What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143654 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5143654?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143654?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143654 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5143654?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143654?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143654 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143654 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$150.00	failure to lodge bond
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$150.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143654 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$150.00	failure to lodge bond
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$150.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $150.00 immediately
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 6 November 2021. On the 23 January 2025, the tenant filed a claim. On 24 January 2025, the landlord filed a counter claim. On 18 February 2025, the claims were scheduled for a hearing on 31 March 2025, and subsequently rescheduled to 26 May 2025. The tenancy ended on 23 February 2025.
At the commencement of the hearing, it became apparent that the claims made by the parties in their respective applications differed from those referred to in their submissions and evidence provided. The Tribunal conducted a case management conference confirming the claims.
The Tribunal then proceeded to hear five of the landlord’s claims. The balance of the landlord’s claims, and all of the tenant’s claims, were adjourned and rescheduled for hearing on 27 June 2025. Further rescheduling followed, with the next hearing held on 15 September 2025, and the final hearing of evidence by video conference on 21 October 2025.
At the hearing on 15 September 2025, the landlord complained that some of their evidence uploaded with their application was missing. The Tribunal rejected this submission. Following the case management conference, a copy of both applications and all of the evidence had been merged into a single document, with the pages numbered, and sent to the parties for reference to assist both them and the Tribunal in navigating the evidence. Additional documents were produced and added to the bundles during the hearings.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The party making the claim must establish, more likely than not, that the other has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). Landlord’s claims
The landlord’s claims: i.That the tenant is responsible for damage to the property occurring during the course of the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear (section 49B of the Act, namely: a. The plumbing (bathroom, kitchen, hot water cylinder, and toilet), b. Heat pump and the wall beneath the heat pump, c. Wooden fence at the front and side of the property, d. Shower door, e. Bathrooms tiles, f. Kitchen sink and kitchen cabinetry, g. Window latches, locks, and door handles throughout the property, h. Roof of the sleepout. ii.That the tenant unreasonably withheld consent to viewings (section 48(3A) of the Act). iii.That the tenant failed, without reasonable excuse, to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy (section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Act). iv.That the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms and damaged door handles thus rendering inoperative any means of escape from fire (section 40(2) (ab) of the Act). v.That the tenant had failed to remove all rubbish (section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act). vi.That the tenant made alterations to the gardens (front and rear) and had failed to return them in the same condition as they were at the commencement of the tenancy (section 42B of the Act). vii.That the tenant failed to leave the driveway in a reasonable condition (oil stain) (section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act). viii.That the tenant owes outstanding water rates.
The landlord seeks the following remedies: •6(i) (a-h) Compensation and exemplary damages. •6(ii) Compensation and exemplary damages for each occasion the tenant unreasonably withheld consent. •6(iii) Exemplary damages. •6(iv) Exemplary damages for both interfering with the smoke alarms and the means of escape. •6(v) Compensation. •6(vi) Compensation and exemplary damages for both gardens. •6(vii) Compensation. •6(viii) Outstanding water rates. Tenant Liability for damage beyond fair wear and tear Kitchen sink and cabinetry, hot water cylinder, toilet, shower plumbing, shower door, bathroom tiles, door handles and window latches, sleepout roof, fence
The landlord states that during the end of tenancy inspection on 20 February 2025, they discovered a small hole in the kitchen sink, which had caused water to enter and damage the cabinetry below. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the hole and the damage. The landlord claims that the damage was caused intentionally by the tenant, who had drilled the hole and then allowed water to enter the cupboard below. The landlord states that the matter had not been reported and that it would have been obvious that damage was occurring beneath.
The landlord has produced general photographs of the kitchen taken before the tenancy. These show some pre-existing swelling damage to cabinetry under the sink, but not as significant as at the end of the tenancy.
The property was built in the 1970s and appears to retain its original fixtures and fittings.
The landlord states that while investigating low water pressure in the shower, a plumber discovered possible tampering with the hot water cylinder. The landlord produced a photograph of the cylinder, which they state shows signs of suspected tampering.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord discovered that the toilet would not flush. When the plumber lifted the lid of the cistern, they found that the flushing mechanism had shattered. The landlord stated that the plumber told them the damage was likely deliberate. The landlord has produced a photograph of the damaged mechanism.
The tenant stated they had discovered water leaking under the sink and had placed a bucket underneath. The tenant produced their own photograph of the underneath of the sink showing some tape placed over the hole. They also noted that the cupboard was in a poor condition.
The tenant stated that they had shown the landlord the area around August 2024, and that the landlord said they would arrange a plumber, but never did. The landlord denies being advised.
The tenant denies tampering with the hot water cylinder. The tenant also denies damaging the toilet flushing mechanism, stating that it was fair wear and tear. The tenant produced their own photograph of the toilet, which they say was taken shortly before the end of the tenancy showing no damage. The landlord, however, states that the tenant’s photograph shows the flush button is depressed, suggesting that it was damaged when the photograph was taken.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord discovered that no water was coming from the shower. The landlord states that a plumber attended, removed the shower head, and found that the nuts holding the plumbing together had been loosened, causing water to run down the inside of the wall and under the house. The landlord claims that the tenant intentionally caused the damage by undoing the nuts, and that the tenant had the knowledge and tools to do so. Photographs have been produced showing the nuts that the landlord claims were loosened, as well as other photographs showing water pooling on the moisture barrier underneath the house. The landlord states that the absence of mould indicates the damage was recent.
The tenant denies liability, stating that the shower had always had poor water pressure, which they had endured for three years. They noted that the plumber’s invoice referred to the shower head as being in poor condition, which they say was indicative of the fixtures and fittings throughout the property. The tenant accepted that they had experience completing bathroom renovations but stated that they called upon plumbers when required. The tenant also stated that on 24 January 2025, they sent the landlord a 14-day notice regarding the low water pressure.
The landlord accepted that the fixtures and fittings in the property were dated but maintained that the leak had been intentionally caused by the tenant. The landlord denied that the leak was slow, stating that water was gushing out.
They accepted that the tenant had included the matter in the 14-day notice but questioned the timing of the notice, as it was the first one issued and the matter had not been previously raised.
The landlord stated that the tenant had denied them entry to conduct inspections during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the sliding shower door was damaged. The landlord has produced photographs of the door which they state cannot be closed. The tenant denies that this is damage, stating that the doors were old and in a poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy and never lined up or closed properly.
The landlord states that a new heat pump was installed in 2020. At the end of the tenancy, they discovered that the heat pump had leaked, causing damage to the wall below. The landlord stated that they had the unit serviced after the tenant vacated. They say the technician advised that the filter was clean and there was no obvious cause for the leak, but noted that if someone had blocked an outlet, leaking may occur. The landlord again suggests that the tenant had purposely sabotaged the unit by blocking and then unblocking the unit after damage had occurred.
The tenant stated that they had mentioned issues with the heat pump during the first, and only, inspection shortly after the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant stated that although it was the landlord’s responsibility to service the unit, they themselves cleaned the filter. They say that around August 2024, they noticed water dripping from the front of the unit and had pointed this out to the landlord when the landlord briefly visited the property to measure for blinds.
The landlord denied that the matter had been raised and maintained that the tenant had intentionally caused and then cleared the blockage and had subsequently failed to report the damage.
There is a wooden fence at the front of the property. The landlord states that it was in good condition and had been freshly painted at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord produced photographs of the fence before the tenancy and, at the end, showing damage to the gate and some of the nearby panels. The damage appears to have occurred after the fence was painted. The landlord also claimed that a side fence had been damaged, although they were unable to provide any evidence of this.
The tenant states that the posts on either side of the fence were in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. They state that during the tenancy, a large branch from a tree had fallen on the gate, causing the damage. They removed the tree but did not report the matter to the landlord, considering the damage minor and unimportant.
The pre-tenancy photographs are undated. The tenant also questioned the date of the pre-tenancy photographs, stating that they were likely marketing photos taken in 2015 and bore little resemblance to the condition of the property at the start of their tenancy. The tenant also produced a photograph of a gate at the rear of the property, which they stated was in poor condition and indicative of the general state of all the gates and fences.
The landlord acknowledged that the tree had not been reported and stated that the tree shown in the photograph produced by the tenant was not located near the damaged area.
The landlord has produced a photograph showing the tiles on the bathroom floor at the end of the tenancy, which displays multiple cracks. The landlord has also provided an email from a contractor stating that the damage appears to have been caused by deliberate impact. The landlord produced a photograph they state was taken of the floor prior to the tenancy, showing no visible damage.
The landlord stated that they purchased the property in 2015, and that, since that time, they have had four sets of tenants with no damage occurring. Although they had insurance, they state it is irrelevant because, in their view, the damage was intentional.
The tenant questioned the contractor’s qualifications, stating that they are a salesperson for a project management company and not a tradesperson. The tenant produced a statement from a flooring specialist, which the landlord also questioned, stating that the floor had an inherent defect causing the cracking and that it should be replaced.
The landlord states that the window latches on the aluminium windows in the lounge were damaged. The landlord has produced a close-up photograph of one of the windows showing missing and damaged latches. The landlord has also produced photographs of five internal door handles, which they state have been intentionally damaged.
The landlord produced an invoice from a locksmith stating that in their opinion the door handles and locks had been damaged by being forced down, and that this type of damage was not normal wear and tear, suggesting that it may have been caused intentionally.
The landlord states that the window latches to aluminium windows in the lounge were damaged. The landlord has produced a photograph of one of the windows showing close up missing and damaged latches.
The tenant denies responsibility for the damage. They state that the property is at least forty years old and that the window latches and door handles are original features. The tenant claims that the latches throughout the property were in a condition consistent with the age of the property, and that all of the internal door handles had become loose and required tightening, which was general maintenance neglected by the landlord.
The landlord referred to a photograph taken by the tenant showing a hole in the roof of a single room cabin sleep out at the property, which they state has been intentionally caused by the tenant. The landlord questioned why the tenant had been on the roof of the sleepout as there was no evidence of water damage or mould inside the sleepout suggesting that it had been recently damaged. The landlord also produced a photograph of exposed building paper which they state was not exposed at the commencement of the tenancy, suggesting that it too had been tampered with by the tenant.
The tenant denied making the hole adding that it was not on the roof of the sleep out but on the main house. The tenant stated that there was water damage to the inside of the sleepout which was the subject of one of their claims. The tenant denied tampering with the building paper. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must establish more likely than not that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord must investigate and repair the defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. The obligation corresponds with that in section 40(1)(d) which provides that a tenant must notify the landlord of any damage as soon as possible. A tenant who fails to notify the landlord of damage may be liable for any subsequent damage. Analysis and decision
At the commencement of the tenancy, the parties enjoyed a reasonable relationship. The tenant is a tradesperson who renovates bathrooms. In 2022, the tenant did some work for the landlord at the landlord’s own property. During the course of the work, the tenant allegedly made comments about the landlord being a “slum landlord” who had neglected the tenant’s property. The tenant did not complete the work, and the landlord terminated the contract. The landlord stated that the tenant said, “don’t even think about coming to my house again.” The landlord also stated that the tenant had previously disclosed having anger management issues, being paranoid, being a drug user, having done “jail time” in Australia, and having been deported. The landlord stated they felt threatened. As a result, the landlord did not visit the property, instead relying on the tenant to raise any issues, which the tenant had not done.
The tenant agreed that their relationship with the landlord had broken down during the course of the work but denied telling the landlord not to come around. The tenant accepted that, with the exception of the kitchen cabinetry and the heat pump, which they claim to have pointed out during a brief visit to the property in 2024, they had not raised any other issues with the landlord. The tenant explained that they had not raised issues for fear that the landlord would terminate the tenancy.
The landlord stated that between tenancies they spent a considerable amount of time and effort maintaining the property. There is however no evidence confirming this. There is no pre tenancy checklist produced confirming the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant has challenged the reliability of the pre tenancy photographs arguing that they do not show the actual condition of the property but are likely those taken for marketing purposes around 2015, after which there had been four sets of tenants. The tenant states that the property was in a generally poor condition, and that much of the damage was due to gradual fair wear and tear which the landlord would have detected had the landlord conducted regular inspections.
I am not satisfied as to the true condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. I am unable to make a proper before and after comparison required when determining whether the damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
The parties clearly do not like each other. Throughout the hearing, they each interrupted the other while giving evidence and made comments about the veracity of the other’s statements. It has been difficult to prefer the evidence of one over the other, and I remind myself that, for each claim, the onus rests on the party making it.
Having witnessed the landlord give evidence and considering the steps they took and the interaction they have had with the tenant after the tenant gave notice, I have difficulty accepting that the landlord was too afraid to visit the property during the tenancy to conduct inspections. The claims for damage are dismissed. Failure to remove all rubbish.
The landlord has produced a photograph of an old trailer left on the roadside outside the property at the end of the tenancy, which they state belongs to the tenant. The landlord has also produced a photograph showing four large pails of paint, a petrol container, and a weed sprayer located underneath the house. The landlord states that they had left only one large pale of paint at the start of the tenancy and that the other items belonged to the tenant.
The tenant denied that any of the items underneath the house were theirs, stating that one pale of paint had been left in the garage which they had moved and put with the other items left by the landlord underneath the house. The tenant stated that the landlord had used the sprayer during the tenancy. Law
Section 40(1)(e) of the Act states the tenant shall: (e) on the termination of the tenancy, - (i) quit the premises and (ii) remove all his or her goods from the premises and (iii) leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove all rubbish accumulated during the tenancy and (iv) return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices provided by the landlord for the premises. Analysis and decision
Concerning the items located underneath the house, this is a landlord-said, tenant-said situation. There are no photographs showing the area under the house at the commencement of the tenancy. Leaving aside the ownership of the trailer, the tenant’s obligation extends only to property left at the premises, and the roadside does not comprise part of the premises. There is insufficient evidence concerning the ownership of the items located underneath the house, and the trailer was not left on the premises. The claim is dismissed. Alterations to gardens
The landlord claims that the tenant made alterations to the gardens during the tenancy and failed to reinstate them to their original condition. The landlord has produced photographs of a garden to the side of the property, between the house and the driveway, which they claim were taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy and show changes made by the tenant. The landlord claims that garden edging has been removed.
The tenant denies the claims and questions the date of the photographs said to be taken at the start of the tenancy in November 2021, suggesting they are more consistent with the property at the time of purchase in 2015. Law
Under section 42B of the Act tenants can request to make minor changes to the premises. Landlords must not unreasonably withhold consent. Minor changes are those that are low risk, easily reversible, and do not compromise the property. Tenants must restore the property at the end of the tenancy unless agreed otherwise. Analysis and decision
The borders of the garden shown in the photographs are different. The photograph taken at the end of the tenancy shows that the border has been made deeper by the placement of an internal row of edging, and not removed. There is little vegetation at the beginning, while at the end the garden is full and overgrown. The allegation is that the tenant has altered the border. The pre- tenancy photographs are not date-stamped. In this case, I am unable to make a proper comparison. The claim is dismissed. Failing to leave the driveway in a reasonable condition.
The landlord has produced a photograph of the driveway taken at the end of the tenancy showing an oil stain. The landlord refers to another photograph, claimed to have been taken at the start of the tenancy, showing some oil stains. The landlord states that the oil stain shown in the end-of-tenancy photograph is over and above those shown in the earlier photographs.
The tenant denies responsibility for the stain, stating that none of their vehicles leaked oil. They point out that the photograph was taken after the end of the tenancy and that the vehicles in the driveway belong to the incoming tenant. The tenant also challenges the date of the pre-tenancy photographs. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
The tenant denies liability and challenges the date of the pre-tenancy photographs, noting that they are not date-stamped. The photographs were also taken from a distance and at a different angle than those taken at the end of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any additional stains beyond those that may have been present at the commencement of the tenancy. Unreasonably withholding consent to viewings
On 23 January 2025, the tenant gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, followed by a 14-day breach notice, the first and only notice issued by either party during the tenancy.
The landlord states they then made five requests for viewings to show the property to prospective tenant’s all of which were denied by the tenant.
The landlord states that on 23 January 2025, the tenant agreed to allow inspections on a Sunday only and stated that they must be present. The landlord states the first request was made on Friday, 24 January 2025, for a viewing on Sunday of that week between 2pm and 4pm. They state the tenant replied that the landlord was required to give a minimum of 48 hours’ notice and asked whether the landlord had addressed any of the issues raised in their 14-day notice. The second request was made on the same day for the following Sunday, 2 February 2025. The tenant deferred this request, stating that they were speaking with Tenancy Services about defects to the property. The landlord states they made a third request that same day for 2 February 2025, which they claim was declined, and two further requests on 28 January 2025 for access on 2 February 2025 and 9 February 2025, both of which they claim were also declined.
All requests were made via text message.
The tenant denies that they had unreasonably declined the landlord’s requests, adding that they felt justified as the property was defective and should not have been re-let in the condition it was. Law
Section 48(1)(a) of the Act states a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy only with the tenant’s consent, or under section 48(1)(b) in specific circumstances as set out in section 48(2) – (3) (such as for inspections, repairs, or to show the property to prospective tenants or buyers).
Section 48(3)(a) provides that the landlord may enter the premises with the consent of the tenant to show them to prospective tenants or buyers.
Under section 48(3A), the tenant cannot unreasonably withhold consent but may attach reasonable conditions to it.
If a tenant unreasonably withholds consent for the landlord to enter for viewings, this is an unlawful act under section 48(4)(b).
Whether the tenant has unreasonably withheld consent will require determining whether a proper request has in fact been made, and then whether the tenant has actually unreasonably withheld consent. Analysis and decision
There were two events that led to a breakdown in the relationship between the parties. The first was the alleged incident in 2022, which resulted in the landlord ceasing inspections of the property. This was followed by the tenant’s notice to terminate the tenancy and a subsequent 14-day notice from the landlord, which the landlord described as malicious and unfounded, and chose to ignore.
Having viewed the text exchange and heard from the parties, I am not satisfied that there has, in fact, been a denial. During the hearing, the male tenant appeared to struggle to contain his emotions, while the landlord did not appear to have the same difficulty. It appeared that the landlord identified this as an area of vulnerability for the tenant. When the landlord proposed viewing dates, the tenant responded by raising issues they considered important, but these were not addressed by the landlord, leading to clear frustration for the tenant.
The tone of the exchange is tit-for-tat, with each party exchanging barbs with the other. While the tenant’s position may have been obstructive, seeking to defer a decision until they had spoken with Tenancy Services, it is the landlord who is repeatedly telling the tenant that they are withholding consent. However, on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has actually withheld consent. The claim is dismissed. Failing without reasonable excuse to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy
The landlord states that despite the parties agreeing in writing to end the tenancy at midday on 23 January 2025, the tenant had not done so and had threatened the landlord.
The tenant stated that they had agreed for the final inspection to take place at midday, but did not consider this to be the end of the tenancy which would occur later that day.
The landlord stated that it was non sensical that the parties would agree for a final inspection after which the tenant would remain in the property. Law
Section 40(1)(e) (i) states that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must quit the premises. Analysis and decision
While there are some emails between the parties there appears to be no agreement reached. There is insufficient evidence to establish the claim, and it is dismissed. Interfering with means of escape from fire.
The landlord claims the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms and damaged door handles, thus rendering inoperative any means of escape.
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, they discovered the smoke alarms in the hallway and living room were missing, and that all of the internal door handles had been intentionally damaged.
The landlord has provided a photograph showing what they claim to be the hallway smoke alarm off its bracket and placed on a nearby windowsill with its battery removed. The landlord also relies on the locksmith’s invoice, which states that the door handles appeared to have been intentionally damaged.
The tenant denies damaging the door handles and states that they were in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant claims that during the tenancy the handles continued to become loose, which they viewed as fair wear and tear, and points out that there is no evidence the doors could not be opened.
The tenant stated that they removed the smoke alarm in the hallway at the end of the tenancy to take a photograph of the expiry date on the back, and then placed it back in its bracket. The tenant claims that the smoke alarm had expired, and that the landlord had breached their obligations. Regarding the smoke alarm in the dining room, the tenant accepted that they had removed it to inspect the expiry date on the back. As it had expired, they took the battery out and left the alarm on the windowsill. Law
Under section 40(2) (ab) of the Act, the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004.
The Building Act 2004 refers to the provisions in the Building Code 1992, which provides that premises must have effective means of giving warning of fire and must be provided with the means of escape ensuring that there is a low probability of occupants being unreasonably delayed or impeded from moving to a place of safety.
The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 state that a property must have smoke alarms either in bedrooms or within three metres of the bedroom doors. Analysis and decision
The landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms and the door handles. As stated, I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to door handles. While the landlord claims the smoke alarm found on the windowsill was from the hallway, the tenant states that they removed the hallway alarm but replaced it, and that the alarm on the windowsill was from the dining room. There is no independent evidence, such as photographs or inspection records, confirming the location of the smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy or during the tenancy. There is also no evidence confirming whether the property complied with the Regulations. I am not satisfied that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms in breach of their obligations. Tenant’s claims
The tenant’s claims are that: i. The landlord has failed to comply with the smoke alarm regulations (section 45(1) (ba) of the Act), ii. The landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Ventilation Standards for both the kitchen and bathroom (section 45(1) (bb) of the Act), iii. That the landlord has failed to maintain the heat pump (section 45(1)(b) of the Act), iv. That the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair (window latches, the front door, kitchen sink, and floor tiles in the bathroom) (section 45(1)(b) of the Act), v. The landlord has failed to provide the property free from excessive mould and dampness (ceiling in the main bathroom, ceiling in the main bedroom, ceiling in the sleepout cabin) (section 45(1)(b) & section 45(1)(c) of the Act), vi. The landlord has failed to maintain the cabin/sleepout (the foundations) (section 45(1)(b) of the Act), vii. The landlord has breached the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy amounting to harassment (section 38(1) & (3) of the Act), viii. That the landlord has failed to lodge the bond within the required time period (section 19(1) of the Act), ix. The landlord failed to provide a written copy of the tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy (section 13(1) and (2) of the Act). x. That the landlord has failed to provide, upon request, details relating to the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) as they apply to the property (section 45(1AC) of the Act).
The tenant is seeking an award of exemplary damages for all claims. Failing to comply with the smoke alarm regulations
The tenant states that at the end of the tenancy they inspected all of the smoke alarms. All the smoke alarms are battery operated. They have produced a photograph of the back of the alarm they claim was located in the hallway showing that it expired in 2018. They have produced a photograph of the smoke alarm they claim was located in the dining room, removed, and on a windowsill nearby. There is no photograph of the expiry date of that alarm. The tenant has also produced a photograph of the back of the smoke alarm they claim was in the sleep out showing an expiry date of June 2015.
The landlord claims that the evidence has been “planted” and that there was in fact no smoke alarm provided in the dining room at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states that the property had been renovated in 2019 and all the alarms had been replaced. Law
Under section 45(1) (ba) of the Act, the landlord must comply with the Smoke Alarm Regulations 2016, which state that a property must have qualifying smoke alarms either in bedrooms or within three metres of the bedroom doors.
Regulation 7(1)(c) states that a qualifying smoke alarm is one for which the recommended replacement date must not have passed. Analysis and decision
As stated, there is no documentary evidence confirming that the property complied with the Regulations at the commencement of the tenancy. A standard form tenancy agreement will typically include a statement concerning compliance.
Although the landlords' belief that the evidence has been falsified seems implausible, as I have stated, the conduct of both parties during the hearing has been such that I have difficulty preferring the evidence of one party over the other. While it is possible that there has been a breach, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not. The onus rests on the tenant, and I am not satisfied that the claim has been established to the required standard. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standards for both the kitchen and bathroom.
The tenant states that the ventilation systems in the kitchen and the bathroom failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. Law
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
The HHS requirements covering heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping for this tenancy took effect on 01 July 2025. Analysis and decision
The tenancy ended before the HHS came into effect. Failure to provide and maintain the property - heat pump, window latches, front door, kitchen sink and cabinetry, floor tiles, excessive mould, and dampness, sleep out foundations.
As with the landlord’s claims, I have grouped these and will deal with them together.
The tenant states that the heat pump was never serviced, and that they raised this with the landlord during a visit to the property around August 2024 to measure for blinds, the same visit where they claim to have raised issues with the kitchen sink and cabinetry. The tenant also claims to have raised the matter with the landlord orally in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The landlord accepts that they visited to measure for blinds but denies that any issues were raised, and states that the first time they became aware of any problem was during the end-of-tenancy inspection, when they noted minor damage to the lounge wall beneath the unit. There is text correspondence in 2023 in which the landlord asks the tenant if they are cleaning the filters to which they reply they are and raise no other issues.
The tenant has produced photographs showing the window latches in the lounge and dining room, which they state are damaged.
The landlord claims the matter was never reported.
The tenant states that the first time they raised this issue was in the 14-day notice issued on 24 January 2025.
The tenant has produced a photograph of the front door, which they state is of hollow construction and not suitable as a front door.
The tenant has produced a photograph of the area under the kitchen sink, which they claim was taken on 3 February 2025. The photograph shows a loose piece of white tape covering a small hole, a bucket placed underneath, and water damage to the cabinetry. The tenant states that, despite raising this with the landlord, nothing was done. The issue is mentioned in the 14-day notice of 24 January 2025.
The landlord denies being advised of the issue and has made a claim alleging that the tenant intentionally caused the hole and then failed to report the ongoing water damage.
The tenant claims that the damage to the tiles in the bathroom had been gradual and the result of an inherent fault. The matter was raised for the first time in the 14-day notice.
The tenant claims the property suffers from excessive moisture and dampness and has produced photographs showing areas of condensation and surface rust deterioration on some metal light fittings.
This matter was raised for the first time in the notice of 24 January 2025.
The tenant has produced photographs of the single-room cabin, which is sitting just off the ground on pieces of wood and paving stones. The tenant claims that the foundations are dangerous and must be non-compliant. Again, this matter was not raised as an issue until 24 January 2025. The landlord states that the cabin was moved onto the property a number of years ago and that none of the previous tenants had raised any issues. The landlord noted that although the foundations may look untidy, there is no evidence that they are dangerous. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR).
Regulation 15 of the HIR provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the 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 might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Analysis and decision
Concerning the heat pump, window latches, front door, floor tiles, mould, moisture and dampness, and the cabin’s foundations, I am not satisfied that any of these issues were raised with the landlord until the 14-day notice, which was issued shortly before the tenancy ended.
The evidence does not establish that the property suffers from excessive moisture or dampness. There appears to be nothing dangerous about the cabin’s foundations, and the tenant has not referred to any regulation or code that may have been breached.
There is a dispute as to who is responsible for the damage to the sink and cabinetry. As stated, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable, having not been able to conduct a proper before-and-after comparison, nor am I satisfied that the landlord has necessarily failed to meet their obligations, although a prudent landlord would have conducted inspections.
The onus rests on the tenant, and I am not satisfied that the claim has been established to the required standard. Interference with reasonable peace, comfort and privacy amounting to harassment.
The tenant stated that they had agreed for an inspection to occur at midday on 20 February 2025. The tenant stated that around midday, a blinds contractor, locksmith, and handy person all arrived at the property, followed by the landlord. The tenant states that the landlord started filming the tenant and their family, accusing them of trespassing. The tenant also stated that the locksmith began changing the locks while the tenant was still in lawful occupation.
The landlord stated that they had agreed the tenant would vacate the property at midday after the final inspection. The landlord stated that all of the contractors had waited outside for the landlord to arrive. The landlord accepted that they filmed the tenant. The landlord stated that they then waited until 2pm, when the tenant finally vacated. Law
Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.”
Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.
Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: “Although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances. Analysis and decision
As stated, when dealing with the landlord’s claim that the tenant had failed to vacate the property, there is no documentary evidence of any concluded agreement regarding the exact time of vacating. In the text exchange provided by the tenant, reference is made to a final inspection at midday. It is clear that there was no meeting of the minds. The default position is therefore that the tenant had possession of the property until midnight on 20 February 2025. Upon arriving at the property and discovering that the tenant was still present, a reasonably prudent landlord would have retreated and allowed the tenant to leave unmolested, rather than interfering by filming and accusing the tenant of trespassing. I do, however, accept that the events leading up to the end of the tenancy, including the viewings and the 14-day notice, likely contributed to a hostile exchange.
On that basis, and following Smith v Floris, while there has been an interference, I am not satisfied that in the circumstances, what occurred, while regrettable, necessarily amounted to a breach amounting to harassment. Failure to lodge the bond within the required time period.
Under section 19(1) of the Act, a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
In determining whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: the intent of the person committing the unlawful act; the effect of the unlawful act; the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; the public interest; and whether it is just to make the award. Analysis and decision
The landlord accepts that the bond was not lodged until shortly before the end of the tenancy, stating that they had forgotten.
Throughout the hearing, the landlord has stated that they are knowledgeable about the law relating to residential tenancies. I anticipate that this includes their obligations concerning the bond. I am not satisfied that the discovery that the bond had not been lodged within the required time frame necessarily had a detrimental effect on the tenant; however, it is in the public interest that bonds are dealt with properly. Taking these factors into account, I award exemplary damages of $150.00. Failure to provide a written copy of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that they signed a copy of the tenancy agreement, which the landlord took away, but did not then provide them with a copy. The tenant requested one in their 14-day notice of 24 January 2025. The landlord accepted that they had not provided the tenant with a copy and did not consider themselves obliged to do so unless requested by the tenant. The landlord viewed the request as disingenuous. Law
Section 13(2) of the Act states that the landlord must, before the tenancy commences, sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant, whether the tenant has signed it or not.
A landlord who fails to comply with section 13(2) commits an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Analysis and decision
The landlord is incorrect; they were legally required to provide the tenant a copy of the agreement at the commencement of the tenancy.
Although the landlord has committed a breach which is an unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages as sought. Section 109(2) states that an application for exemplary damages must be made within 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act, which in this case was the date the tenancy was entered. Failing to provide details relating to the Healthy Homes Standards as they apply to the property.
In their 14-day notice of 24 January 2025, the tenant requested any Healthy Homes Standards Report. The tenant states that the landlord has not responded.
The landlord states that they viewed the request as disingenuous but, in any event, they do not have a Healthy Homes Report. Law
Section 45(1AC) requires landlords to provide, within 21 days, any Healthy Homes Standards information requested by the tenant as described in section 123A(1)(e).
Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded. Analysis and decision
Section 45(1AC) appears to require the landlord to provide the material requested if they have it; it does not appear to require the landlord to respond if they do not, although it would clearly be prudent to do so. On that basis, and although the landlord has ignored the request, I cannot find that there has been a breach. Water rates
The landlord is claiming unpaid water rates of $150.70 for the period 12 November 2024 to the end of the tenancy. The tenant is refusing to pay this invoice, although they have paid every other invoice during the tenancy. The landlord states that, upon receiving the invoice, they sent the tenant an email providing details of usage and the amount owing. The tenant now seeks disclosure of all water invoices for the period of the tenancy and reimbursement of the $2,079.18 paid. The tenant also argues that water charges should be included in the rent. Law
Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water charges (if separately metered). Analysis and decision
No invoice has been provided. The claim for water rates is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the parties name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although neither party has been substantially successful with their own claims, they have been successful in defending those claims made against them. On that basis, both parties are entitled to name suppression under section 95A.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143654 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143654 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions