What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210214 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 5210214?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain HR…: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wa…: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $2,989.26 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $236.25 awarded to landlord; Windows: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $341.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210214?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210214?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12988508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210214 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 5210214?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain HR…: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wa…: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $2,989.26 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $236.25 awarded to landlord; Windows: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $341.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210214?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210214?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12988508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Steeple Rise, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210214 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

10 Steeple Rise, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210214 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210214 — net $154.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$2,989.26		LandlordTenant
Repairs: Windows	$477.25		Repairs: Windows
Rubbish removal	$350.00		Rubbish removal
Oven cleaning	$80.00		Oven cleaning
Lawns	$236.25		Lawns
Water rates (09/10/2024, 05/11/2024 & 06/12/2024	$341.99		Water rates (09/10/2024, 05/11/2024 & 06/12/2024
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in		$120.00	38. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain HRV system		$2,100.00	Failure to maintain HRV system
Compensation: Failure to maintain washing		$2,100.00	Failure to maintain washing
Total award	$4,474.75	$4,320.00
Net award	$154.75
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$154.75

Claims and awards for application 5210214 — net $154.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

LandlordTenant

Amount: $2,989.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: LandlordTenant

Repairs: Windows

Amount: $477.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Windows

Rubbish removal

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Oven cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Oven cleaning

Lawns

Amount: $236.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns

Water rates (09/10/2024, 05/11/2024 & 06/12/2024

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — __________________________________________________________________________________ 521021413 Is the tenant responsible for paying the landlord outstanding wate…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is granted. The fixed term is reduced from 23 March 2025 to 18 December 2024.
[The respondent/s] must pay [The applicant/s] $154.75 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $154.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,445.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 January 2026. Jerry Li from Edwards Realty Limited appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy began on 23 March 2023 and was for a fixed term until 23 March 2025. The tenant wants the fixed term reduced to 18 December 2024. They claim they were assaulted at work, injured their hip and experienced ongoing pain, which meant living in the two-storeyed premises was not possible. The landlord opposes the application and claims the real reason the tenant wants to reduce the fixed term is because they purchased a house in December 2024.
Both parties have filed other claims with the Tribunal. The landlord claims the tenant owes rent arrears of $8,775.00 up to 19 March 2025. The landlord also claims the tenant owes them money for water, electricity, lawnmowing, cleaning and repairs. The tenant claims the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. They also claims the HRV system and hot water for the washing machine never worked. The issues I must determine are: Tenant’s claims a. Should the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term be granted? b. If so, should the tenant pay the landlord an amount determined by the

Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss suffered?

c. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? d. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? Landlord’s claims e. Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

f. Is the tenant responsible for paying the landlord outstanding water rates and electricity invoices? g. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? h. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? i. Should the tenant pay the landlord $467.25 for lawnmowing? Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. TENANT’S CLAIMS Should the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term be granted? The law
A tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order reducing the period of a fixed- term tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy where: a. There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. There would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term were not reduced; and c. The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced.
Examples where the Tribunal has found there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances are: 1 a. Unexpected loss of income through becoming unemployed; b. Where the tenant must leave the locality for employment purposes; c. Where the tenant’s partner leaves and the remaining tenant can no longer afford to pay the rent; d. Where the tenant has a child and needs larger or cheaper premises; e. Where the tenant suffers a disability and must move to premises that can accommodate the disability (for example, wheelchair accessible); and f. Where the landlord having previously lived in the premises has to return to the area sooner than expected and resume occupation of the premises. Has there been an unexpected change in the applicant’s circumstances?
The tenant works as a healthcare assistant at Middlemore hospital’s emergency department. They claim they were punched on the right side of their face by a mental health patient on 6 January 2024. The tenant gave evidence the punch was very hard and resulted in a concussion. The tenant claims they fell to the floor and hurt their right shoulder and hip. The tenant claims liquid leaked from their right ear following the assault and their vision was impaired. Further, the tenant claims they have experienced ongoing, significant pain in their right hip. The tenant claims it took over one year to be seen by a specialist and living in the two storey premises with hip pain was not possible.
The tenant has submitted medical documents which support their evidence. The first document is an ACC medical certificate from Dr Vandana Rasela dated 25 January 2024. It states: Date of Injury06 Jan 2024 ... Comments 1 See for example Hippolite v J P Morgan Real Estate Tenancy Tribunal Palmerston North TT 431/96, 9 May 1996; Petrache v Higgins and Shearer Tenancy Tribunal Christchurch TT 2222/96, 8 October 1996; Kim v Watson District Court Wellington CIV-2009-085-946, 17 September 2009. ASSAULTED/PUNCHED IN FACE – Landed and fell backwards when punched and hurt RT shoulder and RT hip as landed onto it.
The second document is a letter dated 1 March 2024 from Dr Sohail Asghar from Te Whatu Ora – Counties Manukau. It states: [The tenant] reports an assault at her workplace on 06/01/2024. The likely mechanism and initial impression in the Emergency Department suggest a concussion... Additionally, she reports a fall on her right side after the incident, resulting in discomfort in her right hip. While [the tenant’s] concussion-related symptoms are resolving, she continues to experience difficulties with symptoms in her right lower extremity... ...At this stage, [the tenant] is symptomatic especially in her right lower extremity and does not have capacity to return to her physically demanding HCA role.
The third document is another letter from Dr Rasela dated 13 March 2025. It states: ...[The tenant] has been referred due to ongoing pain in her right SI joint and also her right hip region...She also has pain in the lateral hip region and she points to the trochanteric region of her hip. She also describes pain where she has some intermittent tingling sensation that goes down her leg in the L4 distribution... ...[W]ithin the right hip joint itself there was some mild chondral thinning, grade 1 with a labral tear...
This medical evidence supports the tenant’s claim that they were assaulted at work on 6 January 2024 and have experienced ongoing hip pain as a result. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced of these facts.
The tenant claims they were referred to an orthopaedic surgeon in April 2024 but by the end of 2024 had still not been seen. Therefore, the tenant decided to return to India to receive medical treatment. The tenant claims they also decided to leave the premises, because they were no longer suitable. The tenant claims the stairs were difficult to navigate with a sore hip.
The landlord claims the purpose of the tenant’s visit to India was for a holiday, not to receive medical treatment. The landlord refers to comments made by Dr Rasela in her letter dated 13 March 2025, in which Dr Rasela states the tenant told them they recently went on holiday to India and had an MRI.
The tenant submitted a copy of an MRI Report conducted in India by Dr Antarpreet Kaur, dated 7 February 2025. This supports their claim that they received medical treatment in India.
A trip to India is not a small journey to make. The tenant originates from India and has family there. It is not surprising that they decided to stay in India for a reasonable period of time and treat their trip as both a holiday and an opportunity to receive medical treatment. The fact the tenant told Dr Rasela that they went to India on holiday does not detract from the credibility of their evidence about the assault and ongoing hip pain they experienced.
The landlord also claims the real reason the tenant wants to reduce the fixed term tenancy is not because the premises were unsuitable, but because they purchased a property.
The tenant submitted a copy of a sale and purchase agreement for the premises at 27 Hupana Rd, Karaka, Auckland. The agreement is dated 30 October 2025 and is conditional on a number of things, all of which are due for fulfilment within 10 working days from the date of the agreement on 13 November 2024. The settlement date is 13 December 2024.
The tenant claims the date on the agreement is wrong, because all of the conditions were fulfilled in December 2024. I find this to be unlikely. The date of a conditional sale and purchase agreement is an important detail, because it determines the due date for fulfilment of conditions. If the agreement was incorrectly dated, I consider the tenant would have been able to submit evidence confirming this, which they did not.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the agreement is correctly dated. It has been over one year since the agreement was signed and settlement occurred. It is reasonably possible that the tenant’s memory has faded over time and their ability to accurately recall specific details and dates going back over one year is difficult. I do not find that the tenant lied when giving evidence that the agreement was incorrectly dated. I find they genuinely believed this to be the case but are mistaken because of the difficulty in recalling events that happened over one year ago.
The agreement most likely became unconditional on 13 November 2024. The tenant asked the landlord to end the fixed term tenancy early on 18 November 2024, only 5 days later. The landlord claims this is strong evidence to suggest that the tenant’s request to reduce the fixed term is motivated by the fact they purchased a house. The fact that the tenant purchased a house does not negate from the fact that they also suffered an unexpected assault on 6 January 2024 and ongoing hip pain as a result. The tenant needed alternative, suitable accommodation to move to, whether in the form of a single storey rental property or home of their home. The fact that they decided to purchase a single storey home instead of renting another premises does not change the fact that the need to move was driven by the fact that they had suffered a disability, which rendered the two-storeyed premises unsuitable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant was assaulted at work on 6 January 2024. The assault was unexpected and resulted in significant, ongoing hip pain, which was also unforeseen. The hip pain rendered the two- storeyed premises unsuitable, and the tenant needed to relocate. I find the tenant has suffered an unexpected change in their circumstances.

Would there be severe hardship to the applicant if the fixed term were not reduced?

The tenant has a newborn baby. The tenant claims they receive parental leave payments from the government totalling approximately $500.00 per week. The tenant claims their employer tops up these payments, but this will stop in late January 2026.
The tenant gave evidence that they intend to take 12 months maternity leave before returning to work. This means they will only receive parental leave payments from the government for 6 months. Thereafter, they will be reliant solely on the tenant’s husband’s income. The tenant’s husband works as an Uber driver.
The tenant also has an older child and a mortgage of approximately $875,000.00.
I accept the tenant’s evidence about their personal and financial circumstances. The evidence was uncontested by the landlord and the tenant’s newborn baby was present at the hearing. This means I consider their evidence about being on maternity leave and receiving parental leave payments to be credible.
The tenant’s income will soon drop for a lengthy period of time however, their expenses will remain the same and most likely increase as their baby grows older. If the fixed term is not reduced, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears totalling $8,775.00 will be granted. This is a substantial amount of money to require the tenant to pay at the moment. I am convinced that failure to reduce the fixed term will result in severe financial hardship to the tenant given their current circumstances. Will the applicant’s hardship be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced?
The owner did not attend the hearing however, Mr Li claims the owner has a mortgage over the premises and relies on the rent to help them pay it. No evidence as to the balance of the mortgage was submitted however, evidence was given that the owner also owns the neighbouring unit, which has been vacant for some time.
I accept that the owner is likely to suffer some financial hardship in terms of a reduction in cashflow from their investment property if the fixed term is reduced however, I am not convinced the hardship would be greater than the hardship suffered by the tenant. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me of this.
For these reasons, I find the criteria in section 66 RTA is met. The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is granted. The fixed term is reduced to 18 December 2024. Should the tenant pay the landlord an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation due to loss suffered as a result of a reduction in the fixed term? The law
Where the Tribunal makes an order reducing a fixed-term tenancy, it may also order the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. 2 Analysis
By reducing the fixed term to 18 December 2024, the landlord has suffered a loss of $8,775.00 in rent. I find it reasonable that the tenant should compensate the landlord for some of this loss. This is because the fixed term has been reduced to 18 December 2024, which is very close to the Christmas and New Year period. This is a notoriously difficult time to find new tenants, because people are away on holiday and most property management companies close down for a short period of time.
I find it reasonable that the tenant should compensate the landlord for lost rent up to 18 January 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves lost rent up to this date is $2,989.26.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 3
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66(2). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 Analysis
The entry inspection photographs show the oven and drawers in the kitchen and lounge were dirty at the beginning of the tenancy. They also show various parts of the carpet had numerous stains that required cleaning. The notes on the entry inspection report are that the kitchen, lounge and some areas of the carpet needed cleaning. I find the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $120.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the overall state of cleanliness of the premises. Although the oven, drawers and parts of the carpet were not clean, the rest of the house was provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. I have also considered the fact the landlord submitted an invoice dated 10 April 2023 for cleaning. This shows the landlord attempted to fix the problem shortly after the tenancy began.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 9
A tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 10 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred.
The breach occurred on 23 March 2023. The tenant filed their application on 18 July 2025, which is more than 12 months later. Therefore, the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b). Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 11
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 12 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 13
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 14
The tenant claims the landlord failed to provide and maintain the HRV system and washing machine in a reasonable state of repair. I discuss each issue below. HRV system Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties accept the HRV system did not work for the entire tenancy. The landlord claims it is not included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement and therefore, the landlord does not have an obligation to maintain it. The landlord also claims the owner made enquiries about repairing the HRV system and was advised that repairs or replacement would require removing the entire roof. 11 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 12 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 13 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 14 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Analysis
Fixtures are items that are attached to the property in such a way that they become a part of the property. For example, built-in appliances and heat pumps. Chattels are items that can be removed without causing damage to the property. For example, furniture, curtains and portable heaters.
An HRV system is typically installed into the structure of the house, with ducting and vents running through ceilings or walls. This level of integration with the premises means it is intended to be a permanent improvement to the property, and its removal would likely cause damage or require repair. For these reasons, I find the HRV system is a fixture, not a chattel, and the landlord has a duty to maintain it.
The landlord did not submit any evidence to support their claim that repairing or replacing the HRV system involved removing the roof and I am not convinced this was the case. Access to the roof to install, remove or carry out repairs to an HRV system is typically gained through a manhole in the ceiling. Removal of the entire roof is unusual. Even if the roof needed to be removed, this does not detract from the landlord’s duty to maintain the HRV system in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord knew the HRV system did not work at the beginning of the tenancy and remained broken until the end of the tenancy on 18 December 2024. That is a period of 21 months. A delay of this length is unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to provide and maintain the HRV system in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 per month is reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the fact that the premises included a heat pump and were compliant with the healthy home standards. I have also considered the evidence of the tenant that condensation was an issue. The premises appear very dated. A functioning HRV system would most likely have improved seasonal condensation that typically occurs in older houses within single glazed windows during winter.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,100.00. Washing machine
Both parties accept that hot water was not supplied to the washing machine at the beginning of the tenancy. The entry inspection photographs show some hoses from the washing machine tied together with a note that states “Do not remove hoses from sink. Hot water tap washer needs replace. (Hot water will run out when water main is turn on!)”
The tenant claims the washing machine was never fixed and they only ever washed their clothes with cold water. The landlord claims the problem was fixed but could not provide an invoice. Mr Li claims that the owner occasionally organised repairs themselves, which may be why he could not access an invoice in the company’s system.
In the absence of an invoice, I am not convinced the washing machine was repaired. I find it remained broken from the beginning to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord knew about the state of disrepair of the washing machine from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. That is a period of 21 months during which the landlord did not fix the washing machine. This delay is unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to provide and maintain the washing machine in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 per month s reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the frequency with which a washing machine is typically used and the inconvenience suffered by the tenant. The tenant was unable to wash their clothes with hot water for 21 months, which must have been very inconvenience. Hot water helps to remove tough stains and germs.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,100.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The landlord knew about the state of repair of the HRV system and washing machine from 23 March 2023. A reasonable timeframe for repair would have been 1 - 3 months later, up to 13 June 2023. This is the date of the commission of the unlawful act. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 July 2025, which is more than 12 months later.
The tenant is out of time to apply for exemplary damages. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $8,775.00 up to 20 March 2025. Because I have granted the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy to 18 December 2024, the tenant is only liable to pay rent up to this date.
The landlord’s rent summary records rent arrears are $0.00 up to 18 December 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for paying the landlord outstanding water rates and electricity invoices? The law
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 15 This includes electricity and water. 16 Water rates invoices
The tenant agrees to pay the following outstanding water rates invoices: a. 5 November 2024 (period covering 09/10/2024 – 05/11/2024): $167.19 b. 9 December 2024 (period covering 05/11/2024 – 06/12/2024): $101.34
The landlord seeks to recover the further outstanding invoices: a. 7 January 2025 (period covering 06/12/2024 – 07/01/2025): $146.92 b. 5 March 2025 (period covering 05/02/2025 – 05/03/2025): $15.22.
The tenant occupied the premises and used the facilities up to 18 December 2024, which is the date the fixed term tenancy ended. Therefore, they are only responsible for water consumed at the premises up to this date.
The invoice dated 7 January 2025 covers the period from 6 December 2024 – 7 January 2025. The tenant must pay a portion of this invoice to reflect their water usage up to 18 December 2024. I find $73.46 to be reasonable.
The tenant did not occupy the premises or use the facilities for the period contained in the invoice dated 5 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $15.22 is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $341.99 in total. Electricity invoices
When the tenant left the premises on 18 December 2024, they closed their electricity account. The landlord re-opened an electricity account at the premises in the landlord’s name and seeks to recover the following invoices: a. 14 March 2025 (period covering 03/02/2025 -20/02/2025): $143.09 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(a) & (c). b. 7 April 2025 (period covering 21/02/2025 – 19/03/2025): $83.73
The tenant is responsible for electricity used during their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. The tenant occupied the premises and used the facilities up to 18 December 2024 when the tenancy ended. The tenant did not occupy the premises or use the facilities between 3 February 2025 – 19 March 2025, which is the period covered in the two electricity invoices. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $226.82 is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law
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. 17
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage that occurred to two windows and a toilet. They seek compensation as follows: a. Repair windows: $477.25 (including GST) b. Unblock toilet: $172.50 (including GST) Windows
The landlord claims two windows were broken during the tenancy, one in the downstairs bedroom and one near the front door.
The tenant accepts the window in the downstairs bedroom was damaged during the tenancy but does not know how this occurred.
The tenant was unable to remember whether the window by the front door was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted a video taken at the beginning of the tenancy. It shows the window by the front door is intact and not broken. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the window has a crack in it. On the balance of probabilities, I find the front door window was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant does not know how the damage occurred and has therefore not disproved liability. 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
The tenant accepts that the window in the downstairs bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The photographs submitted by the landlord show it has a large crack in it. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant does not know how the damage occurred and has therefore not disproved liability.
The landlord has proven their claim in relation to both windows. They submitted an invoice for $477.25 (including GST) to repair the windows. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Toilet
The landlord claims the downstairs toilet was blocked with a toilet roll at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the toilet was not blocked when they left the premises in mid- December 2024.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $172.50 (including GST) to unblock the toilet. It is dated 28 January 2025, which is more than four weeks after the tenant vacated the premises. This means I am not convinced the blockage to the toilet occurred during the tenancy. It most likely occurred after the tenancy ended between 19 December 2024 – 28 January 2025.
The landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove all belongings and rubbish and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 18
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 19 It does not mean commercially clean, 20 spotless 21 or to a hotel or motel standard. 22 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 23
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all belongings and rubbish and did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (iii). 19 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 20 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 21 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 22 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 23 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Rubbish
Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the bins are full and excess rubbish has been piled tidily beside the bins.
The tenant claims they intended to return to the premises after the rubbish bins had been collected and fill them again with the excess rubbish.
The tenant had an obligation to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. The rubbish bins were full and there was rubbish left beside them at this date. I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks compensation of $747.50 for rubbish removal and submitted an invoice for this amount. I find the landlord should be compensated for some, but not all of this cost. This is because some of the rubbish and belongings removed by them do not belong to the tenant and were present at the beginning of the tenancy. For example, the entry inspection photographs show a number of items under the stairs were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $350.00. This reasonably reflects the amount of rubbish left by the tenant. Cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation of $253.00 (including GST) for general cleaning, oven cleaning and carpet cleaning.
With the exception of the oven, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some items left inside the premises. These include cleaning products and some items underneath the stairs. The entry inspection photographs shown these items were present at the beginning of the tenancy. They do not belong to the tenant and the tenant is not responsible for removing them at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show several stains on the carpet. Whilst stains are present in the photographs taken at the end, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that these occurred during the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped, and surfaces have been wiped down. The only area that does not appear reasonably clean and tidy is the oven, which has some food residue and tinfoil inside it.
I find the tenant did not leave the oven in a reasonably clean and tidy condition however, the rest of the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $80.00 in respect of the oven only. Should the tenant pay the landlord $467.25 for lawnmowing?
Both parties accept there was an agreement that the tenant would pay 75% of the cost to mow the lawns during the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice summary, which shows the tenant was invoiced $316.50 for lawnmowing completed between 23 October 2023 – 31 March 2024. The tenant paid this on 15 May 2024. The landlord claims the tenant owes a further $467.25 for lawnmowing completed between 4 May 2024 – 15 March 2025.
The tenant claims they have already paid for all lawnmowing completed in 2024. No proof of this was submitted. The landlord’s tenancy invoice summary is detailed and notes prior receipts for lawnmowing paid by the tenant. It does not note any receipts for lawnmowing completed between 4 May 2024 – 15 March 2025. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities the tenant did not pay for lawnmowing during this time.
The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. The tenant is only responsible for paying 75% of the cost of lawnmowing from 4 May 2024 – 18 December 2024.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $315.00 for this time period. The tenant’s liability is $236.25.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for lawnmowing is granted for $236.25. Filing fee and name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties request for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210214 — net $154.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$2,989.26		LandlordTenant
Repairs: Windows	$477.25		Repairs: Windows
Rubbish removal	$350.00		Rubbish removal
Oven cleaning	$80.00		Oven cleaning
Lawns	$236.25		Lawns
Water rates (09/10/2024, 05/11/2024 & 06/12/2024	$341.99		Water rates (09/10/2024, 05/11/2024 & 06/12/2024
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in		$120.00	38. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain HRV system		$2,100.00	Failure to maintain HRV system
Compensation: Failure to maintain washing		$2,100.00	Failure to maintain washing
Total award	$4,474.75	$4,320.00
Net award	$154.75
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$154.75

Claims and awards for application 5210214 — net $154.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

LandlordTenant

Amount: $2,989.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: LandlordTenant

Repairs: Windows

Amount: $477.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Windows

Rubbish removal

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Oven cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Oven cleaning

Lawns

Amount: $236.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns

Water rates (09/10/2024, 05/11/2024 & 06/12/2024

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — __________________________________________________________________________________ 521021413 Is the tenant responsible for paying the landlord outstanding wate…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is granted. The fixed term is reduced from 23 March 2025 to 18 December 2024.
[The respondent/s] must pay [The applicant/s] $154.75 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $154.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,445.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 January 2026. Jerry Li from Edwards Realty Limited appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy began on 23 March 2023 and was for a fixed term until 23 March 2025. The tenant wants the fixed term reduced to 18 December 2024. They claim they were assaulted at work, injured their hip and experienced ongoing pain, which meant living in the two-storeyed premises was not possible. The landlord opposes the application and claims the real reason the tenant wants to reduce the fixed term is because they purchased a house in December 2024.
Both parties have filed other claims with the Tribunal. The landlord claims the tenant owes rent arrears of $8,775.00 up to 19 March 2025. The landlord also claims the tenant owes them money for water, electricity, lawnmowing, cleaning and repairs. The tenant claims the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. They also claims the HRV system and hot water for the washing machine never worked. The issues I must determine are: Tenant’s claims a. Should the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term be granted? b. If so, should the tenant pay the landlord an amount determined by the

Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss suffered?

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. TENANT’S CLAIMS Should the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term be granted? The law
A tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order reducing the period of a fixed- term tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy where: a. There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. There would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term were not reduced; and c. The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced.
Examples where the Tribunal has found there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances are: 1 a. Unexpected loss of income through becoming unemployed; b. Where the tenant must leave the locality for employment purposes; c. Where the tenant’s partner leaves and the remaining tenant can no longer afford to pay the rent; d. Where the tenant has a child and needs larger or cheaper premises; e. Where the tenant suffers a disability and must move to premises that can accommodate the disability (for example, wheelchair accessible); and f. Where the landlord having previously lived in the premises has to return to the area sooner than expected and resume occupation of the premises. Has there been an unexpected change in the applicant’s circumstances?
The tenant works as a healthcare assistant at Middlemore hospital’s emergency department. They claim they were punched on the right side of their face by a mental health patient on 6 January 2024. The tenant gave evidence the punch was very hard and resulted in a concussion. The tenant claims they fell to the floor and hurt their right shoulder and hip. The tenant claims liquid leaked from their right ear following the assault and their vision was impaired. Further, the tenant claims they have experienced ongoing, significant pain in their right hip. The tenant claims it took over one year to be seen by a specialist and living in the two storey premises with hip pain was not possible.
The tenant has submitted medical documents which support their evidence. The first document is an ACC medical certificate from Dr Vandana Rasela dated 25 January 2024. It states: Date of Injury06 Jan 2024 ... Comments 1 See for example Hippolite v J P Morgan Real Estate Tenancy Tribunal Palmerston North TT 431/96, 9 May 1996; Petrache v Higgins and Shearer Tenancy Tribunal Christchurch TT 2222/96, 8 October 1996; Kim v Watson District Court Wellington CIV-2009-085-946, 17 September 2009. ASSAULTED/PUNCHED IN FACE – Landed and fell backwards when punched and hurt RT shoulder and RT hip as landed onto it.
The second document is a letter dated 1 March 2024 from Dr Sohail Asghar from Te Whatu Ora – Counties Manukau. It states: [The tenant] reports an assault at her workplace on 06/01/2024. The likely mechanism and initial impression in the Emergency Department suggest a concussion... Additionally, she reports a fall on her right side after the incident, resulting in discomfort in her right hip. While [the tenant’s] concussion-related symptoms are resolving, she continues to experience difficulties with symptoms in her right lower extremity... ...At this stage, [the tenant] is symptomatic especially in her right lower extremity and does not have capacity to return to her physically demanding HCA role.
The third document is another letter from Dr Rasela dated 13 March 2025. It states: ...[The tenant] has been referred due to ongoing pain in her right SI joint and also her right hip region...She also has pain in the lateral hip region and she points to the trochanteric region of her hip. She also describes pain where she has some intermittent tingling sensation that goes down her leg in the L4 distribution... ...[W]ithin the right hip joint itself there was some mild chondral thinning, grade 1 with a labral tear...
This medical evidence supports the tenant’s claim that they were assaulted at work on 6 January 2024 and have experienced ongoing hip pain as a result. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced of these facts.
The tenant claims they were referred to an orthopaedic surgeon in April 2024 but by the end of 2024 had still not been seen. Therefore, the tenant decided to return to India to receive medical treatment. The tenant claims they also decided to leave the premises, because they were no longer suitable. The tenant claims the stairs were difficult to navigate with a sore hip.
The landlord claims the purpose of the tenant’s visit to India was for a holiday, not to receive medical treatment. The landlord refers to comments made by Dr Rasela in her letter dated 13 March 2025, in which Dr Rasela states the tenant told them they recently went on holiday to India and had an MRI.
The tenant submitted a copy of an MRI Report conducted in India by Dr Antarpreet Kaur, dated 7 February 2025. This supports their claim that they received medical treatment in India.
A trip to India is not a small journey to make. The tenant originates from India and has family there. It is not surprising that they decided to stay in India for a reasonable period of time and treat their trip as both a holiday and an opportunity to receive medical treatment. The fact the tenant told Dr Rasela that they went to India on holiday does not detract from the credibility of their evidence about the assault and ongoing hip pain they experienced.
The landlord also claims the real reason the tenant wants to reduce the fixed term tenancy is not because the premises were unsuitable, but because they purchased a property.
The tenant submitted a copy of a sale and purchase agreement for the premises at 27 Hupana Rd, Karaka, Auckland. The agreement is dated 30 October 2025 and is conditional on a number of things, all of which are due for fulfilment within 10 working days from the date of the agreement on 13 November 2024. The settlement date is 13 December 2024.
The tenant claims the date on the agreement is wrong, because all of the conditions were fulfilled in December 2024. I find this to be unlikely. The date of a conditional sale and purchase agreement is an important detail, because it determines the due date for fulfilment of conditions. If the agreement was incorrectly dated, I consider the tenant would have been able to submit evidence confirming this, which they did not.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the agreement is correctly dated. It has been over one year since the agreement was signed and settlement occurred. It is reasonably possible that the tenant’s memory has faded over time and their ability to accurately recall specific details and dates going back over one year is difficult. I do not find that the tenant lied when giving evidence that the agreement was incorrectly dated. I find they genuinely believed this to be the case but are mistaken because of the difficulty in recalling events that happened over one year ago.
The agreement most likely became unconditional on 13 November 2024. The tenant asked the landlord to end the fixed term tenancy early on 18 November 2024, only 5 days later. The landlord claims this is strong evidence to suggest that the tenant’s request to reduce the fixed term is motivated by the fact they purchased a house. The fact that the tenant purchased a house does not negate from the fact that they also suffered an unexpected assault on 6 January 2024 and ongoing hip pain as a result. The tenant needed alternative, suitable accommodation to move to, whether in the form of a single storey rental property or home of their home. The fact that they decided to purchase a single storey home instead of renting another premises does not change the fact that the need to move was driven by the fact that they had suffered a disability, which rendered the two-storeyed premises unsuitable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant was assaulted at work on 6 January 2024. The assault was unexpected and resulted in significant, ongoing hip pain, which was also unforeseen. The hip pain rendered the two- storeyed premises unsuitable, and the tenant needed to relocate. I find the tenant has suffered an unexpected change in their circumstances.

Would there be severe hardship to the applicant if the fixed term were not reduced?

The tenant has a newborn baby. The tenant claims they receive parental leave payments from the government totalling approximately $500.00 per week. The tenant claims their employer tops up these payments, but this will stop in late January 2026.
The tenant gave evidence that they intend to take 12 months maternity leave before returning to work. This means they will only receive parental leave payments from the government for 6 months. Thereafter, they will be reliant solely on the tenant’s husband’s income. The tenant’s husband works as an Uber driver.
The tenant also has an older child and a mortgage of approximately $875,000.00.
I accept the tenant’s evidence about their personal and financial circumstances. The evidence was uncontested by the landlord and the tenant’s newborn baby was present at the hearing. This means I consider their evidence about being on maternity leave and receiving parental leave payments to be credible.
The tenant’s income will soon drop for a lengthy period of time however, their expenses will remain the same and most likely increase as their baby grows older. If the fixed term is not reduced, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears totalling $8,775.00 will be granted. This is a substantial amount of money to require the tenant to pay at the moment. I am convinced that failure to reduce the fixed term will result in severe financial hardship to the tenant given their current circumstances. Will the applicant’s hardship be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced?
The owner did not attend the hearing however, Mr Li claims the owner has a mortgage over the premises and relies on the rent to help them pay it. No evidence as to the balance of the mortgage was submitted however, evidence was given that the owner also owns the neighbouring unit, which has been vacant for some time.
I accept that the owner is likely to suffer some financial hardship in terms of a reduction in cashflow from their investment property if the fixed term is reduced however, I am not convinced the hardship would be greater than the hardship suffered by the tenant. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me of this.
For these reasons, I find the criteria in section 66 RTA is met. The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is granted. The fixed term is reduced to 18 December 2024. Should the tenant pay the landlord an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation due to loss suffered as a result of a reduction in the fixed term? The law
Where the Tribunal makes an order reducing a fixed-term tenancy, it may also order the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. 2 Analysis
By reducing the fixed term to 18 December 2024, the landlord has suffered a loss of $8,775.00 in rent. I find it reasonable that the tenant should compensate the landlord for some of this loss. This is because the fixed term has been reduced to 18 December 2024, which is very close to the Christmas and New Year period. This is a notoriously difficult time to find new tenants, because people are away on holiday and most property management companies close down for a short period of time.
I find it reasonable that the tenant should compensate the landlord for lost rent up to 18 January 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves lost rent up to this date is $2,989.26.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 3
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66(2). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 Analysis
The entry inspection photographs show the oven and drawers in the kitchen and lounge were dirty at the beginning of the tenancy. They also show various parts of the carpet had numerous stains that required cleaning. The notes on the entry inspection report are that the kitchen, lounge and some areas of the carpet needed cleaning. I find the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $120.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the overall state of cleanliness of the premises. Although the oven, drawers and parts of the carpet were not clean, the rest of the house was provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. I have also considered the fact the landlord submitted an invoice dated 10 April 2023 for cleaning. This shows the landlord attempted to fix the problem shortly after the tenancy began.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 9
A tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 10 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred.
The breach occurred on 23 March 2023. The tenant filed their application on 18 July 2025, which is more than 12 months later. Therefore, the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b). Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 11
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 12 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 13
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 14
The tenant claims the landlord failed to provide and maintain the HRV system and washing machine in a reasonable state of repair. I discuss each issue below. HRV system Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties accept the HRV system did not work for the entire tenancy. The landlord claims it is not included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement and therefore, the landlord does not have an obligation to maintain it. The landlord also claims the owner made enquiries about repairing the HRV system and was advised that repairs or replacement would require removing the entire roof. 11 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 12 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 13 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 14 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Analysis
Fixtures are items that are attached to the property in such a way that they become a part of the property. For example, built-in appliances and heat pumps. Chattels are items that can be removed without causing damage to the property. For example, furniture, curtains and portable heaters.
An HRV system is typically installed into the structure of the house, with ducting and vents running through ceilings or walls. This level of integration with the premises means it is intended to be a permanent improvement to the property, and its removal would likely cause damage or require repair. For these reasons, I find the HRV system is a fixture, not a chattel, and the landlord has a duty to maintain it.
The landlord did not submit any evidence to support their claim that repairing or replacing the HRV system involved removing the roof and I am not convinced this was the case. Access to the roof to install, remove or carry out repairs to an HRV system is typically gained through a manhole in the ceiling. Removal of the entire roof is unusual. Even if the roof needed to be removed, this does not detract from the landlord’s duty to maintain the HRV system in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord knew the HRV system did not work at the beginning of the tenancy and remained broken until the end of the tenancy on 18 December 2024. That is a period of 21 months. A delay of this length is unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to provide and maintain the HRV system in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 per month is reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the fact that the premises included a heat pump and were compliant with the healthy home standards. I have also considered the evidence of the tenant that condensation was an issue. The premises appear very dated. A functioning HRV system would most likely have improved seasonal condensation that typically occurs in older houses within single glazed windows during winter.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,100.00. Washing machine
Both parties accept that hot water was not supplied to the washing machine at the beginning of the tenancy. The entry inspection photographs show some hoses from the washing machine tied together with a note that states “Do not remove hoses from sink. Hot water tap washer needs replace. (Hot water will run out when water main is turn on!)”
The tenant claims the washing machine was never fixed and they only ever washed their clothes with cold water. The landlord claims the problem was fixed but could not provide an invoice. Mr Li claims that the owner occasionally organised repairs themselves, which may be why he could not access an invoice in the company’s system.
In the absence of an invoice, I am not convinced the washing machine was repaired. I find it remained broken from the beginning to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord knew about the state of disrepair of the washing machine from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. That is a period of 21 months during which the landlord did not fix the washing machine. This delay is unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to provide and maintain the washing machine in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 per month s reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the frequency with which a washing machine is typically used and the inconvenience suffered by the tenant. The tenant was unable to wash their clothes with hot water for 21 months, which must have been very inconvenience. Hot water helps to remove tough stains and germs.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,100.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The landlord knew about the state of repair of the HRV system and washing machine from 23 March 2023. A reasonable timeframe for repair would have been 1 - 3 months later, up to 13 June 2023. This is the date of the commission of the unlawful act. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 July 2025, which is more than 12 months later.
The tenant is out of time to apply for exemplary damages. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $8,775.00 up to 20 March 2025. Because I have granted the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy to 18 December 2024, the tenant is only liable to pay rent up to this date.
The landlord’s rent summary records rent arrears are $0.00 up to 18 December 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for paying the landlord outstanding water rates and electricity invoices? The law
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 15 This includes electricity and water. 16 Water rates invoices
The tenant agrees to pay the following outstanding water rates invoices: a. 5 November 2024 (period covering 09/10/2024 – 05/11/2024): $167.19 b. 9 December 2024 (period covering 05/11/2024 – 06/12/2024): $101.34
The landlord seeks to recover the further outstanding invoices: a. 7 January 2025 (period covering 06/12/2024 – 07/01/2025): $146.92 b. 5 March 2025 (period covering 05/02/2025 – 05/03/2025): $15.22.
The tenant occupied the premises and used the facilities up to 18 December 2024, which is the date the fixed term tenancy ended. Therefore, they are only responsible for water consumed at the premises up to this date.
The invoice dated 7 January 2025 covers the period from 6 December 2024 – 7 January 2025. The tenant must pay a portion of this invoice to reflect their water usage up to 18 December 2024. I find $73.46 to be reasonable.
The tenant did not occupy the premises or use the facilities for the period contained in the invoice dated 5 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $15.22 is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $341.99 in total. Electricity invoices
When the tenant left the premises on 18 December 2024, they closed their electricity account. The landlord re-opened an electricity account at the premises in the landlord’s name and seeks to recover the following invoices: a. 14 March 2025 (period covering 03/02/2025 -20/02/2025): $143.09 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(a) & (c). b. 7 April 2025 (period covering 21/02/2025 – 19/03/2025): $83.73
The tenant is responsible for electricity used during their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. The tenant occupied the premises and used the facilities up to 18 December 2024 when the tenancy ended. The tenant did not occupy the premises or use the facilities between 3 February 2025 – 19 March 2025, which is the period covered in the two electricity invoices. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $226.82 is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law
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. 17
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage that occurred to two windows and a toilet. They seek compensation as follows: a. Repair windows: $477.25 (including GST) b. Unblock toilet: $172.50 (including GST) Windows
The landlord claims two windows were broken during the tenancy, one in the downstairs bedroom and one near the front door.
The tenant accepts the window in the downstairs bedroom was damaged during the tenancy but does not know how this occurred.
The tenant was unable to remember whether the window by the front door was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted a video taken at the beginning of the tenancy. It shows the window by the front door is intact and not broken. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the window has a crack in it. On the balance of probabilities, I find the front door window was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant does not know how the damage occurred and has therefore not disproved liability. 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
The tenant accepts that the window in the downstairs bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The photographs submitted by the landlord show it has a large crack in it. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant does not know how the damage occurred and has therefore not disproved liability.
The landlord has proven their claim in relation to both windows. They submitted an invoice for $477.25 (including GST) to repair the windows. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Toilet
The landlord claims the downstairs toilet was blocked with a toilet roll at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the toilet was not blocked when they left the premises in mid- December 2024.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $172.50 (including GST) to unblock the toilet. It is dated 28 January 2025, which is more than four weeks after the tenant vacated the premises. This means I am not convinced the blockage to the toilet occurred during the tenancy. It most likely occurred after the tenancy ended between 19 December 2024 – 28 January 2025.
The landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove all belongings and rubbish and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 18
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 19 It does not mean commercially clean, 20 spotless 21 or to a hotel or motel standard. 22 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 23
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all belongings and rubbish and did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (iii). 19 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 20 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 21 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 22 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 23 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Rubbish
Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the bins are full and excess rubbish has been piled tidily beside the bins.
The tenant claims they intended to return to the premises after the rubbish bins had been collected and fill them again with the excess rubbish.
The tenant had an obligation to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. The rubbish bins were full and there was rubbish left beside them at this date. I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks compensation of $747.50 for rubbish removal and submitted an invoice for this amount. I find the landlord should be compensated for some, but not all of this cost. This is because some of the rubbish and belongings removed by them do not belong to the tenant and were present at the beginning of the tenancy. For example, the entry inspection photographs show a number of items under the stairs were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $350.00. This reasonably reflects the amount of rubbish left by the tenant. Cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation of $253.00 (including GST) for general cleaning, oven cleaning and carpet cleaning.
With the exception of the oven, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some items left inside the premises. These include cleaning products and some items underneath the stairs. The entry inspection photographs shown these items were present at the beginning of the tenancy. They do not belong to the tenant and the tenant is not responsible for removing them at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show several stains on the carpet. Whilst stains are present in the photographs taken at the end, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that these occurred during the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped, and surfaces have been wiped down. The only area that does not appear reasonably clean and tidy is the oven, which has some food residue and tinfoil inside it.
I find the tenant did not leave the oven in a reasonably clean and tidy condition however, the rest of the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $80.00 in respect of the oven only. Should the tenant pay the landlord $467.25 for lawnmowing?
Both parties accept there was an agreement that the tenant would pay 75% of the cost to mow the lawns during the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice summary, which shows the tenant was invoiced $316.50 for lawnmowing completed between 23 October 2023 – 31 March 2024. The tenant paid this on 15 May 2024. The landlord claims the tenant owes a further $467.25 for lawnmowing completed between 4 May 2024 – 15 March 2025.
The tenant claims they have already paid for all lawnmowing completed in 2024. No proof of this was submitted. The landlord’s tenancy invoice summary is detailed and notes prior receipts for lawnmowing paid by the tenant. It does not note any receipts for lawnmowing completed between 4 May 2024 – 15 March 2025. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities the tenant did not pay for lawnmowing during this time.
The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. The tenant is only responsible for paying 75% of the cost of lawnmowing from 4 May 2024 – 18 December 2024.
The landlord submitted invoices totalling $315.00 for this time period. The tenant’s liability is $236.25.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for lawnmowing is granted for $236.25. Filing fee and name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210214 — Property damage at 10 Steeple Rise, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210214 — Property damage at 10 Steeple Rise, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss suffered?

Would there be severe hardship to the applicant if the fixed term were not reduced?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss suffered?

Would there be severe hardship to the applicant if the fixed term were not reduced?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions