What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198291 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the premises address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5198291?

Compensation: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198291?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11878540-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198291 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the premises address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5198291?

Compensation: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198291?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11878540-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5198291 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198291 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$350.00	Compensation
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$4,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$350.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198291 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$350.00	Compensation
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$4,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$350.00

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the premises address must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,080.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenant] $350.00 immediately for failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionTenant Compensation$350.00 Total award$350.00 Bond$4,080.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$350.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord withdrew her claim for rent and re-tenanting costs.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord does not oppose release of the bond to the tenant.
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide the premises clean and in a reasonable state of repair, that the premises did not comply the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), and the landlord provided an inaccurate HHS. Background
On 2 March 2025, the tenant’s husband attended an open home for the rent of the premises. The tenant agreed to the tenancy without seeing the premises herself.
The tenancy began on 9 March 2025, which was the first day the tenant inspected the premises for herself. She submits: When we arrived at the property on March 9 th , expected the property to be reasonably clean, instead, we found it in an unsatisfactory state: Black mould on window frames, walls, and the outside deck; large cockroaches crawling around; an overwhelming number of bugs in the wardrobes; fleas and rate droppings in the kitchen cupboards; a filthy dishwasher; and greasy, stained kitchen surfaces. We had to purchase bug bombs and cleaning supplies and spent three full days – March 9 th to 11 th – cleaning with the help of a friend (she can be a witness). Despite our efforts, the black mould on the deck remained stubborn, and a strong mouldy smell persisted whenever we attempted to hose it down. Beyond the cleanliness issue, we discovered numerous maintenance and repair problems, including: •Windows and doors that could not be opened •Drafty bedroom windows that could not be closed •A leaking window •A severely rusted window hinge •A leaking toilet cistern •A loose upstairs balustrade •Lifted vinyl tiles in the bathroom with sharp, hard edges that posed a tripping hazard.
The tenant and her family never moved into the premise because she felt the condition of the property was unacceptable.
The landlord says she managed the property for her friend. Her friend had only purchased the property a couple of weeks earlier, in February. The house had not been lived in for quite some time at that point.
The issues the Tribunal must decide are: a. Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean? b. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair? c.Did the landlord ensure the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for draught stopping? d. Did the landlord provide an inaccurate HHS?

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching this duty is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities, which in this case is the tenant.
As is often the case in claims like this, the tenant relied on close-up photographs showing isolated areas that could have been cleaner; and most of the photographs the landlord relied on were taken some distance back so that any lack of cleanliness would be hard to discern even if it were there. Only the landlord’s photographs of the kitchen sink and oven were particularly helpful.
The tenant said that she hadn’t thought to take photographs prior to cleaning the worst of the unclean areas. Of course the tenant could give such evidence and her friend who helped her clean could likely have given similar evidence. The landlord would, however, have given contrary evidence. Therefore, the photographic evidence is vital in this case.
Having carefully reviewed all of the photographs and considering the emails and oral evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises was not reasonably clean.
The tenant’s photographs showed only a few localised places that were not clean. The bottom rear sills of some cupboards needed cleaning. There were a couple of deceased cockroaches in one place. The tenant says that one cupboard had some mouse droppings. Some windows frames had a small amount of dirty detritus at the 1 See s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). edges. The top of the dishwasher had some dirty residue when pulled out from the bench. The decks had black mould in places.
I am not satisfied on the evidence produced that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable standard of repair
Under s 45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 3 “...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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 4 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 5 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
The deck mould was typical for a wooden deck in Auckland. The landlord was happy to get the deck cleaned and deal with the other issues raised but the tenant had decided to move out. A window leaked, an external door could not be opened, the stair handrail needed securing, the shower floor was failing, two upstairs windows and a balcony window could not close, a toilet cistern was running without stopping, there was an unpleasant odour. 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 5 See n 2.
The tenant also complained of a pest problem. However, the landlord disputes this and there was no cogent evidence of pests.
All of the matters that concerned the tenant could have been fixed within a reasonable time, but the tenant was not interested in waiting for that to occur. She just wanted to move on.
I find it proved that the premises was not in a reasonable state of repair in respect to the other matters that the tenant raised. The most concerning of them was that house’s security was compromised by three windows not being able to be secured.
It is appropriate to order compensation for the breach. The tenant never moved in so did not directly incur a loss of amenity. The fact the tenant did not move in was related to her dissatisfaction with the premises, but the problems even in toto did not warrant cancellation of the contract. The problems were minor and easily fixable.
I order $350.00 nominal damages to recognise that the premises did require fixing.
Not providing the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 6
The landlord says she did not know the premises had the faults the tenant identified. That is understandable because the house was not hers and her friend who owned the house had only just purchased it. The tenant on the other had had gone through the house in detail and had intended to live in the premises.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Therefore, exemplary damages are not available.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

[The tenant/s]claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The compliance date for the HHS for this tenancy was within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
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. 6 RTA, s 109(3).
The landlord had 120 days within which to comply with the draught stopping standard. Moreover, the landlord’s HHS report found that the premises complied with the HHS in all respects.
The tenant has not proved the landlord failed to comply with the HHS.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord provide inaccurate HHS information?

The tenant claims the landlords HHS report was inaccurate.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant submitted that the HHS report the landlord provided her was inaccurate and doubted that the report writer was genuine.
However, the Tribunal telephoned the report writer, who existed and sounded genuine.
I am not satisfied that the HHS information the landlord provided was inaccurate.
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 7
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider hat publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
Non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198291 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198291 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord provide inaccurate HHS information?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord provide inaccurate HHS information?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions