What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5181991 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 5181991?

Compensation: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: (failure to comply wit…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Homes Standard - Heating: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $132.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181991?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12547781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5181991 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 5181991?

Compensation: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: (failure to comply wit…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Homes Standard - Heating: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $132.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181991?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12547781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 503, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5181991 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181991 — net $1,334.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: (damaged towel rail	$150.00		(damaged towel rail
Compensation for damage to microwave	$132.39		Compensation for damage to microwave
Compensation for soap holder	$35.00		Compensation for soap holder
Exemplary damages: (failure to appoint agent		$750.00	(failure to appoint agent
Compensation: (failure to comply with the Healthy		$350.00	(failure to comply with the Healthy
Homes Standard - Heating		$375.00	Homes Standard - Heating
Compensation for damage to sofa		$150.00	Compensation for damage to sofa
Reimbursement of filing fee		$27.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Total award	$317.39	$1,652.00
Net award		$1,334.61
Bond		$2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,334.61

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181991 — net $1,334.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: (damaged towel rail	$150.00		(damaged towel rail
Compensation for damage to microwave	$132.39		Compensation for damage to microwave
Compensation for soap holder	$35.00		Compensation for soap holder
Exemplary damages: (failure to appoint agent		$750.00	(failure to appoint agent
Compensation: (failure to comply with the Healthy		$350.00	(failure to comply with the Healthy
Homes Standard - Heating		$375.00	Homes Standard - Heating
Compensation for damage to sofa		$150.00	Compensation for damage to sofa
Reimbursement of filing fee		$27.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Total award	$317.39	$1,652.00
Net award		$1,334.61
Bond		$2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,334.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
John Gerald OBrien must pay [The tenant/s] $1,334.61 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in respect of the sliding door is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the fridge and the lights are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place on 12 September 2025 at Auckland District Court.
This is a cross application. The tenant initially applied for refund of the bond. The tenant then added further claims for: failure to appoint an agent while overseas, failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, failure to maintain the premises and breach of the Heathy Homes Standard – Heating. The tenant is seeking compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the premises and breached his obligation to report damage to the premises. The landlord is seeking refund of the bond, compensation for damages to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant’s claims for failure to maintain the premises in respect of the kitchen sink and breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises were withdrawn during the hearing. A. 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. B. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS: Did the landlord breach the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to appoint an agent while overseas?
The tenant claims the landlord was overseas for longer than the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) permits without appointing an agent.
Section 16A(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand.
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 16A(6) and schedule 1A of the RTA.)
The landlord admitted during the hearing that he was overseas for a period of at least 8 weeks during the period from July – October 2024. The landlord said that he did appoint an agent. He said he had a friend who was available to deal with urgent matters. The landlord says that he gave the tenant his friend’s telephone number. The tenant denied being given the number.
The requirement to provide the tenant with certain information under section 16 of the RTA is specific. Once an agent has been appointed under section 16, the landlord must notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, address for service, contact mobile telephone number (if any) and contact email address (if any). In addition, if a bond is held for tenancy, the landlord must notify the chief executive (that is, the Bond Centre) in the approved form. The landlord accepts that he did not do this.
I find that the landlord failed to appoint an agent as required by section 16 of the RTA and therefore committed an unlawful act.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for this breach. 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 confirms 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 landlord said he believed landlords were obliged to appoint an agent if they lived overseas. The landlord said he was not aware the requirement applied if the landlord was overseas for 21 consecutive days.
To be able to award exemplary damages, I must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the District Court found that a landlord had acted intentionally by failing to providing Healthy Homes Standards and insurance information even though the landlord said they did not know they were legally obliged to do so. The District Court said: Like all citizens, corporate or overwise, 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 consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
I find that in this case it is just to award exemplary damages. This is because: a. The tenant was entitled to rely on the landlord having a New Zealand based agent that he could communicate any issues and concerns with and have them investigated and addressed in a timely manner; b. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of his obligations to appoint an agent and notify them and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details; and c. It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching his obligations to appoint an agent and notify the tenants and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I order $750.00 in exemplary damages, being 50% of the maximum award.

Did the landlord breach his obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA. The landlord’s obligations under this section include: a. Providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. Providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of the obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA 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.
Therefore, the landlord’s obligation to investigate and repair a defect is to do so in a reasonable period of time after the landlord becomes aware of the issue.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in respect of the sliding door? a. The tenant said that during the tenancy he advised the landlord that the internal sliding door would not slide or close properly. The tenant has provided email correspondence showing that on 31 July 2024, he sent an email to the landlord advising him that the internal sliding door had “... come off the railing and is now partially inoperable”. b. That same day, the landlord responded saying that he was overseas and would be back in October. With regard to the sliding door, the landlord said: [i]f the sliding door has come off the rails while being opened/closed I would suggest to either try to fix it yourself or ask the building manager for advice on what to do. c. The tenant said he did not go back to the landlord and, as the building manager would not undertake repairs within the landlord’s instructions, he was left with a sliding door that would not operate for most of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord’s response (as set out above) was an attempt to avoid his legal obligations. d. The landlord said that as he did not hear further from the tenant, he assumed that the issue had been resolved. e. I find that the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. Sometimes sliding doors can be fixed easily. That is not always the case and if the tenant was unable to fix the door easily and wanted the landlord to address it, he should have gone back to the landlord. f. This claim is dismissed.
Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and/or fail to maintain the premises? a. The tenant said that when he moved into the premises, he noticed that the bathroom towel rail was broken and had been taped to the wall. The tenant said that the rail then broke. The email correspondence provided shows that the tenant advised the landlord of this in his email of 31 July 2024. b. The landlord did not fix the towel rail and at the end of the tenancy, the landlord send an email saying: .... the meantime I will work on getting the costings to fix these items. I know you did report the towel rail being taped on but it was still not in the state it is in now with four holes in the wall and nothing there. So yes you did report that but it doesn't change the fact it was not like this when you moved in. c. I find that it was not acceptable for the premises to be provided to the tenant with a handrail taped to the wall. I find that the further damage to the handrail was more likely than not to behave resulted from the handrail being in a damaged state. A tenant is not liable for damage attributable to the landlord’s failure to repair. d. The tenant seeks compensatory damages for this breach, for the inconvenience of not having a securely attached handrail at the start and during the tenancy. e. I award $150 in compensatory damages for this breach.
Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? a. The tenant said that when he took possession of the premises at the start of the tenancy, he found it in an unclean condition. The tenant said there was rubbish left in the bathroom, and the kitchen and surfaces generally were not clean. The tenant provided photographs to support this claim. The landlord said he accepted that the premises were not clean. b. The tenant said he is seeking a declaration and not damages for this breach. c. This claim is upheld. I find that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standard – Heating?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard – Heating.
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.
The tenancy commenced on 22 January 2024. Therefore, the compliance date was 22 May 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/.
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 says that the landlord breached this standard because the premises did not have a fixed heating appliance. The tenant said the only heater that was provided was a small plug-in electric heater. Following the hearing, the landlord provided an email from the Building Manager saying that owners must apply to the body corporate for permission to approve a heat pump and heat pumps can only be installed where the apartment has its own exclusive area to place the extractor. The Building Manager did acknowledge in the email that there is an alternative, which is to install a fixed wall heather that has thermostat control.
Section 32 of the HHS provides for an exemption where a rental property is part of a building. In that case, the landlord will be partially exempt from complying with parts of the standards if their ability to comply with the healthy homes standards is hampered because: a. The landlord would need to install or provide something in a part of the building where the landlord is not the sole owner, or b. The landlord would need access to a part of the building that they are not the sole owner.
However, in these situations, landlords must still take all reasonable steps to ensure the premises with the HHS to the greatest extent reasonably practicable. The HHS provide the following example: Mr L is the landlord of premises that are part of a unit title development. The required heating capacity for the main living room of the premises is 3 kW. The only reasonably practicable qualifying heater Mr L could install would be a fixed heat pump. However, the body corporate’s rules prohibit the installation of external heating units on common property without the consent of the body corporate. Regulation 6(2)(a), as modified by this regulation, would require Mr L to take all reasonable steps to get consent from the body corporate to install the heat pump. If Mr L were not able to get consent, paragraph (ba) would require him to comply with the heating standard to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, which he might do by installing a different kind of qualifying heater that has a heating capacity of at least 2 kW, such as an electric heater.
In this case I am not satisfied that an exemption to the Heating Standard applies. I consider that the landlord could have installed an electric heater. I find that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standard – Heating and has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant is seeking compensatory and not exemplary damages for this breach. I note that the tenant was provided with a heater. However, the tenant says the heating was not adequate. I am satisfied that the failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard Heating caused the tenant some inconvenience and discomfort.
The tenancy lasted for one year. That means the tenant resided in the premises for one full winter season. I award $350 in compensatory damages for this breach.

Did the landlord breach the RTA by failing to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Section 13A of the RTA sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13A(1CA) requires a landlord to include a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750 may be awarded. (See section 13A(1F)(a) and schedule 1A of the RTA.)
Both parties have provided a copy of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement does not include the statement required by section 13(1CA) of the RTA.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for this breach. As set out in paragraph 16 above, exemplary damages can only be awarded where the party has intentionally committed the act. Here the landlord says he was not aware of the obligation. Landlords are deemed to be aware of their obligations under the RTA. (See paragraph 18 above.).
In addition, section 109(2) of the RTA provides that exemplary damages can only be awarded for unlawful acts if the tenant made the application within 12 months of the date of the act (or failure to act). While the application was made over 12 months after the failure took place, the landlord did not provide the statement at any time during the tenancy. Therefore, it was a continuing act which was ‘live’ at the end of the tenancy.
I find that in this case it is just to award exemplary damages. This is because: a. The tenant was entitled to be provided with a tenancy agreement which complied with the requirements of the RTA. The effect of the breach meant that the tenant did not have important information in the tenancy agreement. b. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to provide tis information. c. It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide the required HHS statement in the tenancy agreement.
In this case, I consider it is just to make an award of $375 being half of the maximum award. C. THE LANLDORD’S CLAIMS:

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 of the RTA.)
Where the damage is careless, section 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). (See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.)
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). (See section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA.) Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. (See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.)
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. (See section 49B(1) of the RTA.)
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Is the tenant responsible for damage to the sofa? a. The landlord said the tenant is responsible for stains to the sofa. The landlord said the sofa came new with the apartment when it was purchased in July 2022. The landlord estimates that the replacement cost of the sofa is $3000.00. The landlord is seeking the sum of $1,690.00 which is the estimate to reupholster the soft. b. The tenant admits causing some stains to the sofa. The tenant said he would have been willing to pay the cost of having the sofa professionally cleaned but did not believe he should be liable to have the sofa reupholstered. c. The landlord said that cleaning the sofa did not remove the stains. The landlord admits that the cleaning of the sofa was not undertaken by a professional cleaning company. d. Section 49 of the RTA provides that where one of the parties to the tenancy agreement has breached either a term of the tenancy agreement or a provision of the RTA, the other party shall: ... take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. e. The landlord said he did not have the sofa cleaned by a professional cleaning company because the upholsterer who provided a quote to reupholster the sofa said cleaning the sofa would not remove the stains. f. I am not satisfied that the upholsterer was qualified to determine that having the sofa professionally cleaned would not work. I find that as part of the landlord’s obligation to mitigate his losses, he should have either had the sofa professionally cleaned or provided evidence from a professional upholstery cleaner that the stains would not be removed by professional cleaning. g. I also note that the sofa has not been reupholstered. It is rare that the Tribunal will award damages based on a quote. This is because the Tribunal must be satisfied that a loss has been suffered. Where the work has been done and an invoice provided to the Tribunal, the loss is the sum paid for the repairs or replacement of the item, provided those costs are reasonable. Here I am not satisfied that the landlord will have the sofa reupholstered. h. I find that the tenant did cause the damage to the sofa. Given my concerns about the landlord’s failure to mitigate his losses and that the sofa will not be reupholstered, I make a nominal award of $150 for this damage.
Is the tenant responsible for the broken microwave? a. The landlord is claiming $198 to replace the microwave. The landlord has provided an invoice for this sum showing that the microwave has been replaced. b. The landlord said that approximately one week after the tenant vacated the premises, his sister went to the premises to conduct an exit inspection. The landlord said his sister noticed that the microwave was not working. The landlord said there was no one at the premises from when the tenant left to when his sister inspected the premises. c. The tenant said the microwave was working when he left the premises. d. By a slim margin, I am satisfied that the microwave was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved that that the damage occurred either carelessly or intentionally. e. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates Guidance, IR265, August 2024 provides that microwaves have a useful lifespan of 6.66 years. The microwave was approximately 2.5 years old. I award $132.39 having taken into account depreciation.
Is the tenant responsible for the broken fridge? a. The landlord said that the fridge was not working when his sister inspected the premises. The landlord said that the damage to the fridge was due to the tenant leaving the fridge plugged in when he vacated the premises. The landlord said that the damage to the fridge was caused when the power was turned off after the tenant vacated the premises. b. Tenants are not liable for damage to appliances caused by the landlord’s failure to give proper instructions. (See Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd [2012] NZTT Christchurch 532 at [24]–[25].) If the landlord wanted the fridge the tenant to unplug the fridge before vacating the premises, he should have made this clear. c. This claim is dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the broken soap holder? a. The tenant said he is not disputing this claim. b. I award $35 for the soap holder.
Is the tenant responsible for the damaged lights? a. The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy at least half of the lights were not working, and he had to get an electrician because the tenant had damaged the lights. The landlord is claiming the cost of the replacement lights and the electrician’s fee to install the lights. The tenant says the lights were like that at the start of the tenancy. b. The landlord has provided photographs of the lights from the end of the tenancy. The tenant has provided similar photographs which he says were taken at the start of the tenancy. c. It is good practice for a landlord to complete a pre-tenancy report with photographs to show the premises at the start of the tenancy. Ideally, this report will be signed by the tenant or at least provided to the tenant for comment. Here the landlord does not have photographs of the premises from the start of the tenancy. Where there is competing evidence as to whether damage occurred before or during the tenancy, a landlord’s claim is likely to fail without an ingoing inspection report or photographs showing the premises at the start of the tenancy. d. In this case, the landlord has not satisfied me that the damage was caused during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
If the tenant responsible for the damaged mirror? a. The landlord is claiming $100 for a mirror which he says the tenant broke during the tenancy. The landlord has provided a photograph of the mirror which he says his sister took when she accessed the premises approximately one week after the tenant had vacated. b. The tenant has provided a photograph including the mirror which does not appear to be damaged. c. The landlord said he has not replaced the mirror. d. The landlord has proved, by a very slim margin, that the tenant has damaged the mirror. The tenant has not disproved that the damage was not intentional or careless. e. That said, the mirror has not been replaced. I am not convinced that it will be replaced, and I award no damages for this claim. Did the tenant breach section 40(1) of the RTA by failing to notify the landlord of damage to the premises?
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.
The landlord says that the tenant breached this obligation because he did not advise him of the damage to the sofa.
The landlord was seeking exemplary damages for this breach. However, the Tribunal can only award exemplary damages for acts that are deemed to be unlawful acts under the RTA. A breach of this obligation is not an unlawful act.
If the tenant’s failure to notify the landlord of the damage caused further damage, the tenant could be liable for that further damage. However, in this case the landlord has not asserted that the tenant’s failure to report the damage resulted in further damage.
I find that the tenant breached section 40(1)(d) of the RTA by failing to notify the landlord of the damage to the sofa. D. FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION
Neither party has been wholly successful with their claims. I find that the tenant has been substantially successful with his claim. For this reason, I grant the tenant’s application for suppression of his name, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee.
I do not consider the landlord has substantially succeeded with his claims. For this reason, the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181991 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 503, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181991 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 503, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach his obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Did the landlord breach the RTA by failing to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach his obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Did the landlord breach the RTA by failing to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions