What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191691 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 5191691?

Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Wall: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191691?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191691 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 5191691?

Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Wall: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191691?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191691 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191691 — net $4,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$2,000.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Bedroom wall	$350.00	Repairs: Bedroom wall
Rubbish removal	$1,200.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Oven replacement	$1,200.00	Replace furnishings: Oven replacement
Replace furnishings: Rangehood replacement	$800.00	Replace furnishings: Rangehood replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$1,000.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,377.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,377.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191691 — net $4,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$2,000.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Bedroom wall	$350.00	Repairs: Bedroom wall
Rubbish removal	$1,200.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Oven replacement	$1,200.00	Replace furnishings: Oven replacement
Replace furnishings: Rangehood replacement	$800.00	Replace furnishings: Rangehood replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$1,000.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,377.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,377.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre shall pay the Landlord $2200.00 immediately.
The tenant’s must pay [the landlord/s] $4,377.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination, refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their application 5123608.
The Tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 17 July 2020 and ended on 31 March 2025.
The Landlord started managing the property in 2024 and were unable to conduct a property inspection report because the Tenant refused entry.
The onus is on the Applicant to prove their claim which means it is the job of the party making an application, to provide the evidence to prove their case. Landlords claims

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

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord claimed $2,000.00 for cleaning and $1,200.00 for rubbish removal, including rubbish found under the garage. A vacate inspection report and supporting photographs were provided, showing that the property was left in an untidy state with substantial rubbish remaining. The Landlord also provided invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal.
Additionally, the Landlord claimed $1,000.00 for garden clean-up and removal of nails and debris, including cutting trees along the fence line, removing a playground structure, and clearing the section. Photographs of the backyard and an invoice for the work were also submitted.
The Tenant disputes the claims, stating that the photographs were taken before he vacated the property and that he arranged professional cleaners. He says he personally removed rubbish from under the garage and was never advised that the cleaning was unsatisfactory. The Tenant also says he believed the property was due for demolition and therefore did not expect to undertake additional cleaning or garden work. He provided photographs dated 31 March 2025 showing the property in what he considered a reasonable condition. The Tenant accepts leaving behind a few items, such as chairs and an umbrella, but says the Landlord could have contacted him to remove them. He disputes responsibility for trimming the trees.
After considering all evidence, I find that the Tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failed to remove all rubbish. The photographs showed rubbish and debris throughout the property, dirty kitchen surfaces, walls, cabinets, and bathroom fittings, as well as rubbish and residue on the floors and yard. The Tenant has an obligation to leave the premises clean and tidy, and the Landlord is not required to provide notice or an opportunity to re-clean. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the garden was not left in a clean and tidy state.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) 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) 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) 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) 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. Bedroom hole wall damage
The Landlord claims compensation for a hole in the bedroom wall.
The Landlord provided a photograph of the bedroom wall hole which appeared as if it had been intentionally pushed in and invoices to repair the wall. A property inspection report dated 15 July 2020, signed by both parties, showed no damage to the wall or any of the other damaged items at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord submits that the bedroom hole appeared at the end of the tenancy and was never reported.
The Tenant says he was unaware of the wall damage and could not recognise from the photographs where the hole was located, suggesting it may have occurred during moving.
In considering the evidence, I find that the appearance of the hole in the bedroom wall appears as if it is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved. Kitchen and bathroom cabinet
The Landlord also claims $1,000.00 to repair the kitchen cabinet and $500.00 to repair the bathroom cabinet, providing photographs from the exit inspection showing a broken kitchen cabinet door under the sink. The Landlord says they were never notified of any issue.
The Tenant disputes liability, stating the cabinets were old, rotten, and affected by leaks that had gone unaddressed.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord that although the cabinets were not identified as having issues in the ingoing inspection report, the age of the property (built in the 1950s–1960s) suggests that the deterioration is likely due to fair wear and tear.
The claim is dismissed. Painting
The Landlord claimed $7000.00 for painting the entire property because of the damage to the walls and to ensure the colour scheme was consistent throughout the property. This was supported by photographs showing mould and minor wall markings and an invoice for painting.
The Tenant disputed this stating that he painted the property twice at his own expense, most recently in 2023, though he could not provide receipts.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord has not established the need for full repainting of the property. The photographs provided do not clearly show widespread damage to the walls. While some photographs depict scribbles or markings on a few walls, the majority show areas of mould. However, there is no evidence that the mould could not be cleaned rather than requiring repainting. Additionally, the Landlord has not provided sufficient photographic evidence of all the wall surfaces throughout the property to justify repainting the entire premises.
The claim is dismissed. Oven and rangehood
The Landlord claims $1,200.00 to replace the damaged oven and $800.00 for the damaged rangehood, stating both were not working at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant submits he purchased the oven himself in 2019 and left it behind because it was heavy and still functional, and that the rangehood was in excellent condition.
The Landlord questions why, if the oven belonged to the Tenant, it was not removed upon vacating.
In considering the evidence, I find that the photographs and invoices support the Landlord’s claim that the oven and rangehood required replacement. The Tenant also did not provide any evidence that he purchased a new oven such as a receipt. It is also persuasive that the Tenant left behind the oven, as it is unlikely a Tenant would abandon a fully functional appliance.
On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the oven and rangehood were damaged beyond reasonable use.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Tenants claims Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant claimed the Landlord breached Healthy Home Standards due to the lack of heat pump, blocked roof gutters, water leakage in the tiles, blocked shower trays and mould in the cabinets and walls. The Tenant stated he requested heat pumps and gutter cleaning multiple times from the Landlord. He offered to install it at a reduced price but the landlord stated they would increase the rent in response. The next day the Landlord asked the Tenant if he was happy with the house and he said yes because he did not want to be kicked out. It hurt the Tenant who had many children having the property in this state. The gutters were overflowing, the branches broken. The Tenant did not have any evidence of the conversations with the landlord but he submits he did. The Tenant provided photographs
The Landlord submitted the Tenant did not allow them to undertake an inspection.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
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.
In considering the evidence, there was no evidence from Tenant to prove there was blocked roof gutters, water leakage in the tiles, blocked shower trays. There was evidence of mould throughout the property however this was an old house and mould is expected. It was unclear whether the mould had not been cleaned regularly by the Tenants as to why it was excessive. Had the Tenant commissioned a Healthy Homes Report, this may have been more persuasive. As the tenancy began in 2020, a heat pump was not required to be installed until 1 July 2025.
The claim is dismissed. Fixed water charges
The Tenant claimed compensation for reimbursement of the fixed water charges which equated to $1436.00 from July 2020 to July 2025. The Tenant submitted they had no evidence such as invoices or payments made to the Landlord. They submitted they were unable to obtain these because they were not the owner of the account.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant could have asked Watercare for this.
In considering the evidence, as the Tenant had no evidence of payments or invoices to support their claim, the Tribunal is unable to assess their claim.
The claim is dismissed. Rent reimbursement
The Tenant seeks reimbursement of rent allegedly overcharged due to an unlawful rent increase during the COVID-19 period. The Tenant states that in August 2020, the rent was increased from $2,140.00 per month to $2,380.00 per month without the required notice and contrary to the Government’s rent- increase restrictions in place at the time. The Tenant claims a difference of $240.00 per month, totalling approximately $13,680.00 for the period July 2020 to March 2025. The Tenant says they emailed the Landlord at the time querying whether the increase was legal but received no formal notice or response.
The Landlord, disputes the claim and states that there are no records of the tenancy or rent payments prior to August 2024, and that from September 2024, the rent received was $2,383.00 per month, as recorded in the tenancy agreement. The Landlord says he has no evidence of any unlawful increase and that the rent level was consistent with the signed agreement.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence that the rent was increased such as email correspondence, a rental agreement and rent summary. There was no evidence of payments either.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain the property
The Tenant claims $6,000.00 in compensation for the Landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the property, particularly the roof and related water damage. The Tenant states that the roof leaked over several winters, with around 30 broken tiles causing water to enter the walls, laundry, toilet, and hall, resulting in mould and dampness. The Tenant reports repainting the interior twice because of the mould and says the ongoing leaks and poor insulation caused stress and affected their wellbeing. The Tenant also mentioned there was no heat pump and inadequate heating.
The Landlord denied receiving any communication or repair requests about these issues during the tenancy, which lasted around ten years. He says there is no record of any complaints and that the only communication was in 2020 regarding smoke alarm installation and rent matters. The Landlord states he is an experienced property owner who responds to maintenance requests when they are raised.
Section 45(1)(b) of RTA states the Landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period which the premises are likely to remain habitable.
Section 40(1)(d) of RTA states the Tenant must notify the Landlord as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to he premises, or of the need for any repairs.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant did not provide sufficient evidence of notifying the Landlord of the damage. Furthermore, the Landlord was unable to conduct a property inspection which one would have expected the Tenant to facilitate given they had alleged so many issues with the property. Unlawful entry
The Tenant claims that on 3 October 2024, the Landlord entered the property and took photographs without the Tenant’s consent. The Tenant states that people came to the property for a survey and that he informed the Landlord, of his circumstances, including that he could not vacate the property within three months. The Tenant alleges that despite this, the Landlord entered or attended the premises without consent, took photographs and recordings, and failed to respond to his numerous emails objecting to the conduct. The Tenant says this caused distress to him and his family. He was not present when it happened but his wife told him.
The Landlord denies entering the property unlawfully and says that only external photographs were taken. He states that the photographs were limited to the outside of the house, taken on 3 January 2025, approximately three months after issuing a termination notice in September 2024. The Landlord says the purpose was to document the condition of the property and that access was not gained inside. He notes the Tenant had refused to vacate by the end of the notice period and that the property manager placed a notice at the door on the day.
In considering the evidence, there was no proof from the Tenant that the Landlord took illegal photographs of the property and the Tenant was not home to witness this action. He was told by his wife and children who were home at the time.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to install heatpump
The Tenant claims that the Landlord failed to install a heat pump as required and instead relied on portable heaters. The Tenant says they purchased four heaters and paid for the required Healthy Homes assessment, but no heat pump was ever installed.
The Landlord, stated that he observed only one heater on the wall during inspections and believed it belonged to the Tenant. He denies any obligation or request to install a heat pump beyond what was already compliant with Healthy Homes standards at the time.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord is not required by Healthy Home Standards to install a heatpump until 1 July 2025, after this tenancy ended.
The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Tenant also claims exemplary damages for several alleged breaches. First, he alleges failure to repair or maintain smoke alarms, stating that alarms in the kitchen and hallways were not working and that the Landlord did not inspect or repair them.
The Landlord denies this and says smoke alarms were installed and maintained, supported by text and email correspondence showing the Tenant confirmed installation. The Landlord adds that alarms were checked and replaced when he purchased the property in 2020.
In considering the evidence, there was no evidence the Landlord failed to install these such as photographs around the property of the missing smoke alarms.
The claim is dismissed.
The Tenant alleges exemplary damages for the Landlords failure to repair other property damage, including issues with gutter drainage. The Landlord denies receiving any notification of such problems and states that the only repair request received related to the smoke alarms, which was promptly addressed.
As stated in the previous paragraphs, the Tribunal does not find that the Landlord failed to repair the damage.
The claim is dismissed.
The Tenant claims the Landlord failed to provide sufficient notice of construction works at the property. The Tenant says that after receiving a notice to vacate, the Landlord discussed developing part of the section for a childcare site and did not give adequate written notice or reassurance. The Tenant claims this caused stress and uncertainty for his family.
The Landlord denies any such threat or pressure, stating that the discussion concerned future plans only and that proper notice to terminate the tenancy was given.
After considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim such as correspondence, the notice and communication between the parties.
The claim is dismissed.
Section 95A RTA states the Tribunal may order that the names or identifying details of any party or witness not be published, or be published only to a specified extent. As the Landlord has been wholly successful name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall reimburse their filing fee.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted and the Tenant shall pay her own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191691 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191691 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions