What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216311 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 5216311?

By Consent: Replace Curtains: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $159.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain do…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain ga…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Removal Of Gumtree: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $255.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $37.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Rail: $26.45 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $32.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216311?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12445469-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216311 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 5216311?

By Consent: Replace Curtains: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $159.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain do…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain ga…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Removal Of Gumtree: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $255.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $37.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Rail: $26.45 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $32.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216311?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12445469-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Deacon Road, Riverhead, RD 2, Riverhead 0892 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5216311 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216311 — net $2,155.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from 01/01/2025 – 03/01/2025	$600.00		Rent arrears from 01/01/2025 – 03/01/2025
By consent: replace curtains	$89.00		By consent: replace curtains
Cleaning: garage ceiling	$155.25		Cleaning: garage ceiling
Carpet Cleaning	$159.85		Carpet Cleaning
Light 4 missing lightbulbs	$37.00		Light 4 missing lightbulbs
Replace smoke alarm (x1	$32.40		Replace smoke alarm (x1
Replace wardrobe rail	$26.45		Replace wardrobe rail
Repairs: painting	$800.00		Repairs: painting
Compensation: removal of gumtree		$250.00	removal of gumtree
Compensation: repairs to door		$255.00	repairs to door
Compensation: Failure to maintain door handle/lock		$1,300.00	Failure to maintain door handle/lock
Compensation: Failure to maintain gate buzzer/intercom		$250.00	Failure to maintain gate buzzer/intercom
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy		$2,000.00	164. Considering the above, I order the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$1,899.95	$4,055.00
Net award		$2,155.05
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,155.05

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216311 — net $2,155.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from 01/01/2025 – 03/01/2025	$600.00		Rent arrears from 01/01/2025 – 03/01/2025
By consent: replace curtains	$89.00		By consent: replace curtains
Cleaning: garage ceiling	$155.25		Cleaning: garage ceiling
Carpet Cleaning	$159.85		Carpet Cleaning
Light 4 missing lightbulbs	$37.00		Light 4 missing lightbulbs
Replace smoke alarm (x1	$32.40		Replace smoke alarm (x1
Replace wardrobe rail	$26.45		Replace wardrobe rail
Repairs: painting	$800.00		Repairs: painting
Compensation: removal of gumtree		$250.00	removal of gumtree
Compensation: repairs to door		$255.00	repairs to door
Compensation: Failure to maintain door handle/lock		$1,300.00	Failure to maintain door handle/lock
Compensation: Failure to maintain gate buzzer/intercom		$250.00	Failure to maintain gate buzzer/intercom
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy		$2,000.00	164. Considering the above, I order the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$1,899.95	$4,055.00
Net award		$2,155.05
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,155.05

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 landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,155.05 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 September 2025.
The tenancy began on 26 June 2022 and ended on 31 January 2025. The landlord seeks an order for 3 days’ worth of rent ($600.00) up to 3 February 2025. The landlord also claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy and is responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy. The tenant has filed a cross-application, seeking compensation for work completed on the premises. The tenant also claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to comply with the healthy homes standards. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The issues I must determine are: a. Does the tenant owe $600.00 in rent arrears? b. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? c. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy? d. Should the tenant be compensated for work carried out on the premises during the tenancy? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? f. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? g. Should the landlord pay the tenant $202.00 for two bottles of Steritank? 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. Compensation and exemplary damages: The law generally
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from proven breaches of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 1 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 2 LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Does the tenant owe $600.00 in rent arrears? The law
Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated, they must continue to pay rent until such time as they cease to occupy the premises. 3
A tenant ceases to occupy the premises when the tenancy is lawfully terminated, the tenant has vacated the premises and possession has been returned to the landlord. Analysis
The tenancy ended on 31 December 2024 after the tenant gave 28 days’ notice. The tenant vacated the premises on this date however, possession was not returned to the landlord until 3 January 2025 when the tenant returned the keys. Therefore, I find the tenant remained in occupation of the premises up to and including this date.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which goes up to 31 December 2024 and records rent arrears as being $23,000.00. The landlord has already obtained an order from the Tribunal for these arrears.
The weekly rent is $1,400.00, which is $200.00 per day. There are three days between 31 December 2024 and 3 January 2025, which equates to $600.00. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $600.00. 2 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60(1).

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenancy must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4 They must also return all keys and chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 5
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 6 It does not mean commercially clean, 7 spotless 8 or to a hotel or motel standard. 9 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 10
The landlord seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. General cleaning:$414.00 (including GST) b. Carpet cleaning:$159.85 c. Lightbulbs (x12):$120.75 (including GST) d. Smoke alarms (x2):$64.80 (including GST) e. Garage remotes (x2):$87.35 (including GST) f. Wardrobe rail:$26.45 (including GST)
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts. General cleaning Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims there was a significant amount of mould on the ceiling in the garage and bathroom, which they spent 8 hours cleaning.
The tenant claims the bathroom ceiling was not too bad and they ran out of time to finish cleaning the ceiling in the garage. The tenant thinks they should have been given an opportunity to return to finish the job after 3 January 2025. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iv) and (v). 6 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 7 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 8 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 9 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 10 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The premises appears very reasonably clean and tidy, with the exception of the garage ceiling. No rubbish or personal belongings are present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen and bathroom have been cleaned.
I disagree with the landlord’s claim that there was a lot of mould on the ceiling in the bathroom. The photographs of the bathroom ceiling show a couple of tiny black dots on the ceiling. The amount of mould is minimal. Overall, the bathroom is very reasonably clean and tidy.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the garage ceiling needed further cleaning. There is a lot of mould and wipe marks on it.
Whilst landlords often give tenants an opportunity to return to the premises after the tenancy has ended to remedy any problems, they are not required to do so. A tenant is required to comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with the exception of the garage ceiling. Considering the size of the garage and amount of mould present, I find it would have taken approximately 3 hours to clean. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $155.25. This equates to three hours of labour at $45.00 plus GST per hour. Carpet cleaning Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the carpet in the family room had visible pet urine stains on it and smelt bad. The landlord claims the carpet clean completed by the tenant was not sufficient and did not include odour removal, which was needed.
The tenant claims they had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and wild cats caused the stains. Analysis
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show large stains on the carpet in the family room that are not present in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted a receipt for $254.00 for carpet cleaning dated 31 December 2024. Notwithstanding this evidence, the size and colour of the urine stains are large, which convinces me on the balance of probabilities that a smell most likely lingered at the end of the tenancy and further cleaning was required.
Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me that the urine stains were caused by wild cats or that the tenant took sufficient care to prevent wild cats entering the premises. The tenant had a cat and small dog who could have been responsible for some of the staining. The tenant also kept the cat door open during the tenancy, which could have enabled wild cats to enter the premises.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $159.85. Lightbulbs Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims four lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy and nine were not working, including the heat lamp in the bathroom.
The tenant claims some lightbulbs were missing at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant also claims some lightbulbs could not be replaced, because the light socket was too big for standard lightbulbs. Analysis
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
It is reasonably foreseeable that lightbulbs may run out and require replacement due to ordinary use overtime. This tenancy was 2.5 years long. No evidence was submitted by the landlord to suggest unreasonable use of the lights by the tenant. For these reasons, I find the fact that some lightbulbs were not working at the end of the tenancy to be fair wear and tear. 11
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace eight lightbulbs that ran out at the end of the tenancy is dismissed.
I now turn to consider the lightbulbs that were missing. The landlord gave evidence that one lightbulb was missing from bedroom 2 and three from bedroom 3.
The entry inspection notes that one lightbulb is out in each of these bedrooms. On the balance of probabilities, I find this to mean that one lightbulb was not working in each of the bedrooms, rather than missing.
I accept the entry inspection notes to be accurate, as they were made at the time the tenancy ended. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not return four lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy, as claimed by the landlord. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i).
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace four lightbulbs is granted for $37.00. In reaching this figure, I have considered the fact that the landlord sought $120.75 (including GST) to replace 13 lightbulbs. The individual unit price is $9.28, which I have multiplied by four. Smoke alarms Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims four smoke alarms were provided at the beginning of the tenancy and only two were returned at the end.
The tenant claims only two smoke alarms were provided at the beginning of the tenancy, one in the kitchen and one in the hallway. Analysis
The parties gave differing evidence about the number of smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy. The entry inspection photographs prove there were two smoke alarms in the hallway and the tenant accepts there was a smoke alarm in the kitchen. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I find there were three smoke alarms provided at the beginning of the tenancy.
I consider smoke alarms to be a chattel provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord has proven that the tenant did not return one out of three smoke alarms.
The landlord sought compensation of $64.80 (including GST) to replace two smoke alarms. Half of this is $32.40 for one smoke alarm. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $32.40. Garage remotes Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims two garage door remotes were supplied at the beginning of the tenancy and only one was returned at the end.
The tenant claims no garage remotes were supplied at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
The entry inspection does not record any garage remotes as having been supplied under the heading “Garage – No. remotes supplied.” There are no photographs of garage remotes in the entry inspection either.
The exit inspection notes that two garage remotes were supplied at the beginning of the tenancy however, I find the entry inspection report to be a more accurate record of what occurred at the beginning of the tenancy. This is because it was completed at the beginning of the tenancy, whereas the exit inspection report was completed at the end.
The tenant denies any garage remotes were supplied at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord has not submitted any supporting evidence to rebut the tenant’s claim. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that two garage remotes were supplied at the beginning of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Wardrobe rail Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims a metal rail from a bedroom wardrobe was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims their child removed the rail to store boxes in the wardrobe and put it in a cupboard in the garage. Analysis
The wardrobe rail is a chattel provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant did not return the rail to the wardrobe at the end of the tenancy. The landlord was not aware it had been stored in the garage. It was reasonable for the landlord to assume the rail was missing and purchase a new one in these circumstances.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $26.45 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for damaging 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. 12 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of the premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 13
The landlord seeks compensation for the following repairs: a. Painting walls: $1,380.00 b. Shower trap:$40.00 c. Fridge door: $150.00
I deal with each issue individually below. Painting walls Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the door frame in the garage was damaged by the tenant’s dog. The landlord also claims the wall in the lounge was damaged and the repair completed by the tenant was not adequate. Further, the landlord claims the tenant damaged the walls in bedroom 3 and bedroom 4.
The tenant accepts their dog damaged the doorframe in the garage and that one of their children stuck LED lights to the wall in bedroom 3. The tenant claims some of the other damage was pre-existing. The tenant claims the amount sought by the landlord is excessive. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. A comparison of these sets of photographs proves the tenant attempted to complete a patch repair to the wall in the lounge. The paint selected is a different colour and the repair job is noticeable. It was reasonable for the landlord to paint the wall in the lounge to properly complete the repair.
There are small parts of missing paint in bedroom 3 at the top of the wall where it meets the ceiling. One of the tenant’s children stuck LED lights here, which have peeled some paint when removed. I find this damage to be careless.
The photographs submitted by the landlord prove that the wardrobe door in bedroom 4 was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant was unable to offer an explanation. 13 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
Some of the damage referred to by the landlord consists of small marks to the walls, which I consider to be fair wear and tear.
In the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, some pre-existing damage is noted in bedroom 3 such as a small dent in the bottom of the wall and marks to the wall. The landlord gave evidence that the premises were freshly painted before the tenancy began however, I consider this unlikely, given the pre-existing damage to the walls in bedroom 3.
The tenant is responsible for repairing the damage that is not fair wear and tear however, consideration must also be had to the principles of depreciation and betterment. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be any better or worse off.
The landlord submitted an invoice for painting totalling $1,380.00. I find it fair and reasonable that the tenant should pay the landlord $800.00 towards this cost. In settling on this amount, I have considered the damage the tenant is responsible for, as well as the state of the walls at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $800.00. Shower trap
The shower trap was broken during the tenancy. It is made from plastic and the landlord does not know how old it was at the beginning of the tenancy.
Plastic has a shorter lifespan than metal. There were five people living in the premises. The shower was most likely used every day during the tenancy, which was 2.5 years long. It is reasonably foreseeable that a plastic shower trap might break over time from ordinary use in these circumstances.
For these reasons, I find the broken shower trap to be fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Fridge door Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the top left hinge on the fridge/freezer was ripped out and constitutes intentional or careless damage.
The tenant claims the fridge/freezer was old and stopped working early on in the tenancy. The tenant moved it to the garage and purchased their own fridge/freezer. Analysis
The landlord submitted a close up photograph of the top left hinge of the fridge/freezer at the end of the tenancy. It appears rusted but does not appear to have been ripped out. Rust is more consistent with fair wear and tear over time, rather than intentional or careless damage.
General photographs of the fridge/freezer were taken at the beginning of the tenancy, however no close up photographs of the hinges were taken. This means I am unable to compare the state of the hinges at the beginning of the tenancy to the end.
The landlord gave evidence the fridge/freezer was approximately 5 years old. The estimated useful lifespan of a fridge is 8 years, according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates IR265. Therefore, the fridge was most likely towards the end of its estimated useful lifespan.
Considering the nature of the damage and age of the fridge/freezer, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS Should the tenant be compensated for work carried out on the premises during the tenancy? The law
Section 45(1)(d) RTA states that the landlord shall compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: a. The state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant; and b. Is likely to cause injury to persons or property, or is otherwise serious and urgent; and c. The tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 14
The tenant seeks compensation for the following repair work: 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. a. Removal of the gum tree b. Securing door panels c. Fixing a fence d. Removing three fallen trees
I deal with each issue individually below. Removal of the gum tree Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties agree that some trees at the premises blew down during cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023. Both parties agree that a branch from the gumtree blew into the neighbour’s premises and damaged their glasshouse.
The tenant claims the gumtree posed a safety risk to the neighbour’s property if another storm occurred and needed to be removed. The tenant claims there was a discussion with the landlord, and it was agreed that the landlord would pay the tenant to remove the gum tree. The tenant sent the landlord a quote for approximately $2,300.00, which the landlord said was too high. In the end, the tenant claims the parties agreed that the landlord would pay the tenant $1,200.00 to remove the gum tree. The tenant seeks compensation of $1,265.00.
The landlord claims the gum tree did not pose a safety risk to the neighbour’s property and the neighbour was only concerned about the shedding of leaves onto their glass house moving forward. The landlord accepts there was a discussion with the tenant about paying the tenant to remove the gum tree. The landlord accepts they rejected a quote for $2,300.00 sent by the tenant and claims they asked the tenant to send them a further quote for approval. The landlord claims the tenant never did this and only sent them an invoice in November 2023 for $1,265.00. The landlord claims they never agreed to pay the tenant $1,200.00 to remove the gum tree. Analysis
There is a disagreement about the state of repair of the gum tree. The tenant claims it posed a safety risk to the neighbour’s premises, whereas the landlord claims it did not.
Photographs of the tree taken after cyclone Gabrielle were submitted. These show the tree is large with a broken branch hanging down. Photographs of part of the tree that had fallen into the neighbour’s premises were also submitted. These show large branches of the tree broken off and damaging the neighbour’s glass house. On the basis of these photographs, I find the gum tree was in a state of disrepair. I am convinced it required maintenance to mitigate any risk of injury to persons or property.
The state of the gum tree was caused as a result of cyclone Gabrielle and was not a result of any breach committed by the tenant.
The parties agree that the tenant notified the landlord about the gumtree however, there is disagreement about what was spoken about and agreed. Their conversations were verbal and no written evidence was submitted.
The landlord also claims the tenant did not do as much work as they claim they did and submitted an email from the neighbour, which states: ... Theo [neighbour] and Mo [tenant] discussed the tree coming down...[Mo] said that he had experience removing big trees, that he had a chain saw and would get a cherry picker. The latter did not eventuate and when Theo had a break in his scheduled work programme, he asked Mo if Theo got a cherry picker from Hirepool, could Theo and Harry cut it down. Mo said yes and he would pay half of the cherry picker cost (that has not happened). Theo and Harry cut the top out of the tree leaving a trunk about 4 metres high, which Mo cut down. Theo cut all the branches away and put on our fire pile after Rachelle complained about the mess that they were not getting reimbursed to clean up.
The tenant claims the neighbour’s email is incorrect and they did a lot of work cutting down the gum tree.
The conflicting evidence of the neighbour and tenant means I am unsure about how much work was completed by the tenant.
In these circumstances, I am only able to order a nominal amount of compensation. I consider $250.00 to be fair and reasonable, considering the size of the gum tree.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $250.00. Securing door panels Evidence and submissions of the parties
The front door is made up of vertical wooden panels. The tenant claims these blew out during a storm and needed to urgently be repaired. The tenant claims they had to line the panels up and secure two pieces of metal, one at the top and one at the bottom of the door, to hold the panels in place. The tenant claims it was not an easy job and seeks compensation of $575.00 (including GST).
The landlord accepts the repair was urgent and the tenant notified them about it in an email dated 24 June 2024. The landlord disagrees with the amount sought by the tenant. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the door broke otherwise than as a result of any breach by the tenant. I also find the door needed to be repaired urgently and the tenant informed the landlord about this on 24 June 2024.
In their email to the landlord, the tenant advised that the likely cost was “a couple of hundred dollars for the two metal strips and about an hour’s labour.” Taking the content of this email into account, I agree with the landlord’s submission that the amount now sought by the tenant is too high.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $255.00, which reflects the advice given in their email. Fixing a fence Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims a bike went through four metres of fencing and posts, which had to be repaired immediately in the middle of the night to secure animals that were contained in the paddock. The tenant claims they purchased wood and nails to complete the repairs. The tenant seeks compensation of $700.00 (including GST).
The landlord accepts they were made aware that the fence was broken at one stage, but claims the tenant never asked the landlord to reimburse them and the tenant has only brought the issue up now for the first time. Analysis
Insufficient evidence was provided by the tenant for me to determine this claim. No photographs of the fence were submitted. No evidence was given about when it was broken. No receipts for the purchase of materials were submitted. No evidence about how and when the tenant notified the landlord about the fence was submitted.
This lack of evidence means I am unsure about whether the fence was damaged otherwise than as a result of a breach by the tenant. I am also unsure about the nature and extent of the damage, and whether repairs were necessary to prevent risk of injury to any persons or property. I am also unsure about when the tenant advised the landlord about the fence.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Removing three fallen trees Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims two trees fell over into the driveway after cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023. The tenant also claims the neighbour whose glasshouse the gum tree fell into disposed of the gum tree branches and leaves on the tenant’s premises, which the tenant had to dispose of.
The tenant seeks compensation of $690.00 (including GST) to remove the debris from these three trees.
The landlord claims the premises are a lifestyle block and more garden maintenance than is usual is required on a lifestyle block. Further, the landlord claims the tenant never sent them a quote or approved any expenditure first. Analysis
Insufficient evidence was submitted by the tenant for me to determine this claim. No photographs of the fallen trees in the driveway were submitted. No photographs of the gum tree remnants were submitted either. The only photographs of the gum tree were of it being cut down or having fallen into the neighbour’s property. No evidence about when and how the tenant notified the landlord about the state of the trees was submitted.
This lack of evidence means I am unable to determine the nature and extent of the problem, and whether repairs were urgent or necessary to avoid risk of injury to any person or property. I am also unable to determine whether and when the tenant notified the landlord about the state of the trees.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to 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 the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that 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 a reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 15
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the following items in a reasonable state of repair: a. Door handle/lock b. Kitchen drawers c. Front gate intercom
I deal with each issue individually below. Door handle/lock Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims the door handle/lock on the entry door in the lounge broke around February 2023. The tenant claims they brought this to the landlord’s attention verbally, but nothing was done to repair it. The tenant raised the issue again in an email sent on 14 June 2024 and claims they experienced a burglary shortly beforehand. The tenant claims the problem was not fixed until November 2024.
The landlord claims the door was broken due to the tenant’s careless or intentional conduct and therefore, it was the tenant’s responsibility to fix it. The landlord accepts the issue was raised with them verbally but could not remember exactly when. The landlord claims they completed a temporary repair around 19 June 2024 and permanently fixed the problem around November 2024. Analysis
The landlord claims the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant however, no evidence to support this was submitted. The landlord claims they spoke with an aluminium company who advised it is not uncommon for the door handle/lock to break if the lock mechanism is used as a handle, which is what the landlord suspects occurred. No evidence from the aluminium company was submitted. No evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenant used the door in an unreasonable manner was submitted either. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant intentionally or carelessly damaged the door handle/lock. 15 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
The tenant notified the landlord about the problem for the first time in writing on 14 June 2024. Both parties accept that the tenant raised the matter verbally before this date, but there is disagreement about when. In these circumstances, I am only convinced on the balance of probabilities that the issue was most likely raised one month prior in May 2024.
The landlord claims they completed a temporary repair around 19 June 2024, which the tenant denies. No photographs of the temporary repair were submitted or receipts for the purchase of materials. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord completed a temporary repair on 19 June 2024. The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of materials to complete the repair, which is dated 21 October 2024. Therefore, I find it more likely than not that the problem was fixed in early November 2024.
The issue was first reported to the landlord verbally around May 2024 and was not fixed until early November 2024, which is around 26 weeks later. A broken door handle/lock poses a serious safety risk and can be fixed quickly. I find a delay of 26 weeks unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the door handle/lock in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $50.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the safety risk a broken door handle/lock presents.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,300.00.
The tenant also seeks to recover their insurance excess of $1,000.00, which they claim they had to pay as a result of a burglary. Insufficient information was submitted to substantiate the tenant’s claim that a burglary occurred or that they filed a claim with their insurer for this. No information from the Police in relation to an alleged burglary was submitted. The email the tenant submitted from their insurer is very light on detail. It refers to an excess fee of $1,000.00, but does not state what the claim relates to. It is dated 23 April 2024 and pre-dates the tenant’s email to the landlord sent on 14 June 2024. The tenant does not mention the fact that a burglary occurred in their email to the landlord.
For these reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation of $1,000.00 is dismissed. Kitchen drawers Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the kitchen drawers kept sliding out and did not close properly. The tenant claims they did not have enough screws. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally in early – mid 2023. The tenant seeks compensation of $402.50 (including GST) to fix the kitchen drawers.
The landlord accepts the tenant raised the issue about the kitchen drawers not working but cannot remember exactly when. The landlord gave evidence the tenant unilaterally organised for Kitchen Mania to have a look at the drawers without discussing the matter with the landlord first. Analysis
The only written evidence the tenant submitted in relation to the kitchen drawers is an email sent to the landlord on 20 October 2023 stating: We have had kitchen mania come out and repair the kitchen drawers as they weren’t [working] properly.
The tenant has not submitted any supporting evidence to prove the date they first raised the issue with the landlord. This means I am unable to determine whether the landlord took too long to investigate and remedy the problem, and whether it was reasonable for the tenant to complete the repair themselves.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Gate buzzer/intercom Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the buzzer on the gate stopped working around May 2023 and was never fixed. The tenant claims they advised the landlord of this is on 18 May 2023. The tenant claims it was frustrating because the gate is far away from the house and without the buzzer, they did not know when guests arrived. There is apparently no cell phone coverage by the gate, which made it even more difficult for the tenant to know when guests arrived. The tenant also claims it had a negative effect on their business.
The landlord accepts that the buzzer was broken but could not recall exactly when the tenant raised the issue with them. The landlord highlights that if it was in 2023, the tenant was in significant rent arrears around this time. The landlord claims the cost to repair the intercom was significant and not something they were prepared to do while the tenant was in rent arrears. Analysis
The fact that the tenant was in rent arrears not does not detract from the landlord’s duty to investigate and remedy a problem brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe. By the landlord’s own admission, they did nothing to investigate and remedy the gate buzzer/intercom. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that they failed to maintain the intercom in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. Whilst I am convinced the landlord breached their duty, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant first raised the issue with the landlord on 18 May 2023. This is because the landlord cannot remember when it was raised and the tenant did not submit any supporting evidence, such as an email or text message. In these circumstances, I can only order a nominal amount of compensation that fairly and reasonably reflects the landlord’s breach and likely loss of amenity to the tenant.
I accept the tenant’s evidence about the inconvenience that not having a working intercom caused. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced this was an issue the tenant dealt with for some time. If it only developed towards the end of the tenancy, I consider it more likely than not that the landlord would have been able to recall with more accuracy when the problem was first reported. In all the circumstances, I consider $250.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $250.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 16
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally in failing to maintain the door handle/lock and gate buzzer/intercom. This is because the landlord was aware of these issues, but delayed investigating and repairing them.
I do not consider it just to order exemplary damages. This is because the tenant’s loss of amenity has already been catered for in the amount of compensation ordered. I also consider the amount of compensation, particularly in respect of the door handle/lock, to be sufficient to address the punitive purpose of exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 23 requires a kitchen to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation unless an exception in Regulation 24 applies.
Regulation 24 states that a kitchen does not need an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation if, at the beginning of the tenancy: a. The kitchen did not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation; and b. It is not reasonably practicable to install one; and c. When the room was built or converted into a kitchen, not having an extractor fan was lawful; and d. If not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the kitchen met alternative ventilation requirements, at the beginning of the tenancy, the kitchen still meets those requirements.
The phrase “not reasonably practicable to install” is defined in Regulation 4, as follows: It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy buildings is designed or built, - (a) a professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without – (i)carrying out substantial building work; or (ii)causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b) a professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind if being installed by a professionally installer; or (c) it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards, because the kitchen does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation.
The landlord accepts there is no extractor fan in the kitchen, but claims the entire premises have a sophisticated ventilation system, similar to a DVS or HRV, installed throughout the house. Further, the landlord claims the premises are large and there is sufficient ventilation from opening the windows in the kitchen, which are 3 metre long bi-fold windows. The landlord also claims that installing an extractor fan would require significant masonry drilling into the brick exterior of the house for ventilation to the outside. Analysis
The tenancy began on 26 June 2022. The landlord had 90 days from this date to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement notes that only “some rooms” have an extractor fan installed that vents to the outside and is in good working order. The only room listed as having an extractor fan of this nature is the bathroom. The landlord has signed the statement confirming that the premises will comply with the healthy homes standards on and after the beginning of the tenancy. No expert evidence to support this statement was submitted, such as a healthy homes assessment report. It is unclear what, if any, professional advice the landlord relied on to conclude that the premises complied with the healthy homes standards.
The starting point is that the kitchen requires an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation and does not have one. The landlord suggests it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan in the kitchen however, I do not accept this. No evidence from a professional was submitted to support this claim. The Tribunal sees numerous brick houses with extractor fans or qualifying ventilation systems. The fact that the bathroom of this premises has an extractor fan suggests there should be no problem installing one in the kitchen. The extractor fan does not necessarily have to go through the brick exterior and could be ventilated through the roof.
The landlord compared the ventilation system present throughout the house as being similar to a DVS or HRV. This type of ventilation system usually takes warm, stale air from the roof and distributes it throughout the house. It is not an extraction system and does not perform the same function as an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation.
The landlord has not submitted any expert evidence to support their claim that it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation in the kitchen. Therefore, I am not convinced an exemption applies.
The kitchen does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards.
I decline to order compensation for this breach and deal with the issue by way of exemplary damages instead.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 17
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. This is because the landlord did not take any steps to engage a professional to complete a healthy homes assessment report to determine compliance.
I consider it just to make an order for exemplary damages having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the landlord. b. The effect of the unlawful act. I accept the tenant’s evidence that venting the kitchen when cooking was difficult without an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. The tenant claims the inability to properly ventilate the kitchen meant they had to remove the smoke alarm at times, which is concerning. This inconvenience would have been regular, considering how often a kitchen is generally used. c. The premises were non-compliant for the duration of the tenancy, which was 2.5 years long. d. The tenant has only proven one area of non-compliance. This is not a case where the premises do not comply with multiple healthy homes standards such as, insulation, heating, moisture and drainage etc. e. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
Considering the above, I order the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages. Should the landlord pay the tenant $202.00 for two bottles of Steritank? 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1.
The tenant claims they left two bottles of Steritank, which is a water tank treatment, for the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord agreed to pay them $202.00 for the two bottles at the exit inspection.
The landlord denies they ever agreed to purchase two bottles of Steritank from the tenant and claims the tenant simply left these items behind.
No evidence was submitted by the tenant to support their claim that they offered to sell the two bottles of Steritank to the landlord and that the landlord agreed to purchase them for $202.00. I consider it more likely than not that the tenant gifted the two bottles to the landlord, as the tenant no longer had any need for them after leaving the premises.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful in 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 5216311 — Exemplary damages at 17 Deacon Road, Riverhead, RD 2, Riverhead 0892

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216311 — Exemplary damages at 17 Deacon Road, Riverhead, RD 2, Riverhead 0892

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions