What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5173731 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $379.64 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5173731?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $37.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Broken Step: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to provide ren…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Hole In Roof: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unpaid Portion Of Bond: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,562.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173731?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12445478-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5173731 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $379.64 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5173731?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $37.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Broken Step: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to provide ren…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Hole In Roof: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unpaid Portion Of Bond: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,562.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173731?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12445478-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 183 Royal Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5173731 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5173731 — net $379.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 March 2025	$1,562.14		Rent arrears to 30 March 2025
Water rates	$230.00		Water rates
Compensation: unpaid portion of bond	$400.00		unpaid portion of bond
Compensation: broken step	$300.00		broken step
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$300.00		breach of quiet enjoyment
Carpet Cleaning: outside paintwork	$37.50		Carpet Cleaning: outside paintwork
Compensation: cleaning of carpet at start of tenancy		$200.00	cleaning of carpet at start of tenancy
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	failure to lodge bond
Compensation: failure to provide rent statement in a reasonable period		$250.00	failure to provide rent statement in a reasonable period
Carpet Cleaning		$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Compensation: hole in roof		$800.00	hole in roof
Total award	$2,829.64	$2,450.00
Net award	$379.64
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$379.64

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5173731 — net $379.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 March 2025	$1,562.14		Rent arrears to 30 March 2025
Water rates	$230.00		Water rates
Compensation: unpaid portion of bond	$400.00		unpaid portion of bond
Compensation: broken step	$300.00		broken step
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$300.00		breach of quiet enjoyment
Carpet Cleaning: outside paintwork	$37.50		Carpet Cleaning: outside paintwork
Compensation: cleaning of carpet at start of tenancy		$200.00	cleaning of carpet at start of tenancy
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	failure to lodge bond
Compensation: failure to provide rent statement in a reasonable period		$250.00	failure to provide rent statement in a reasonable period
Carpet Cleaning		$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Compensation: hole in roof		$800.00	hole in roof
Total award	$2,829.64	$2,450.00
Net award	$379.64
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$379.64

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $379.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (BN-00040142) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $379.64 [The tenant/s]: $2,020.36
The tenant’s applications for: failing to maintain the premises in respect of the insinkerator, the front door lock, the water filter system, the gap in the fence; failing to comply with section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA; breach of the right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in respect of being required to leave the premises and a comment made to a neighbour, are dismissed.
The landlord’s applications for rubbish removal and damage to the lawn, a missing storage cupboard, a broken gutter, removal of hardwood, damage to the lawn, hardwall, carpet hexagonal lights and the conservatory roof are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. Both parties attended the 2 nd hearing for this matter which took place by telephone on 19 August 2025.
This is a counterclaim. The parties’ claims were set out in my Directions of 16 April 2025 and are restated below:
The tenant claims that the landlord has: a. Contrary to section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of the: stairs; insinkerator; front door; carpet and water filter system. b. Contrary to section 38 of the RTA interfered with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by: i. Asking her to leave the premises so that the landlord’s insurer could visit the premises; ii. Advising a neighbour that the tenant had complained about wood in the shared driveway; and iii. Allowing a person to enter the premises for a reason other than a house viewing when the tenant had only given permission for access for the purposes of a house viewing. c. Contrary to section 19 of the RTA, failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment of the bond was made. d. Contrary to section 29(3) of the RTA, failed to provide the tenant with a rent summary upon request. e. Contrary to section 39 of the RTA, charged the tenant for water rates which the tenant says the tenant is not exclusively responsible for.
The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages.
Following the case management conference, both parties added additional claims.
The tenant’s additional claims are that: a. The landlord breached section 45(1)(ba) by failing to provide working smoke alarms; b. The landlord breached section 45(1b) by failing to repair a fence between the yards.
The landlord is seeking: a. Rent arrears: b. Unpaid water rates. c. The landlord claims that the tenant has breached section 40 of the RTA by failing to leave the house and the garden/lawns reasonably clean and tidy and is seeking compensation for cleaning, work on the garden/lawns and rubbish removal. d. The landlord claims that the tenant has breached section 40(1)(e)(i) of the RTA by keeping a dog and is seeking compensation. e. The landlord claims that contrary to section 40 of the RTA, the tenant has caused the following damage to the premises during the tenancy: i. Broken gutter; ii. Removed hardwood from the outside structure of the house; iii. Tears in the carpet and stains on the carpet; iv. Blockage to the lawn; removed outside storage cupboard; v. Damage to outside paintwork;
The landlord is seeking compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord’s additional claims are that contrary to section 40 of the RTA, the tenant has caused the following damage to the premises during the tenancy: a. Conservatory roof broken b. Hexagonal lights now not working c. Hole in roof; d. Damaged carpet; e. Carpet requiring cleaning.
During the hearing, the landlord advised that she was withdrawing the claim for the water heater and damage to the walls. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS: Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises?
Section 45 of the RTA provides that a landlord must, among other things, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Where there is a need for repair, the tenant also has obligations under the RTA. Section 40(1)(d) of the RTA provides that the tenant must: Notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010, the District Court held: ... 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 might be. Failure to maintain the premises – broken step:
The tenant has provided a message sent to the landlord in July 2024 showing that one of the outdoor steps was broken. The tenant said the bottom four steps were broken and she had to put newspaper underneath to hold them up. The tenant says the children accessed the yard by using these steps. The tenant is seeking compensation of $400 for the broken step.
The landlord acknowledged that the step was broken and said she would have fixed it if the tenant had remained in the premises.
I accept that the tenant was inconvenienced by the state of the steps. The landlord has not put forward any acceptable reason as to why the steps were not fixed in a reasonable period of time after the tenant brought the matter to her attention. I award compensation of $300.00 for this claim.
The tenant has not specifically sought exemplary damages for the breach of the duty to maintain the premises and I make no such award. However, I note that if the tenant had claimed exemplary damages as well as compensation, it is unlikely that the combined award would have exceeded the award above. Claim for failure to maintain the premises – insinkerator:
The tenant said that from the start of the tenancy there was a bad smell coming from the incinerator. The tenant said that the landlord’s husband took the incinerator out, cleaned it and put it back it but it never worked. The tenant said that for the duration of the tenancy she did not have a working incinerator.
The landlord said the tenant telephoned her and said that it was not working. The landlord said she agreed with the tenant and asked her if this would be an issue and the tenant said no. The landlord said if the tenant had said it would be an issue, she would have had it repaired.
The tenant said she accepted that the incinerator was not working and did not raise it again.
This is the tenant’s claim and the tenant has the burden of proof. Not everyone uses incinerators. I find that the landlord believed that the tenant did not consider the incinerator being in working order to be an important issue.
This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain the premises – front door lock:
The landlord said that when she moved in she noticed there was a broken key in the front door lock and the front door could be unlocked with a screwdriver.
The tenant said she raised it with the landlord who did not get it fixed. The tenant said that the landlord told her she had to fix it herself.
The landlord said she asked the tenant if she could fix it herself. The tenant said the landlord asked her to get quotes. The landlord said she could not remember asking her to do so but as the tenant is at the premises so it would have been easier for her to arrange the quotes.
The tenant said she did not get quotes because it was not her responsibility.
Section 46(1) of the RTA provides that the: The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
This is the tenant’s claim and the tenant has the burden of proof. While I am satisfied that the tenant brought the issue to the landlord’s attention, I am not satisfied that the tenant made it clear to the landlord that she would not be fixing the issue herself or obtaining quotes.
This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain the premises – carpet:
The tenant said that the carpet was dirty and stained when she moved in and that it smelt. The tenant said she got in cleaned shortly after she moved in and has provided an invoice to support that claim. The landlord said that the carpet had been cleaned before the tenant moved in. The landlord has not provided photographs of the carpet from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant has provided messages between the parties showing that she raised the issue of the carpet with the landlord and that the landlord was aware she was going to have the carpets cleaned.
I consider that the landlord should have assessed whether the carpets needed to be cleaned again and, if so, arranged for them to be cleaned.
I am satisfied that the carpets did need to be cleaned and award reimbursement of the sum of $200 paid by the tenant to have the carpets cleaned. Failure to maintain the premiss – water filter system:
The tenant said that the premises included a water filter system. The tenant said she noticed that the filter needed to be replaced and raised the issue with the landlord. The tenant said the landlord said that replacing the filter system was the tenant’s responsibility.
Tenants are responsible for replacing light bulbs which wear out during the tenancy. 1 I find the same principle applies to the water filter system.
This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain the premises – gap in fence:
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises because there was a gap in the fence. She said she had to arrange for a temporary fix. The tenant said she notified the landlord of this approximately 4 months into the tenancy.
The landlord said she was not aware of the issue. Given that this is the tenant’s claim to prove, and the tenant has not provided any written evidence that she notified the landlord of this damage at the time, this claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA?
Under section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA, a landlord must: ... comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The tenant said that there were no smoke alarms when she moved into the premises. The tenant said she sent an email to the landlord saying that there were no smoke alarms. She said she then went and purchased the smoke alarms.
The landlord said there were compliant smoke alarms in the premises and the tenant had to turn the switch on.
The tenant also claims that the landlord breached an obligation to test the smoke alarms every three months. Depending on the type of smoke alarm, the tenant is responsible to replace smoke alarm batteries that wear out during the tenancy. (See regulation 9 of the Regulations.) Landlords are required to ensure that smoke alarms are working at the start of the tenancy and during the tenancy. However, there is no specific requirement that landlord must check the smoke alarms every six months. 1 See Mitterrutzner v Heath TT Christchurch TT655/95, 4 July 1995; and Trim v McGowan TT Christchurch TT2454/97.
This is the tenant’s claim. The tenant has not provided the correspondence referred to above and I am not satisfied that the landlord did fail to provide working smoke alarms or otherwise failed to comply with the Regulations.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises?
Section 38 of the RTA provides that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord: shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
The RTA further provides that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by requiring her to vacate the premises during a visit by an agent of the landlord’s insurer?
In or around April 2024, the tenant said she received a call from the landlord’s husband asking her to leave the premises so that someone could come and inspect the premises regarding a leak in the walls. The tenant said she told the landlord’s husband that she did not understand why she had to leave at which point the landlord took the phone and explained that it was someone from their insurer and they did not have rent insurance. The tenant said that she and her child (who was around 9 months old at the time) had to be out of the house for around 3 hours with nowhere to go. The tenant is asking for compensation for $400.
The landlord said that her husband was dealing with this matter. She said that the tenant was only required to be out of the premises for around half an hour. The landlord also said that her husband offered the tenant compensation for the inconvenience and the tenant accepted. The tenant denied being offered money and the landlord could not say how much compensation was offered or paid. I note that the text correspondence that followed from this did not refer to any payment being made.
I accept that there was an inconvenience in the tenant having to leave the premises, particularly as she had her young child to look after. I am not satisfied that the tenant was paid compensation by the landlord or her husband. I award $150 in compensation for this inconvenience. Did the landlord advise a neighbour of the tenant that the tenant had complained about wood in the shared driveway and, if so, did that amount to breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises?
The tenant said that the landlord also breached her right to quiet enjoyment by telling her neighbour that the tenant had complained about wood in the shared driveway.
The tenant said that in January 2025, the landlord was at the premises and noticed that the person living in the house behind the premises had cut some branches and left them in the shared driveway. The tenant said the landlord said she was not happy with this and planned to raise it with the neighbour. The tenant said that shortly after this, the neighbour approached her and asked her if “she had a problem with her” because the landlord had said that the tenant had complained about the branches. The tenant said that she resolved the issue with the neighbour.
The landlord said that she spoke with the neighbour. The landlord said she simply told the neighbour that she should not leave branches in the driveway and that would cause problems for the tenant.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. I am not satisfied that the landlord did tell the neighbour it was the tenant who complained.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord allow a person to enter the premises for a reason other than a house viewing when the tenant had only given permission for access for the purposes of a house viewing?
Section 48 of the RTA relates to the landlord’s right of entry, with subsection (1) confirming that the landlord “shall not enter the premises” other than that with the consent of the tenant given at the time, or if the Act would otherwise allow it, such as following notice.
Subsection (2) provides that the landlord may enter the premises – ... (ba) for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (except where the testing or sample taking is part of a prescribed decontamination process) at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it (including stating the contaminants to be tested for) at least 48 hours but not more than 14 days before the intended entry; or ... ... (cb) for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with the healthy homes standards (including any prospective requirements of those standards), at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or
Subsection 3 of the RTA provides: With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises— (a) to prospective tenants; or (b) to prospective purchasers; or (c) to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises; or (d) to a real estate agent engaged in appraising, evaluating, or selling or otherwise disposing of the premises; or (e) to an expert engaged in appraising or evaluating the premises; or (f) to a person who is authorised to inspect the premises under any enactment.
The tenant said that during the first week of March 2025, she had given permission for the landlord to show the premises to prospective tenants and the landlord arrived with a person who was who opening and shutting windows.
The landlord said that this person visited the premises for the purposes of obtaining a Healthy Homes Report. The landlord said that as the tenant had given permission for a viewing, it was convenient for this inspection to be carried out the same time and she did not need to give the tenant the reason for the person’s visit.
I disagree, section 45 of the RTA clearly envisages the tenant being told the reason for the landlord accessing the premises. The notice provisions differ depending on the reason for access.
I find that by the landlord has breached section 48(1) of the RTA and that this amounts to interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and is, therefore, a breach of section 38. The tenant has asked for compensation of $200 for failing to provide the correct notice. I award $150 compensation for this breach. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the time specified by the RTA?
The tenant claims that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and provides that the landlord: ... shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
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 RTA.)
The tenancy started on 22 March 2023. The bond of $2800 was paid by the tenant to the landlord within 1-2 months of the start date of the tenancy. The landlord paid $2,400 to the Bond Centre as the bond on 21 February 2025. This means that the full bond has still not been paid to the Bond Centre and that the payment that was made was paid to the Bond Centre significant outside of the required time.
The landlord says that the outstanding amount is much less than what the tenant owes her and that she has the funds to transfer. The landlord says that she knew the bond had to be paid to the Bond Centre but was not aware that there was a time by which it must be done. The landlord said it was not paid within the required time because she did not know that of the time limit and she had left the job for her husband to do.
I find that the landlord has breached the RTA by failing to pay the bond to the Bond Centre within the required time. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant is seeking an award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA provides that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The bond is not the landlord’s money, it is the tenant’s money. The requirement to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre is a fundamental obligation of the landlord. The tenant said that the landlord’s treatment of the bond has caused her stress. I accept this. I consider that most tenants would be stressed or anxious knowing that the landlord has failed to comply with its obligation in relation to the bond. There is also strong public interest landlords complying with the requirement to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre.
As set out above, the landlord says she did not know there was a time limit to lodge the bond. I do not consider that this means the landlord did not act intentionally. Landlords are expected to know the law. In T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne- mette Holmgard Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
Taking into account the significant delay in lodging the bond and that, to the date of the hearing, the full bond has not been lodged, I award $1,000.00 in exemplary damages, which is two thirds of the maximum award. The tenant has also asked for general compensation for this claim for the stress she incurred. However, I consider the award of exemplary damages recognises the impact on the tenant and decline to award compensation as well.

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a rent summary upon request?

Section 29(3) of the RTA provides that upon a written request from the tenant the landlord, the landlord shall provide a statement of the rent payments made.
Section 30 of the RTA places obligations regarding record keeping on the landlord. Subsection 1(a) provides: (1) Every landlord under a tenancy to which this Act applies shall keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing— (a)all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3); and ...
A failure to provide a written statement as required by section 29(3) or to keep the required records is an unlawful act. However, exemplary damages are not available for this unlawful act.
The tenant says that the landlord failed to provide her with a rent summary on request.
On 19 January 2024, the tenant sent the landlord a message asking for a “... rent summary from the date and time [she] moved in”.
The tenant said the first rent summary was provided on 25 February 2024 with an amended one being provided on 30 March 2024.
The landlord said she was travelling at the time of the request and did not know how to prepare the written statement. She said it took her a long time and was tedious.
The combined effect of sections 29 and 30 is that at all times the landlord should have accurate business records of the rent paid. If the records are kept, then preparing the statement should be a quick task.
The landlord was obliged to provide the rent summary upon request. Upon request means immediately or certainly no later than a few days. I find that the landlord failed to do so and that this was an unlawful act.
The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are not available for a failure to provide rent records within a reasonable time. However, I accept that the tenant suffered an inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failure to provide rent records in a reasonable amount of time and award compensation of $250.00. THE TENANT’S AND THE LANDLORD’S CLAIMS REGARDING WATER CHARGES:
The landlord says that the tenant owes money for water arrears. The tenant says that she has been charged for outgoings that were not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
Section 39(3) of the RTA provides: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy.
The landlord explained that the premises used to be a single dwelling which has been divided into two units. The units have separate meters for electricity but there is only one water metre, so the landlord deducts the fixed charges and splits the water usage charges between the two units.
The additional clauses in the tenancy agreement include a clause which provides that “[w]ater bills to be shared pro-rata depending on people living ...”.
Section 137(1) of the RTA provides: No person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act.
In Safer Home Limited v latalya Arohe Tina Rewai [2021] NZTT Porirua 4292331, 4294725, the tenancy agreement included a clause that said that the carpets were “to be cleaned to a professional standard ...” at the end of the tenancy. This Tribunal found that this clause exceeded the tenant’s obligations under the RTA to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and therefore was a breach of section 137.
I find that the clause in the tenancy agreement referred to in paragraph 95 above is contravenes section 39(3) of the RTA and is therefore unlawful and cannot be enforced. I also find that the landlord has breached section 39(3) by charging the tenant for outgoings she was not exclusively responsible for.
In Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, Judge de Ridder considered a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities.
The landlord says that the amount the tenant has been charged for half of the water and that this was fair to the tenant because the premises was the larger unit and the tenant had more people living in her unit that the other unit. The landlord says that at the relevant time there were three to four people living in the other unit.
The tenant says that during the tenancy, she lived at the premises with her five children. The landlord says that during the tenancy, the tenant also had her partner living with her.
The tenant was asked why she believe the amount charged for water was unfair. The tenant said the charges seemed very high. She said that at her new home, she has the same number of people living there and the water bills are around $70.00 to $80.00.
The tenant said there was a significant leak for approximately 3 months in late 2023 early 2024. The tenant says this would have increased the water charges. The landlord acknowledged that there was a leak and that this would have been reflected in the water charges. She says that the tenant did not ask for a discount at the time.
While there are some higher charges during the period, there were also higher charges at other times. However, this could because the tenant’s recollection of when the leak occurred was incorrect.
There were 23 water invoices during the tenancy and the tenant was charged $2718.74 and has paid $2070.00. This amounts to average monthly charges of $118.20.
Taking into account the leak and the fact that it is impossible to know for certain how much water was exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, I consider $100.00 per water invoice to be fair. This amounts to $2300.00. The tenant has paid $2,070.00. I award the landlord $230.00 in water arrears. THE LANDLORD’S OTHER CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger. The landlord admitted that the ledger was not updated on a regular basis but was collated when the tenant requested her rent records. The tenant has provided her own ledger based on the sums paid out of her bank account.
The main dispute between the parties is the sum of just over $2,000.00 which is the difference between a weekly rent of $865 and $825 for the period 02 April 2024 to 30 March 2025.
The tenancy was renewed in April 2024. The rent was increased. The landlord says the rent was increased to $865 per week, the sum on the documents.
The tenant says that the rent was increased to $825 per week. The tenant says that she agreed with the landlord to record $865 in the tenancy agreement so the tenant could show this sum to Work and Income New Zealand who, presumably, were contributing to her rent in some way. The tenant said she had agreed with the landlord that the additional $40 per week was go towards the utility bills.
The tenant said she continued to pay $825 per week and made payments towards her utilities separately. The landlord did not raise this with the tenant until March 2025. The landlord says that she did not raise it until then because she did not notice that the tenant was only paying $825 per week.
The tenant has provided a message from the landlord on 23 March 2024 which states: ... Let me know if you want to renew for another year. A huge hike in interest rates will mean that we will be putting increasing the rent by $125 per week. If you agree to rent increase we will get together and sign the new rental agreement however if you want to leave that is cool and will require a 90 day notice.
I find that despite the fact that the tenancy agreement states $865 per week, the rent agreed was $825. I consider that it is unlikely that the rent would be increased a further amount from the message of 23 March 2024. I also consider that the reason why the landlord did not pursue the rent arrears of $40 per week for almost 12 months was because she knew that the additional $40 was a sum they had agreed was to put towards utilities.
I award $1,562.14 for rent arrears, calculated as follows:
03.202301.04.2024$700.00 per week$37,600.00
04.202430.03.2025$825.00 per week$42,782.14 Total: $80,382.14 Amount paid by tenant: $78,820.00 Amount due: $1,562.14

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Rubbish removal and damage to the lawn:
The landlord is seeking $100 for damage to the lawn and $50 for rubbish removal.
I am not satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant has provided evidence that she provided her own bin to collect rubbish. I am also not satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish.
This claim is dismissed. Cleaning of the carpet:
The landlord says the tenant kept a dog at the premises when she was not permitted to do so. The tenant says that the dog was not her dog but admits it did live at the premises for a period of time.
The RTA does not prevent tenants from having a pet. The tenancy agreement is also silent on pets. It is not covered in the main body of the agreement or the additional clauses. In the absence of such a clause, the tenant cannot be said to have been in breach of her obligations by having a pet at the premises.
However, she is responsible for damage arising from the dog. The landlord said there was a smell in the carpet from the dog (see below) and that she had to have it cleaned. The landlord is claiming $400 compensation for cleaning of the carpet and $800 exemplary damages.
The tenant says she had the carpet cleaned before she moved out and has provided an invoice for $80.00.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $200.00. I am satisfied that the carpet did need to be cleaned because there was a smell from the dog residing at the premises. I accept the tenant had the carpets cleaned. However, smells can be difficult to remove and it is not unusual for them to need to be cleaned more than once.
This claim is proved and I award $200.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this claim. Exemplary damages are only available for unlawful acts (see schedule 1A of the RTA for a list of the unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded). Failing to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy is not an unlawful act. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. The missing outside storage cupboard:
As set out above, tenants are required to leave all chattels provided for their benefit at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says an outside storage cupboard was provided as a chattel standing in the conservatory area of the premises. The landlord said this was missing at the end of the tenancy and claims $500 for this cupboard.
The tenant says an outside storage cupboard was not provided with the premises.
Section 13A of the RTA provides that tenancy agreements must include certain information including “... a list of any chattels provided by the landlord”.
At page 25 of the Tenancy Agreement it states “List of furniture and chattels. Provided by the landlord”. Underneath this heading is room for the furniture and chattels to be written. This section has been left blank.
If the landlord had complied with section 13A of the RTA whether an outside storage cupboard had been provided or not would have been clearly stated in the Tenancy Agreement and this dispute would have been significantly less likely to arise. The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the outdoor storage cupboard was provided as a chattel. I am not satisfied that this is the case.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken gutter:
The landlord says that the tenant broke the gutter on the roof during the tenancy and is claiming $300.00 repair the damage.
The tenant says that the damage was caused when a visitor of the tenant went on the roof to remove the water heater (with permission from the landlord). The tenant says that the damage was caused when he accidentally put his foot on the gutter.
The landlord says that the damage was careless.
As set out above, the tenant is only liable for damage if it was caused during the tenancy is more than fair wear and tear and was caused by the tenant (or a person the tenant allowed on the premises) intentionally or carelessly. Unfortunately, the RTA does not provide a definition of careless.
In Mercier v Smith Dunedin TT 228/93, 14 December 1993 this Tribunal held that the relevant question is: ...was the tenant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances?
Going onto the roof of a house or building is inherently dangerous and falls, slips and misplacement of feet are more likely to occur. I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s visitor was not careless, and the damage was caused accidentally.
This claim is dismissed. Removal of hardwood:
The landlord says that hardwood was taken from the outside structure of the house and is claiming $200. The landlord says she does not have a photograph of the hardwood from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant denies taking the hardwood and says it looked like that at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the hardwood was taken during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Outside paintwork:
The landlord is claiming $200 for damage to the outside paintwork. The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage at the end of the tenancy. She has not provided photographs showing the paintwork from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant did not assert at the hearing that the damage was present at the start of the tenancy. She said she did not notice the damage at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless.
It is not clear on what basis the landlord is claiming $200 for this damage. The landlord says it took her 1.5 hours to do the work. The landlord has not provided receipts for paint etc. I award $37.50 for this claim being $25.00 per hour for the landlord’s labour. Blockage to the lawn:
The landlord has claimed $500 for a blockage to the lawn. The tenant says this was caused by the neighbouring tenants who also had access to this area.
I am not satisfied that this damage was caused by the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Damage to the carpet:
The landlord is seeking $270 for damage to the carpet which she says was torn during the tenancy.
The landlord said the carpet was laid in 2011. This means the carpet on the date the tenancy ended, 30 March 2025, would have been over 13 years old.
I am required to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
The Inland Revenue, in its guidance: General depreciation rates, IR265 August 2024, provides that carpet in residential premises has a useful lifespan of 8 years. I find that the carpet is overdue to be replaced and do not consider it is fair whether the tenant caused the damage or not for her to be required to pay $270.00.
This claim is dismissed. Hole in the roof:
The landlord is claiming $800 compensation and $1000 in exemplary damages for a hole in the roof she says was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant said that she was given permission by the landlord to remove a water heater and it was removal of the water heater that caused the hole in the roof.
The landlord has provided photographs of the damage but has not had the damage fixed. The landlord has provided a quote of $800 to fix the damage.
I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy. I find that it was intentional as the person who removed the water heater could clearly see that it would leave a hole and should not have removed the heater without fixing the hole.
I am reluctant to award damages based on a quotation. This is because in order to award damages I must be satisfied that landlord has suffered a loss. Where the work has been done and an invoice provided, the amount in the invoice (provided it is reasonable) is the loss suffered. However, in this case, I consider the landlord will do the work as the hole cannot simply be left as it is. I award $800 to repair the hole.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this claim. Exemplary damages are only available for unlawful acts. Damaging the premises is not an unlawful act. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Hexagonal lights in bedroom:
The landlord is claiming for the hexagonal lights in a bedroom which she says were not working at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $700. The landlord said the lights have not been replaced.
The tenant denied damaging the lights. She said they just stopped working.
I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the lights to stop working.
This claim is dismissed. Damage to the conservatory roof:
The landlord is claiming $400 for damage to the conservatory roof she says was caused during the tenancy.
The work has not yet been done. The landlord has provided a quote to have the work done for $400.
The tenant says the damage to the conservatory was there at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided photographs of the damage from the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord has not provided photographs from the start of the tenancy.
This is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof. I am not satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed.

SUPPRESION AND FILING FEE

Both parties have had some success with their claims. However, I do not consider that either party has been wholly or substantially successful. For this reason, I decline to order either party reimbursement of the filing fee and I dismiss the landlord’s application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173731 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 183 Royal Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173731 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 183 Royal Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a rent summary upon request?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

SUPPRESION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a rent summary upon request?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

SUPPRESION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions