What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146875 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 5146875?

Compensation: Bond: $2,058.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $2,900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Bill: $693.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146875?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146875?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12532383-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146875 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 5146875?

Compensation: Bond: $2,058.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $2,900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Bill: $693.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146875?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146875?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12532383-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146875 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146875 — net $5,651.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Power bill	$693.00	Power bill
Compensation: Failure to maintain and cleanliness	$2,900.00	Failure to maintain and cleanliness
Compensation: Bond	$2,058.00	Bond
Net award	$5,651.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,651.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $5,651.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for breach of healthy home standards, compensation and refund of the bond.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and reasonable state of repair.
The Tenant sought compensation of $10440.00 which they worked out to be a $200.00 reduction from the weekly rent of $560.00 over the 29 week tenancy. They submitted the house did not meet healthy home standards. The drainage at the front of the property was frequently blocked during heavy rains, causing flooding inside the living and kitchen areas on multiple occasions. Building materials and timber left outside created safety hazards for children, and there was a persistent rat and mouse infestation, including a hole in the tenant’s bedroom wall where rats entered, which was particularly concerning as the tenant’s child had a heart condition. The property lacked central heating, a functioning fire alarm, and the kitchen rangehood had been broken since move- in, forcing the tenant to use their own heating. Additionally, there was significant mould on curtains, walls, and in the bathroom due to moisture problems, which the landlord failed to resolve. The lounge sliding door had already been broken before the Tenant moved in and was only temporarily repaired with tape, with no further repairs made. A photograph was provided of this door.
The Tenant provided videos of the property showing the building materials left outside, however there was no evidence of the damaged rangehood and flooding.
The Tenant had a witness give evidence, [The witness], was a [support worker]. [The witness] visited the property in winter and described the living conditions as shocking, noting the tenants were living in what appeared to be a converted shed rather than a proper home. The property was damp and wet, with algae present on walls, window sills, and the front door, where rain regularly entered. He observed dripping from the kitchen ceiling and significant moisture damage. The main door was repeatedly wet from rain, and due to the poor state of the house, all occupants had to sleep in one bed in a separate room. Outside, the property resembled a timber yard with scattered timber, making it unsafe for children to play outside. [The witness] also noted that the landlord had previously been found guilty and penalized for failing to meet healthy home standards at this same property and that an assessment confirming the substandard conditions was produced.
The landlord disputed many of these claims, stating the rangehood was brand new and functioning, the tenant never reported mould or flooding issues, and drainage repairs were recently complete. There was no evidence of the flooding. The landlord acknowledged the bamboo was his for gardening but stated this did not impact the tenant. The landlord also confirmed renovations were made before the tenancy, including painting, new flooring, and installing a wall heater and exhaust fan. The landlord provided a healthy homes report from November 2023 showing the property met standards before the tenant moved in and argued that the tenant’s claims were unsubstantiated or exaggerated.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to provide a clean property by not removing all of their items in the exterior. I accept from the witness evidence that the property was also damp and wet. There was no evidence to support the lack of heating, defective rangehood and flooding provided by the Tenant. [The witness] presented as credible and I cannot see why the witness would be motivated to fabricate their experience of the property. For this reason I consider a rent reduction of $100.00 per week to be more appropriate.
The amounts ordered are proved. Power bill
The Tenant claimed reimbursement of the power bill of $693.00 because they did not receive any official bills, only informal notes. They paid in instalments and received payment confirmations via text. The tenant argued that their electricity use was minimal—mainly for cooking, refrigeration, and water heating—and that the charge was excessive compared to their current home’s bills. They proposed a reasonable charge of about $20 per week per person.
In response, the landlord stated that the power meter covers the entire property, and meter readings during the tenancy showed increased usage consistent with four occupants. The landlord explained that they initially set charges based on usage estimates and confirmed the intention to install a separate meter for the tenant. The landlord also pointed to standard practices and prior agreements, asserting that the tenant was informed of the billing structure. The landlord denied overcharging and emphasized that all calculations and charges were fair and transparent.
A Tenant is liable for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the Tenants occupation of the property. s39 RTA.
In considering the evidence, I find there was more likely than not, no separate power meter to measure the actual amount of power used by the Tenant. For this reason, I find the Tenant shall be reimbursed half the amount paid.
The amounts ordered are proved. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Home standards and seeks $10,000.00 in compensation. The tenant reported that the property was mouldy, cold, lacked central heating and smoke alarms, had blocked drainage, and unsafe conditions outside due to timber, bamboo sticks, firewood, rubbish, and a persistent mouse infestation. They stated these conditions caused bad smells, stress for the children and wife, and emotional and health issues. The kitchen rangehood never worked and the Tenant challenged the Landlords evidence as outdated. Additionally, the tenant contacted [City] Council and was informed the dwelling does not have the necessary consent.
In response, the landlord provided a professional healthy home standards (HHS) report dated 10 January 2022 and certificate confirming the property meets required standards dated 11 January 2022. They denied the tenant’s claims.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has not provided any independent evidence that the property fails Healthy Home Standards. Although the Landlords Healthy Homes report was not current at the time of the tenancy, it is the Tenants onus to provide this evidence to prove their case. Although there were photographs of the property, there was nothing from an independent professional to substantiate the claim.
The claim is dismissed. Stress
The Tenant claimed compensation of $10,000 for stress caused during the tenancy, stating that the ongoing need to gather evidence and deal with issues adversely affected their health, including high blood pressure and the need for medication. They described being threatened multiple times by the landlord at night, who allegedly said he would report them to immigration and cause them to lose their future. The tenant emphasized the emotional toll, especially with young children in the home.
The landlord denied these allegations, calling them lies, and referenced a police report regarding tenancy notice periods, stating that tenants only need 28 days’ notice to move out, not three months as claimed by the tenant. The landlord accused the tenant of making false claims, including about withholding the bond from WINZ. The landlord also highlighted that the property is a minor dwelling built in 1970, with safe and sanitary reports filed with [City] Council.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided medical evidence to prove their stress or any corroborating evidence that the Landlord threatened to report them to immigration. Claims for preparation of Tribunal hearings are unable to be compensated unless there are legal professional costs involved.
The claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord made a claim against the bond for rent arrears and electricity. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The Landlord shall reimburse the Tenant’s bond amount claimed.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146875 — net $5,651.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Power bill	$693.00	Power bill
Compensation: Failure to maintain and cleanliness	$2,900.00	Failure to maintain and cleanliness
Compensation: Bond	$2,058.00	Bond
Net award	$5,651.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,651.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $5,651.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for breach of healthy home standards, compensation and refund of the bond.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and reasonable state of repair.
The Tenant sought compensation of $10440.00 which they worked out to be a $200.00 reduction from the weekly rent of $560.00 over the 29 week tenancy. They submitted the house did not meet healthy home standards. The drainage at the front of the property was frequently blocked during heavy rains, causing flooding inside the living and kitchen areas on multiple occasions. Building materials and timber left outside created safety hazards for children, and there was a persistent rat and mouse infestation, including a hole in the tenant’s bedroom wall where rats entered, which was particularly concerning as the tenant’s child had a heart condition. The property lacked central heating, a functioning fire alarm, and the kitchen rangehood had been broken since move- in, forcing the tenant to use their own heating. Additionally, there was significant mould on curtains, walls, and in the bathroom due to moisture problems, which the landlord failed to resolve. The lounge sliding door had already been broken before the Tenant moved in and was only temporarily repaired with tape, with no further repairs made. A photograph was provided of this door.
The Tenant provided videos of the property showing the building materials left outside, however there was no evidence of the damaged rangehood and flooding.
The Tenant had a witness give evidence, [The witness], was a [support worker]. [The witness] visited the property in winter and described the living conditions as shocking, noting the tenants were living in what appeared to be a converted shed rather than a proper home. The property was damp and wet, with algae present on walls, window sills, and the front door, where rain regularly entered. He observed dripping from the kitchen ceiling and significant moisture damage. The main door was repeatedly wet from rain, and due to the poor state of the house, all occupants had to sleep in one bed in a separate room. Outside, the property resembled a timber yard with scattered timber, making it unsafe for children to play outside. [The witness] also noted that the landlord had previously been found guilty and penalized for failing to meet healthy home standards at this same property and that an assessment confirming the substandard conditions was produced.
The landlord disputed many of these claims, stating the rangehood was brand new and functioning, the tenant never reported mould or flooding issues, and drainage repairs were recently complete. There was no evidence of the flooding. The landlord acknowledged the bamboo was his for gardening but stated this did not impact the tenant. The landlord also confirmed renovations were made before the tenancy, including painting, new flooring, and installing a wall heater and exhaust fan. The landlord provided a healthy homes report from November 2023 showing the property met standards before the tenant moved in and argued that the tenant’s claims were unsubstantiated or exaggerated.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to provide a clean property by not removing all of their items in the exterior. I accept from the witness evidence that the property was also damp and wet. There was no evidence to support the lack of heating, defective rangehood and flooding provided by the Tenant. [The witness] presented as credible and I cannot see why the witness would be motivated to fabricate their experience of the property. For this reason I consider a rent reduction of $100.00 per week to be more appropriate.
The amounts ordered are proved. Power bill
The Tenant claimed reimbursement of the power bill of $693.00 because they did not receive any official bills, only informal notes. They paid in instalments and received payment confirmations via text. The tenant argued that their electricity use was minimal—mainly for cooking, refrigeration, and water heating—and that the charge was excessive compared to their current home’s bills. They proposed a reasonable charge of about $20 per week per person.
In response, the landlord stated that the power meter covers the entire property, and meter readings during the tenancy showed increased usage consistent with four occupants. The landlord explained that they initially set charges based on usage estimates and confirmed the intention to install a separate meter for the tenant. The landlord also pointed to standard practices and prior agreements, asserting that the tenant was informed of the billing structure. The landlord denied overcharging and emphasized that all calculations and charges were fair and transparent.
A Tenant is liable for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the Tenants occupation of the property. s39 RTA.
In considering the evidence, I find there was more likely than not, no separate power meter to measure the actual amount of power used by the Tenant. For this reason, I find the Tenant shall be reimbursed half the amount paid.
The amounts ordered are proved. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Home standards and seeks $10,000.00 in compensation. The tenant reported that the property was mouldy, cold, lacked central heating and smoke alarms, had blocked drainage, and unsafe conditions outside due to timber, bamboo sticks, firewood, rubbish, and a persistent mouse infestation. They stated these conditions caused bad smells, stress for the children and wife, and emotional and health issues. The kitchen rangehood never worked and the Tenant challenged the Landlords evidence as outdated. Additionally, the tenant contacted [City] Council and was informed the dwelling does not have the necessary consent.
In response, the landlord provided a professional healthy home standards (HHS) report dated 10 January 2022 and certificate confirming the property meets required standards dated 11 January 2022. They denied the tenant’s claims.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has not provided any independent evidence that the property fails Healthy Home Standards. Although the Landlords Healthy Homes report was not current at the time of the tenancy, it is the Tenants onus to provide this evidence to prove their case. Although there were photographs of the property, there was nothing from an independent professional to substantiate the claim.
The claim is dismissed. Stress
The Tenant claimed compensation of $10,000 for stress caused during the tenancy, stating that the ongoing need to gather evidence and deal with issues adversely affected their health, including high blood pressure and the need for medication. They described being threatened multiple times by the landlord at night, who allegedly said he would report them to immigration and cause them to lose their future. The tenant emphasized the emotional toll, especially with young children in the home.
The landlord denied these allegations, calling them lies, and referenced a police report regarding tenancy notice periods, stating that tenants only need 28 days’ notice to move out, not three months as claimed by the tenant. The landlord accused the tenant of making false claims, including about withholding the bond from WINZ. The landlord also highlighted that the property is a minor dwelling built in 1970, with safe and sanitary reports filed with [City] Council.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided medical evidence to prove their stress or any corroborating evidence that the Landlord threatened to report them to immigration. Claims for preparation of Tribunal hearings are unable to be compensated unless there are legal professional costs involved.
The claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord made a claim against the bond for rent arrears and electricity. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The Landlord shall reimburse the Tenant’s bond amount claimed.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146875 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146875 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions