What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5178511 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 5178511?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: rent refund due to unl…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,846.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5178511?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12056611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5178511 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 5178511?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: rent refund due to unl…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,846.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5178511?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12056611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5178511 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5178511 — net $776.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 February 2025	$3,846.14		Rent arrears to 28 February 2025
Compensation for damage/repairs	$250.00		Compensation for damage/repairs
Cleaning	$380.00		Cleaning
Exemplary damages (retaliatory notice		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages (retaliatory notice
Compensation: rent refund due to unlawful premises		$1,700.00	rent refund due to unlawful premises
Total award	$4,476.14	$3,700.00
Net award	$776.14
Bond	$800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$776.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5178511 — net $776.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 February 2025	$3,846.14		Rent arrears to 28 February 2025
Compensation for damage/repairs	$250.00		Compensation for damage/repairs
Cleaning	$380.00		Cleaning
Exemplary damages (retaliatory notice		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages (retaliatory notice
Compensation: rent refund due to unlawful premises		$1,700.00	rent refund due to unlawful premises
Total award	$4,476.14	$3,700.00
Net award	$776.14
Bond	$800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$776.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $776.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $776.14 [The tenant/s]: $23.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal issued an order dated 31 January 2025 in which it terminated the tenancy by agreement and set out the tenant’s claims. The landlord, as anticipated by the Tribunal then, filed a cross application. I heard both today.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a full refund of rent, compensation for the landlord’s failure to prevent other tenants from interfering with his reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy started at the beginning of April 2014 and ended (by agreement) on 28 February 2025. So, by New Zealand terms, it was a long tenancy.
The rent for the entire period of the tenancy was $180.00 per week.
During the tenancy the tenant has been in arrears for large amounts, at times over $17,000.00. Since January 2020, the rent has always been in arrears for varying amounts.
Generally, the tenancy appears to have proceeded without issue. Despite the tenant’s evidence to the contrary, the correspondence between the parties shows that the tenant enjoyed the tenancy and the landlord showed restraint by allowing flexibility concerning the rent arrears and by not increasing the rent at all.
Things changed around April 2024 when the next-door tenants (also tenants of the landlord) became verbally abusive towards their grandchild. The tenant intervened, as he was on friendly terms with his neighbours. After his intervention, those tenants began to harass him and issued him with a trespass notice (served by the police).
The landlord issued anti-social behaviour and other breach notices on both sets of tenants, but the behaviour seems to have continued.
Issues with the service of the trespass notice alerted the tenant to the fact that there might be compliance issues with the premises, so he made enquiries of the local authority.
On Christmas Eve 2024, the tenant received information from the local authority that showed compliance issues – a firewall between the premises was not fully compliant. The tenant had a text discussion with the landlord and sent him the Council’s information. The landlord responded, also on Christmas Eve, with a notice terminating the tenancy.
When the tenant’s application was first set for hearing, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy by agreement (given the non-compliant status of the premises). The Tribunal adjourned the application, having clarified the tenant’s claims.
The landlord then filed a cross application.
Both parties have filed documentary evidence is support of their applications. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The Tribunal must determine: •Were the premises unlawful residential premises? If so, what should the remedy be? •Did the landlord fail to ensure that the neighbouring tenants did not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises? •Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice? If so, what is the remedy? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage? Relevant law
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Section 45(1)(e) provides: provides: (e ) take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Section 54 RTA provides in part: 54 Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1) This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2) The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: ... (6) The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
Section 78A RTA (Orders of Tribunal relating to unlawful residential premises) provides in part: (1) This section applies in any matter where the Tribunal, on application by a party or otherwise on the evidence before the Tribunal in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction, determines or declares that the premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential premises. (2) For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation. (4) Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in accordance with this Act in relation to the matter,— (a) the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant— (i) the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful residential premises; or (ii) an amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct:
Section 85 RTA is important in this case for reasons I will explain. So, I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Other considerations
When the Tribunal makes decisions, it is charged with a significant responsibility. The decisions it makes affect people’s lives directly both financially and emotionally. Sometimes, its decisions mean that people’s lives are uprooted, and they become homeless.
While the Tribunal is principally guided by case law, it can look more widely for guidance on principles relevant to the decision-making process.
In 2024, Patrick Girard (now Associate Professor Girard) published his book Logic in the Wild. 2 He explains how logic informs reasoning across science, religion, and, for the present purposes, law. He explains how logic applies to address (and resolve) conflict in thought and action.
Work such as his is important because it can guide decision makers towards making just and fair decisions. He explains a form of logic known as ceteris parabus logic. Ceteris parabus means ‘all things being equal’.
In the matters before me, the tenant’s submissions are based on this kind of logic. His argument goes something like this. The RTA provides sanctions for certain actions by a landlord. The landlord committed those actions. Therefore, the landlord should be sanctioned. 2 McGill-Queen’s University Press.
While logical, the enquiry is not that simple. What if all things are not equal? What if there are other relevant considerations that disrupt that kind of logical analysis?
The RTA recognises that this kind of logic might not always lead to a just outcome. That is why I set out section 85 RTA in full. That section directs the Tribunal to consider the substantive merits and justice of the case, to ensure the fair resolution of the dispute. Discussion Were the premises unlawful residential premises? If so, what should the remedy be?
The tenant’s evidence establishes that the premises are unlawful in the sense that they are not fully compliant with the Building Code. The fire wall between the 2 units is non-compliant. The landlord now accepts that.
When premises are considered unlawful due to non-compliance with the Building Act and the Building Code, the Tribunal has a wide discretion about the remedy. For the most egregious cases (say renting out a shipping container as residential premises), the Tribunal might award a full refund of rent. For cases where the non-compliance is technical (for example, the failure to obtain a signed code of compliance, but where there is no doubt that the premises are compliant) the Tribunal might not award any rent refund.
Here, the tenant discovered the non-compliance by chance triggered by the trespass notice served by the police. The non-compliance has not altered his ability to live at the premises, nor detracted from his enjoyment. But for the trespass notice being served, he probably would never have known about the fire wall issue..
The landlord has taken every reasonable action. He was unaware of the non- compliant fire wall, having been assured of compliance generally by the sales agent when he purchased the premises. But for the serving of the trespass notice and the police enquiries of the Council, it is probable that the landlord still would not have been aware of the non-compliant fire wall. He has since instructed a professional consultant (evidence produced) to rectify what is considered some minor work to enable a Certificate of Acceptance to be issued by the local authority. The premises have not been re-tenanted in the meantime.
I referred to section 85 RTA earlier in this decision. The tenant has enjoyed a 10-year tenancy with no rent increases at all. He has been in arrears of rent for long periods, at times for large amounts. The landlord has allowed him to remain in the tenancy and has given him time (more than once) to clear the arrears historically.
For the kind of compliance issue relevant to this case, an application for a full rent refund is unrealistic. Taking account of the benefits the tenant has received by enjoying such a low rent for such a long period, I consider that a rent refund of $1,700.00 is fair in this case and properly takes account of the section 85RTA considerations. Did the landlord fail to ensure that the neighbouring tenants did not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises?
The landlord could not prevent the neighbouring tenants from interfering with this tenant’s quiet enjoyment. They acted as they chose to, albeit badly.
Had the landlord done nothing, the tenant would have proved a claim for compensation. However, the landlord did act on the information the tenant provided. He served anti-social behaviour and other breach notices on both tenants. I find that he did what he could.
Sometimes, when neighbours fall out, the only solution is for one or both to vacate. That the landlord suggested that solution is not a breach by him; it just reflects the reality.
I do not find that the tenant has proved a claim for compensation for the landlord’s alleged failure to ensure that his other tenants did not interfere with this tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises.
No doubt, the situation was stressful and unpleasant for the tenant. But the landlord could not have done much more than he did.
This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed. Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice? If so, what is the remedy?
The tenant informed the landlord by text message about the non-compliant fire wall on Christmas Eve 2024. The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy the same day.
In evidence, the landlord said that his niece required the premises as she was moving back to New Zealand from Australia urgently.
The text messages between the landlord and his niece are dated 25 September 2025. He clearly states that he would need to give the tenant notice before she could move into the premises. But he did not give notice.
I find that the landlord retaliated by giving the notice to terminate the tenancy on the same day as the tenant drew the non-compliant fire wall to his attention. The landlord said the timing was coincidental. I do not accept that.
The tenancy has ended so the Tribunal cannot set aside the notice. That the Tribunal has declared the notice retaliatory means that the landlord committed an unlawful act.
I find the section 109 RTA criteria satisfied: the landlord acted with intent, it was against the tenant’s interests, it had an effect on the tenant, and it was against the public interest (landlords are expected to comply with their statutory responsibilities).
For this unlawful act, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $2,000.00 both as punishment and as deterrence.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The landlord has claimed rent arrears of $3,846.14 to 28 February 2025. The rent arrears are proved by the rent records produced in evidence and are accepted by the tenant. I have made an order for that amount.

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

At the end of a tenancy a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The Tribunal decides claims for cleaning based on an objective assessment of the evidence, not on the subjective opinion of either party.
The tenant produced a video he took on the last day of the tenancy. It appears to show the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord provided photos which are closer views of affected areas. The photos prove that further cleaning was reasonably required.
I find that the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition.
The landlord claimed $1,260.00 for cleaning based on a quote. The work has not been done. The tenant provided a quote for $380.00, although he submitted that he was not liable for any cost.
I award the landlord compensation for cleaning based on the tenant’s quote. The premises are old and in need of repairs. That alone means that more than the expected amount of cleaning might be required. Also, landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
Based on the Tribunal’s experience of assessing cleaning claims (these being small premises) an award equivalent to the quote the tenant obtained is reasonable.
I award the landlord compensation of $250.00 for the repair of damage. He claimed $612.89 for a new toilet bowl and $400.00 to replace deck railing and clear lite cladding. The claimed amount claimed for the toilet bowl is based on a quotation; the bowl has not yet been replaced. The amount for the deck repair and the clear lite is a ‘best guess’ estimate.
The tenant said the toilet bowl was so old it had degraded over time. The photos suggests that it was simply not maintained by adequate cleaning.
The tenant said the clear lite was damaged in a storm and was at least 30 years old. He said he removed the deck rail because he thought it unsafe.
For repairs, the Tribunal must consider fair wear and tear and depreciation. The landlord cannot expect the tenant to be liable for the cost of a new toilet bowl, when the existing one is decades old. The cause of the damage to the clear lite is disputed and is unclear. That too was old. The tenant admitted removing the deck railings.
For the toilet bowl and the deck railing repairs, I award the landlord compensation of $250.00 to factor in fair wear and tear, depreciation, and betterment all of which are legal principles relevant to such claims.
I make no award of the filing fees. Each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Result
The landlord’s claims are proved in the amount of $4,476.14. The tenant’s claims are proved in the amount of $3,700.00.
The bond will be split between the parties - $776.14 to the landlord and $23.86 to the tenant. Name suppression
As both parties have succeeded in their applications, I have granted both applications for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178511 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178511 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions