What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225535 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 5225535?

Benchtop – Accelerated Depreciation: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling Painting (Part: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Rebate (With Landlord: $645.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $216.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225535?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13134602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225535 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 5225535?

Benchtop – Accelerated Depreciation: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling Painting (Part: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Rebate (With Landlord: $645.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $216.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225535?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13134602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225535 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5225535 — net $676.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$216.13		Water rates
Rubbish removal	$150.00		Rubbish removal
Benchtop – accelerated depreciation	$160.00		Benchtop – accelerated depreciation
Ceiling painting (part	$150.00		Ceiling painting (part
Rent rebate (with landlord		$645.00	Rent rebate (with landlord
Total award	$676.13	$645.00
Net award	$676.13
Bond	$1,260.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$676.13

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5225535 — net $676.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$216.13		Water rates
Rubbish removal	$150.00		Rubbish removal
Benchtop – accelerated depreciation	$160.00		Benchtop – accelerated depreciation
Ceiling painting (part	$150.00		Ceiling painting (part
Rent rebate (with landlord		$645.00	Rent rebate (with landlord
Total award	$676.13	$645.00
Net award	$676.13
Bond	$1,260.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$676.13

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Daniel Dan Peter Edwards and Sheryl Anne Edwards $31.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,260.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Daniel Dan Peter Edwards and Sheryl Anne Edwards: $31.13 [The tenant/s]: $1,228.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants counterclaimed for compensation and exemplary damages.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
By way of background, this tenancy commenced on 12 April 2023. It was the subject of a prior tenant application for an order for exemplary damages against the landlord for failing to lodge the bond, and sought three declarations; a landlord notice to terminate was deemed invalid, the tenancy renewed for a further fixed-term of 12 months, and that landlord had granted to sublet part of the premises as short-term accommodation.
In that order (tenant details suppressed) an award of exemplary damages of $500.00 against the landlord for their failure to lodge the bond was made. Declarations in the order confirmed the tenancy continued for a further one-year fixed term and that the landlord notice to terminate was of no effect, as well as confirming the landlord granted permission to sublet part of the premises.
That order was appealed to the District Court by the landlord. The District Court found a tenant breach of the tenancy agreement but that the landlords were estopped from relying on that breach. No actual order overturning any of the prior Tribunal orders was made.
Any permission to the tenants to sublet was later rescinded by the landlord.
The tenancy continued for the further fixed term.
It was apparent the relationship between the parties became more fraught after the first hearing, and subsequent appeal processes, with both parties adopting a more formal approach to the tenancy and their relationship. Police involvement in relation to this tenancy had been instigated by both parties. The police advice was consistent; that this was a civil matter that should be dealt with by the Tenancy Tribunal.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider section 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
In determining these two applications, I have been mindful of what I consider mutual disruptive or belligerent behaviours at times during the later part of the tenancy by both parties.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord claims
The landlord sought outgoings (water), compensation for vacated issues, and damages. The landlord advised a rent credit in favour of the tenants of $645.00 should be applied to the final order.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 12 April 2025. The landlord provided a water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $216.13. This was not disputed by the tenants and is awarded.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord sought $250.00 for carpet cleaning, based on an invoice for that amount paid to a professional cleaner on 17 April 2025. Limited photos were provided to support the claimed need for professional cleaning. There was evidence of a dog being present at least once during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement included a provision the “Landlord may charge the Tenant for professional cleaning and repairs if the Tenant has not made alternate arrangements with the Landlord”. Such a provision is excluded as enforceable by s 8 RTA. The evidence is not considered sufficient to establish tenant liability for professional carpet cleaning and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed significant rubbish was left by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. A series of photos were provided. The compensation claimed was $54.00 for rubbish bags and $350.00 for the removal and disposal of larger items. There was no receipt from the refuse/recycling centre for any costs incurred.
Part of the rubbish claim was for the removal of rubbish bags left by the tenants on the sidewalk. Given the tenancy ended on a Saturday and the next collection was on the Friday it is considered the tenants could have disposed of the bags themselves. By leaving plastic rubbish bags on the sidewalk for up to six days is considered unreasonable given the risk of damage to the bags as well as possible spillage from the bags prior to uplift (and subsequent rejection by the refuse collector). That said, the photos suggest there were 2-3 bags only and as the landlord is compensated for the reasonable estimation of disposal effort and costs already, no consideration of any addition disposal costs of these bags is applied.
There is insufficient evidence of costs incurred. That said, it would be inequitable to dismiss the claim given the photographic evidence and I make an award of $150.00 towards any landlord disposal costs incurred, including the landlords’ labour and transport. The award factors in some items that would be expected to be recyclable and disposed of at no additional invoiced cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Benchtops (island) damage. The landlord has previously used laminate coverings on the benchtop. During this tenancy there were a number of what appear to be knife cuts in the surface. The landlord decided to replace the benchtops rather than re-laminate them. I consider this alternative prudent as while I accept the landlord believes the area should not have been used in such a way that this damage might occur, with use of the stainless-steel top nearby, I consider the area to be a high-use area of the kitchen with wear and tear considerations that would reflect that. The use of sharp objects in that area is not unrealistic. That said, the tenants cannot, in my mind, claim an absolute defence against the evidenced damage as the use of a chopping board or such might be reasonably expected. Having reviewed the evidence and submissions, as well as considered the landlord replacement strategy, I consider the tenants are responsible for accelerated depreciation of a sub-optimal surface and some contribution, allowing for betterment, should follow. I have determined $160.00 compensation towards the landlord replacement benchtop is reasonable. b. Light switch/light repairs: There were two electrical damage claims. A light switch and a light fitting. Comparative photos were provided and reviewed. Neither repair has been established as more than wear and tear, meaning there is no tenant liability, and the claim is dismissed. c. Ceiling repair: ceiling decals on the ceiling were shown and then removed by the end of the tenancy, leaving discolouration in the ceiling finish. The quoted tasks extend well beyond that spot repair, indicating some pre- existing damage or wear and tear elsewhere would also be addressed. I have adopted the quote as a basis to determine a partial award for the tenant related ceiling damage, that being a sum of $150.00, reflecting the limited area of damage and the more complete repair and repainting strategy adopted by the landlord.
The compensation awarded reflects more than fair wear and tear 1 , and the tenant has not disproved liability for those damages.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Tenant claims
The tenants sought compensation and exemplary damages. The grounds are considered below: Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims the landlords’ Healthy Homes Compliance Statement incorrectly stated that the bathroom extractor fan was working and that the premises was exempt from the underfloor insulation and ground moisture barrier requirements.
Limited photographic evidence supported the stance and no related building performance issues were raised during the tenancy.
The landlord’s referred to an HHS Report they commissioned on 15 March 2023 (some 3-4 weeks before the tenancy commenced), saying they based their statement on.
That report states the premises meets the required standard and I accept the right of the landlord to rely on this report, especially in the absence of the tenant 1 “Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. raising any related building performance issues of any significance during the tenancy.
The claim is dismissed. Landlord Storage of Personal Belongings in Rented Premises
The landlords, at commencement, informed the tenant that they would be leaving personal belongings/ building materials in a storeroom on the property for 6–8 months. This arrangement was accepted.
The tenants claim they reluctantly accepted this arrangement and that meant they did not have full use of the storage area. They claimed this left them with reduced storage space that meant they stored items elsewhere.
I accept the arrangement extended beyond the initial maximum time frame of eight months as initially agreed.
However, I do not find the tenant raised this later in a timely manner such that the landlord was aware of any problem and should have remedied the issue. Further, based on the photos, the storage space was of a size and location that makes any loss of amenity minimal.
I do not find any grounds for compensation as sought. Disturbance of Quiet Enjoyment
Section 38(2) RTA provides that a landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant.
The tenants claim that “during the property inspection on 24 May 2024, both landlords behaved in a manner that felt hostile and intrusive.”, describing it as more like “a home invasion than a routine check.”
A second claimed breach from the same inspection regarded the landlord demanding a carpet stain be cleaned via a 14-day notice to remedy. The tenants submitted the stain “was caused by a leak in the roof which the tenant correctly identified as the landlord’s responsibility under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Despite this, the landlord continued to insist that the tenant clean the stain and included it as a point of concern during a subsequent reinspection. After repeated communication, the landlord eventually acknowledged that the stain was a result of the roof leak and therefore their responsibility. They stated that they would arrange for the stain to be cleaned. However, this cleaning was never carried out during the remainder of the tenancy.”
Having heard from both parties I accept the stain was a landlord responsibility and the demand on the tenants misplaced.
The tenants claimed that on 12 August 2024, the landlord attended the property alongside a serviceman to conduct a damage assessment of the kitchen bench. “During this visit, the landlord confronted the tenant in a manner that was hostile and intimidating. The landlord disputed this.
Some days later, on 16 August 2024 that landlord returned with an electrician to repair a damaged bathroom light. While the electrician was absent obtaining supplies or such from the van, the landlord proceeded to open and inspect some cupboards and surrounds. The tenants’ claim this action was “was intrusive and inappropriate”. Again, a video recording was made and provided. Having reviewed the video, I accept the landlord used the time to look at cupboards or whiteware in the kitchen space. This was the downstairs kitchen and not the main one. I accept the actions as inappropriate when the purpose was solely the bathroom but I struggle to see how the short inspection of limited parts of that area, during a pause in contractor activity, can be considered ”intrusive”.
The tenants claim that during a property inspection on 25 August 2024, “Sheryl Edwards remained in the kitchen for an extended period (approximately 15min) making notes, while Daniel Edwards inspected the remainder of the property. The tenants, who were seated in the lounge, quietly commented on the length of time Sheryl spent in the kitchen. Sheryl overheard this and responded in a hostile manner, raising her voice at the tenants, which caused discomfort and disrupted their quiet enjoyment of the premises. During the same inspection, Sheryl made a remark about grime around the stove. Nelson Botas explained that he had refrained from cleaning the area due to concerns that doing so might damage the already deteriorating benchtop. Sheryl acknowledged this explanation. Subsequently, Diana cleaned the area, and Sheryl confirmed it was clean. Despite this, Sheryl included the stove grime as an item to be addressed in a 14-day notice.”
The tenants used a hidden video device to record this interaction. This recording was provided and has been reviewed before and after submissions.
My conclusion having watched the video (and considering the tenants know a recording is being made and the landlord not) is that Sheryl seems to be making a lot of notes over an extended period without any real substance or issue being later raised. The tenants remain close by during the inspection and some tension is apparent. There was no practical need for the tenants to remain during the inspection, especially as they had a camera recording that could later be reviewed.
The need to clean the stove grime, and subsequent tenant claim that it was advised as clean by Sheryl is not upheld by the video, I consider the recording confirms she said it was close but fully cleaned. The subsequent landlord follow-up was not unjustified.
The tenant recounted a clash between the parties on 24 November 2024 during an inspection regarding photos taken by the landlord and claims regarding the use of the downstairs area. The tenant claimed the event was “a deliberate and aggressive confrontation by the landlords, involving intimidation, threats, and a clear breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.”
I do not consider the interactions were as significant as claimed. There was already an underlying tension between the parties and the greater frequency of routine inspections by the landlords, while a cause of friction, were permitted.
The tenant also raised landlord demands and threats regarding water rates. On 17 December 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant an invoice for water rates, requesting payment. Three days later, on 20 December 2024, the landlord sent further correspondence stating: “Failure to respond... could result in water to the property being disconnected, as per council process.” “Any costs associated with a reconnection will need to be paid by the tenants.”
The tenant claimed the communication was misleading and coercive because of landlord obligations regarding water supply.
The actual responsibilities are determined by the meter and accounting arrangement but the messaging from the landlord, perhaps while unwelcome, is not considered threatening.
I accept the interactions were increasingly strained, but I do not consider, on balance, any landlord actions should be deemed so as to attract specific compensation orders under s 38. Unlawful Entry (Section 48 RTA)
The tenant claims the landlord a re-inspection for 17 June 2024 but failed to attend and did not notify the tenants. The landlord claims to have sent an email notification.
An argument ensued when the landlords arrived. Unresolved the landlord left and rescheduled. The tenant claims the email was sent after the fact.
I consider the email advice was sent as stated by the landlord and the tenant’s confused stance is over a forwarded date.
On 5 January 2025, the landlords arrived at the property without prior notice or consent. At the time, the tenants said they were in the shower.
The tenant claims the landlord banged aggressively on the front door. Their daughter was concerned and called the police. While not mentioned by the tenants, a dog was inside with their daughter and heard barking by the landlords.
The landlord had come to hand deliver a notice. Hearing no answer, they checked the back and then left, following up by email to advise the notice had been left.
A 14-day breach notice was served on the tenant the next day regarding the dog that was heard barking at that time.
When asked about the dog, the tenant answered with words to the effect that they had no dog. The response was disingenuous as it was confirmed at the hearing a dog was there, claimed then as a dog belonging to a friend of the daughter’s left only that once. A timely confirmation of this would have been more informative and possibly prevented subsequent actions and concerns for the landlord regarding the possibility of a dog being present, and possible damage.
I consider the landlord visit was not aggressive, nor illegal. A short video by the landlord confirms their knocking, the lack of response, and the barking. The reaction and impact on the daughter is unfortunate but I do not find landlord causation of that. Given the tenant obfuscation regarding the dog I do not find the landlords acted inappropriately in formally raising the matter as an issue.
The claims are dismissed. Failure to Provide Rent Statement
Section 29 of the RTA requires the landlord to keep proper rent records and provide a rent statement to the tenant upon request.
On 30 March 2025, the tenant requested a rent statement from the landlords. This was just under two weeks before the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated he sought the rent statement as a written record “confirming that rent had been paid in full and on time throughout the tenancy, to support future rental applications.”
It is claimed by the tenants that the landlord failed to provide the requested rent statement.
The landlord said they had a hardcopy prepared but the tenant did not meet with them as they expected. The tenants’ claim that this failure led to their being unsuccessful in securing a new rental property appears to have no basis, especially as the tenants purchased their own home subsequently.
Even if I was satisfied the landlords had not attempted to comply, or failed to meet the request in a reasonable timeframe, the request is curious and of little apparent practical value and I would not find any grounds for compensation or exemplary damages.
The claim is dismissed. Video recordings
The tenant made a late additional claim regarding the landlord videoing of their visit on 5 January 2026 and subsequent production of it as evidence.
He claimed a breach of the Privacy Act 2020 and s 38 RTA, stating “the tenants did not provide consent and were not informed of any video or audio surveillance.”
This is a curious claim given the number of covertly recorded interactions made by the tenants and submitted as evidence.
I do not consider the claim has breached the tenant’s rights under section 38 and it is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the 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.
I do not consider the landlord has committed any unlawful acts that might attract exemplary damages. Neither the entry into the foyer during the attempted inspection or the extension of the electrician’s escorted visit to include a brief inspection in the kitchen by the accompanying landlord are considered intentional unlawful acts, nor any such significance to merit orders. Filing fee
Neither party has enjoyed sufficient success to merit the return of their respective application filing fee. Each party is to carry their cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. While not substantially successful in their application, tenant name suppression was ordered in the 2024 order, given their success at that time, and that suppression is carried forward here to preserve the intention in the 2024 suppression order. In the absence of that precursor, no suppression would have been granted. Delay in the order release
This determination has taken some time as both parties made well-structured submissions and provided sizable document bundles, as well as video evidence that was reviewed further after the hearing. Their patience is appreciated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225535 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225535 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions