insulation standard, and c. The moisture ingress and drainage standard.

VENTILATION STANDARD

Openable windows/doors: a. The HHS report says that all habitable rooms in the property have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside and meets the HHS. b. The tenant says that the ventilation was restricted by way of one of the bedroom windows being sealed closed. c. The landlord accepts that a bedroom window was sealed as part of its repair. d. However, it appears the bedroom had at least one other openable window. I have no evidence to suggest that the one window was not at least five percent of the floor area of the room, as required by the HHS.
Extractor Fans: a. The HHS report says the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard and a new bathroom extractor fan was required to meet the standard. b. The tenant suggested the bathroom extractor fan was not installed in the required timeframe. c. The landlord provided an invoice from a contractor who undertook work to the premises to obtained compliance with the HHS, to confirm the bathroom extractor fan was installed within the statutory time frame. The invoice is dated outside the 120-day period however at the second hearing the tenant confirmed that the HHS work was undertaken within this period.
Accordingly, it appears likely the premises did comply with the HHS by the compliance date.
I find that the tenant has not proven that the premises was not compliant with the ventilation standard within the time for compliance and this claim is dismissed.

DRAUGHT STOPPING STANDARD

The HHS report records that the property was not free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps or holes. a. The HHS report provided by the landlord noted issues with the dining window, kitchen window, kitchen door, toilet window, bathroom window and the bedroom window and the premises did not comply with the draught stopping standard. b. Recommendations were made in the report for either repairs or draughting tape to be installed as appropriate. c. The landlord provided a quote of a general handyman who attended to window repairs and draught stopping, which I understand was on the 18 January 2024. The landlord says that this was completed within the statutory timeframe for compliance with the HHS. As noted above invoice does not specify the date the work was undertaken, however the tenant agreed the HHS work was undertaken within the time frame for compliance with the HHS.
I understand on the same date HHS compliance work was undertaken another window was damaged, the glass effectively breaking away from the frame. I understand this was subsequently repaired.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the draught stopping undertaken was insufficient to ensure compliance with the HHS. The tenant did not provide any additional photographs from after the HHS work was undertaken.
I find that the landlord has more likely than not ensured the property complied with the draught stopping standard within the time for compliance. I find the tenant has not proven the claim that the property was not compliant with the HHS in relation to draught stopping.
Accordingly, the claim and respect of the draught stopping standard is dismissed.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

Under section 45, a landlord must a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, 3 b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, 4 c. comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, and 5 d. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply. 6
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 7 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 8 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 9 the Court stated:... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
The tenant says during the tenancy there was an issue with respect the general maintenance of the property: a. The tenant says there was newspaper in draws and general rot and dampness, including a rotting hole in the kitchen cabinet. The tenants have provided photographs of the kitchen draws and underneath the sink which appear grubby and old, but not unusable. I understand the photographs are from the commencement of the tenancy and I have compensated the tenant for cleaning these areas above in this decision. b. The tenant referred to a hole in the kitchen cabinet and said it required 3 Section 45 (1)(a) RTA 4 Section 45 (b) RTA 5 Section 45 (1)c) RTA 6 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA. 7 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 8 Section 40(1)(d) 9 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15] repair. I am unclear of the extent of the hole at the commencement of the tenancy. It does appear that the hole in the kitchen cabinetry was raised in a email from the tenant to the landlord on 11 January 2024 and post tenancy photographs indicated a hole was still present. Allowing for a period of 28 weeks I consider compensation of $140 is appropriate to compensate the tenant for the lack of amenity in respect of the hole in the cabinetry. c. The tenant says the issues with a lack of maintenance resulted in a pest control issue. The tenant is relying on oral evidence of the existence of rats and mice. No photographs were provided which would support the claim, such as photographs of droppings. The landlord provided invoices to show that there had been pest control undertaken in the property in 2022. Accordingly, I find the claim unproven, and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. d. The tenant says there was issues with mould in the premises. The tenant said one of them ended up developing breathing issues that only began to clear after they moved. The tenant says they felt made to stay in a cold, mould-filled house. The tenant has provided one photograph of mould, said to be dated at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord queried the photograph and the email provided by the tenant which referred to the issue of mould. I am unclear where the photograph was taken. I am not satisfied that the one photograph of mould, is sufficient evidence of a persistent mould issue. Accordingly, I find the claim unproven, and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. e. The tenant says the ceiling in the garage and in an internal room was water damaged. The tenant provided photographs of water marks on a ceiling in the garage. The landlord says the water marks on the ceiling are cosmetic and that there is no ongoing leak. I accept that is the case as the tenant did not provide any evidence of a persistent leak in the ceiling. Accordingly, I find the claim unproven, and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. f. The tenant says there were issues with the oven not working correctly, ie remaining on when connected to the wall, the front hob not turning off, and another hob overheating. The landlord promptly attended to having the oven repaired when the tenant raised the issue. The email correspondence show that the issue was raised on about 11 January 2024. The landlord had the oven repaired on 31 January 2024 and confirmed it was in working order. The issue arose again on 29th February 2024 and the landlord promptly attended to its repair. I consider these times frames for attending to the oven repair reasonable. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.

COMMENT ABOUT COMPENSATION GENERALLY

In this case the tenant applied for compensation generally for increased costs of power, food and medical costs as a result of the claimed breaches. In this regard I note” a. The tenant’s claim for compensation is based on oral evidence. b. No quotes, invoices or receipts were provided in support of the claim. c. The tenant did not provide any evidence in terms of their power costs or documentary evidence about the impact in respect of their health issues. d. Accordingly, If I am wrong in respect of my findings about the HHS compliance or failure to maintain the premises, I consider the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that they have suffered a loss for which they should be compensated for, aside for the loss of amenity in relation to the hole in the cabinetry.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS

The landlord seeks to retain the Bond on the basis the tenant is liable for rent to 8 August 2025.
The tenant provided text message evidence that there was agreement for them to vacate the premises on 25 July 2025. During the hearing I attempted to call the subsequent property manager to clarify the position in relation to the final date of the tenancy. The subsequent property manager did not answer the phone call.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I consider it is more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 25 July 2025 and the landlord has overcharged the tenant rent to 8 August 2025 of $1030 which the landlord has retained from the bond. I consider the tenant is not liable for this rent and this portion of the Bond should be refunded to the tenant.
Accordingly, I make an order that $1,030 of the Bond retained for rent is to be refunded to the tenant (this is dealt with further under the Bond claim below). DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 10 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 11 c. remove all rubbish, and, 12 10 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 11 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA.
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed the tenant should pay compensation of $805 for rubbish removal and $550 for post tenancy gardening. Invoices were provided in support of the claims, but the landlord has not provided any photographs of the rubbish that required removal and gardening.
The tenant accepted that they left some chairs and the curtains they had installed. I will allow $200 for rubbish removal to reflect that the landlord would have removed a few items, but the landlord has not proven that rubbish removal or gardening was required to the quantum claimed. The balance of the claim is dismissed.

BOND REFUND

The landlord made a one-party application to the Bond Centre for the bond. The tenant said the email about this from the Bond centre went to their junk mailbox so they did not respond to the Bond Centre in time to notify that there is a dispute about the Bond and it should remain with the Bond centre pending agreement or a Tribunal order being made in respect of the Bond.
The property manager (respondent in this matter) paid the Bond to the landlord owner for the alleged rent arrears and to the new property manager for the rubbish removal and gardening. The landlord has not proven that they should be compensated to the full amount claimed for rent arrears, rubbish removal and gardening. The bond, less the $200 awarded for rubbish removal, should be repaid to the tenant and I have made an order that the balance of the Bond is paid from the landlord to the tenant.

FILING FEE

12 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA.

Both parties have been partly successful in their claim. I decline to award the filing fee to either party as reimbursement of the filing fees to each party would cancel each other out.

SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
As the tenant has had some success and I consider there is little public interest in publishing the tenant’s name, I have made an order for name suppression for the tenant.
The landlord sought name suppression. There is a public interest in the landlord’s name being published and I decline name suppression for the landlord.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5141714 — net $2,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: - cleaning at start of tenancy		$100.00	- cleaning at start of tenancy
Compensation: - failure to maintain		$140.00	- failure to maintain
Refund of the Bond - held by landlord		$2,060.00	Refund of the Bond - held by landlord
Total award	$200.00	$2,300.00
Net award		$2,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,100.00

Claims and awards for application 5141714 — net $2,100.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Compensation: - cleaning at start of tenancy

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - cleaning at start of tenancy

Compensation: - failure to maintain

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - failure to maintain

Refund of the Bond - held by landlord

Amount: $2,060.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Refund of the Bond - held by landlord

Total award

Landlord $200.00 · Tenant $2,300.00

Net award

Tenant $2,100.00

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — , as I understand the tenant did not remove rubbish for which this compensation was to be provided for. RELEVANT LAW - HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited As Agent For Rentcare Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearings heard over two separate hearing days.
The tenancy relates to a property in Tauranga.
The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2023 and ended on 25 July 2024. The tenancy was for a fixed term with a contractual end date of 24 October 2024.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The tenant filed their application in the Tribunal on 21 January 2025.

CLAIMS

The tenant’s claimed: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation for breach of Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) and for a failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord has filed a counter claim. The landlord claims: a. Rent arrears. b. Compensation for rubbish removal. c. Compensation for gardening.

PROCEDURAL NOTE

Prior to the hearing the landlord sought to add the owner of the premises to the proceedings. At the hearing this was not pursued. I note that at some point prior to the end of this tenancy the landlord owner changed the property management firm however the tenant said the subsequent property management firm, did not notify them of the change in writing. This has created a situation where the first property manager has been named as the respondent in this claim, has obtained the Bond from the Bond Centre at the end of the tenancy and paid the Bond to the landlord owner and subsequent property manager, however they have been unable to provide information about how the tenancy ended and address matters raised in the hearing in relation to how the Bond has been used following its release from the Bond Centre.
Prior to the hearing the landlord also sought to bind the tenant to settlement they had entered into prior to the Tribunal hearing. At the hearing the landlord did not pursue this matter.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. REIMBURSEMENT OF CLEANING / REMOVAL OF ITEMS
The tenant claims compensation of $300 for cleaning that they say they attended to at the commencement of the premises and for removing some items in the garage.
The tenant says when they moved into the house, the house had rubbish and items from the previous tenants which they agreed to remove and be compensated for. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
The landlord suggested that the tenant did not attend to the cleaning or the removal of rubbish that the $300 was meant to compensate them for.
The tenant accepted that they did not remove some of the items that it appears they were to be compensated for.
The tenant said they bagged some of the belongings and litter left in the garage from previous tenants and I understand these remained in the premises at the end of this tenancy.
I accept that the tenant would have attended to some cleaning at the commencement of the tenancy and should be compensated for that, given this was agreed to by the landlord (and an email was provided as evidence of this). This is effectively compensating the tenant for the landlord not providing the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the commencement of the tenancy, which is an obligation on the landlord pursuant to s45 of the RTA. I find that $100 is reasonable to clean the surfaces in the kitchen for which photographs were provided from the commencement of the tenancy showing that they required cleaning.
The balance of the claim is dismissed, as I understand the tenant did not remove rubbish for which this compensation was to be provided for. RELEVANT LAW - HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS)
The RTA requires compliance with the HHS: 2 a. The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. b. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: i. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, or 120 days for tenancies for tenancies starting between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. ii. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. iii. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
I set out the requirements of the standards below. a. Heating standard: 2 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA i. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. ii. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ iii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. b. Insulation standard: i. The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. ii. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. iii. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. c. Ventilation standard: i. The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. ii. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. iii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. d. Draught Stopping Standard: i. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. ii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. e. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard: i. The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. ii. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. iii. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE IN THIS CASE:
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Neither party suggested any exemptions applied in this case.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes report (HH report) completed, with the “live document” dated 20 September 2023 provided to the tenant and the Tribunal.
The HH report recorded the premises was compliant with: a. The heating standard b. The insulation standard, and c. The moisture ingress and drainage standard.

VENTILATION STANDARD

Openable windows/doors: a. The HHS report says that all habitable rooms in the property have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside and meets the HHS. b. The tenant says that the ventilation was restricted by way of one of the bedroom windows being sealed closed. c. The landlord accepts that a bedroom window was sealed as part of its repair. d. However, it appears the bedroom had at least one other openable window. I have no evidence to suggest that the one window was not at least five percent of the floor area of the room, as required by the HHS.
Extractor Fans: a. The HHS report says the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard and a new bathroom extractor fan was required to meet the standard. b. The tenant suggested the bathroom extractor fan was not installed in the required timeframe. c. The landlord provided an invoice from a contractor who undertook work to the premises to obtained compliance with the HHS, to confirm the bathroom extractor fan was installed within the statutory time frame. The invoice is dated outside the 120-day period however at the second hearing the tenant confirmed that the HHS work was undertaken within this period.
Accordingly, it appears likely the premises did comply with the HHS by the compliance date.
I find that the tenant has not proven that the premises was not compliant with the ventilation standard within the time for compliance and this claim is dismissed.

DRAUGHT STOPPING STANDARD

The HHS report records that the property was not free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps or holes. a. The HHS report provided by the landlord noted issues with the dining window, kitchen window, kitchen door, toilet window, bathroom window and the bedroom window and the premises did not comply with the draught stopping standard. b. Recommendations were made in the report for either repairs or draughting tape to be installed as appropriate. c. The landlord provided a quote of a general handyman who attended to window repairs and draught stopping, which I understand was on the 18 January 2024. The landlord says that this was completed within the statutory timeframe for compliance with the HHS. As noted above invoice does not specify the date the work was undertaken, however the tenant agreed the HHS work was undertaken within the time frame for compliance with the HHS.
I understand on the same date HHS compliance work was undertaken another window was damaged, the glass effectively breaking away from the frame. I understand this was subsequently repaired.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the draught stopping undertaken was insufficient to ensure compliance with the HHS. The tenant did not provide any additional photographs from after the HHS work was undertaken.
I find that the landlord has more likely than not ensured the property complied with the draught stopping standard within the time for compliance. I find the tenant has not proven the claim that the property was not compliant with the HHS in relation to draught stopping.
Accordingly, the claim and respect of the draught stopping standard is dismissed.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

Under section 45, a landlord must a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, 3 b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, 4 c. comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, and 5 d. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply. 6
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 7 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 8 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 9 the Court stated:... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
The tenant says during the tenancy there was an issue with respect the general maintenance of the property: a. The tenant says there was newspaper in draws and general rot and dampness, including a rotting hole in the kitchen cabinet. The tenants have provided photographs of the kitchen draws and underneath the sink which appear grubby and old, but not unusable. I understand the photographs are from the commencement of the tenancy and I have compensated the tenant for cleaning these areas above in this decision. b. The tenant referred to a hole in the kitchen cabinet and said it required 3 Section 45 (1)(a) RTA 4 Section 45 (b) RTA 5 Section 45 (1)c) RTA 6 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA. 7 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 8 Section 40(1)(d) 9 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15] repair. I am unclear of the extent of the hole at the commencement of the tenancy. It does appear that the hole in the kitchen cabinetry was raised in a email from the tenant to the landlord on 11 January 2024 and post tenancy photographs indicated a hole was still present. Allowing for a period of 28 weeks I consider compensation of $140 is appropriate to compensate the tenant for the lack of amenity in respect of the hole in the cabinetry. c. The tenant says the issues with a lack of maintenance resulted in a pest control issue. The tenant is relying on oral evidence of the existence of rats and mice. No photographs were provided which would support the claim, such as photographs of droppings. The landlord provided invoices to show that there had been pest control undertaken in the property in 2022. Accordingly, I find the claim unproven, and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. d. The tenant says there was issues with mould in the premises. The tenant said one of them ended up developing breathing issues that only began to clear after they moved. The tenant says they felt made to stay in a cold, mould-filled house. The tenant has provided one photograph of mould, said to be dated at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord queried the photograph and the email provided by the tenant which referred to the issue of mould. I am unclear where the photograph was taken. I am not satisfied that the one photograph of mould, is sufficient evidence of a persistent mould issue. Accordingly, I find the claim unproven, and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. e. The tenant says the ceiling in the garage and in an internal room was water damaged. The tenant provided photographs of water marks on a ceiling in the garage. The landlord says the water marks on the ceiling are cosmetic and that there is no ongoing leak. I accept that is the case as the tenant did not provide any evidence of a persistent leak in the ceiling. Accordingly, I find the claim unproven, and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. f. The tenant says there were issues with the oven not working correctly, ie remaining on when connected to the wall, the front hob not turning off, and another hob overheating. The landlord promptly attended to having the oven repaired when the tenant raised the issue. The email correspondence show that the issue was raised on about 11 January 2024. The landlord had the oven repaired on 31 January 2024 and confirmed it was in working order. The issue arose again on 29th February 2024 and the landlord promptly attended to its repair. I consider these times frames for attending to the oven repair reasonable. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.

COMMENT ABOUT COMPENSATION GENERALLY

In this case the tenant applied for compensation generally for increased costs of power, food and medical costs as a result of the claimed breaches. In this regard I note” a. The tenant’s claim for compensation is based on oral evidence. b. No quotes, invoices or receipts were provided in support of the claim. c. The tenant did not provide any evidence in terms of their power costs or documentary evidence about the impact in respect of their health issues. d. Accordingly, If I am wrong in respect of my findings about the HHS compliance or failure to maintain the premises, I consider the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that they have suffered a loss for which they should be compensated for, aside for the loss of amenity in relation to the hole in the cabinetry.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS

The landlord seeks to retain the Bond on the basis the tenant is liable for rent to 8 August 2025.
The tenant provided text message evidence that there was agreement for them to vacate the premises on 25 July 2025. During the hearing I attempted to call the subsequent property manager to clarify the position in relation to the final date of the tenancy. The subsequent property manager did not answer the phone call.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I consider it is more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 25 July 2025 and the landlord has overcharged the tenant rent to 8 August 2025 of $1030 which the landlord has retained from the bond. I consider the tenant is not liable for this rent and this portion of the Bond should be refunded to the tenant.
Accordingly, I make an order that $1,030 of the Bond retained for rent is to be refunded to the tenant (this is dealt with further under the Bond claim below). DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 10 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 11 c. remove all rubbish, and, 12 10 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 11 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA.
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed the tenant should pay compensation of $805 for rubbish removal and $550 for post tenancy gardening. Invoices were provided in support of the claims, but the landlord has not provided any photographs of the rubbish that required removal and gardening.
The tenant accepted that they left some chairs and the curtains they had installed. I will allow $200 for rubbish removal to reflect that the landlord would have removed a few items, but the landlord has not proven that rubbish removal or gardening was required to the quantum claimed. The balance of the claim is dismissed.

BOND REFUND

The landlord made a one-party application to the Bond Centre for the bond. The tenant said the email about this from the Bond centre went to their junk mailbox so they did not respond to the Bond Centre in time to notify that there is a dispute about the Bond and it should remain with the Bond centre pending agreement or a Tribunal order being made in respect of the Bond.
The property manager (respondent in this matter) paid the Bond to the landlord owner for the alleged rent arrears and to the new property manager for the rubbish removal and gardening. The landlord has not proven that they should be compensated to the full amount claimed for rent arrears, rubbish removal and gardening. The bond, less the $200 awarded for rubbish removal, should be repaid to the tenant and I have made an order that the balance of the Bond is paid from the landlord to the tenant.

FILING FEE

12 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA.

Both parties have been partly successful in their claim. I decline to award the filing fee to either party as reimbursement of the filing fees to each party would cancel each other out.

SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
As the tenant has had some success and I consider there is little public interest in publishing the tenant’s name, I have made an order for name suppression for the tenant.
The landlord sought name suppression. There is a public interest in the landlord’s name being published and I decline name suppression for the landlord.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

CLAIMS

PROCEDURAL NOTE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

VENTILATION STANDARD

DRAUGHT STOPPING STANDARD

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

COMMENT ABOUT COMPENSATION GENERALLY

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS

TENANCY?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

BOND REFUND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

CLAIMS

PROCEDURAL NOTE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

VENTILATION STANDARD

DRAUGHT STOPPING STANDARD

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

COMMENT ABOUT COMPENSATION GENERALLY

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS

TENANCY?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

BOND REFUND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions