What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245691 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 5245691?

Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,184.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245691?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12242487-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245691 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 5245691?

Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,184.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245691?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12242487-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33 Matatiro Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245691 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245691 — net $1,645.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 9 June 2025	$5,300.00		Rent arrears as at 9 June 2025
Rubbish removal	$1,184.50		Rubbish removal
Window repair	$161.00		Window repair
Exemplary damages – breach of s45		$5,000.00	damages is intended to be punitive in nature, I am ordering the landlord to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$6,645.50	$5,000.00
Net award	$1,645.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,645.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,645.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing – the landlord by video conference and the tenant by teleconference.
This Order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous Order dated 10 June 2025. In that Order I terminated the tenancy as at 11.59pm on 10 June 2025 and adjourned the hearing to allow the tenant an opportunity to make a claim against the landlord.
The tenant subsequently made a claim for exemplary damages for breach of s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and reimbursement of the filing fee.
During the adjournment period the landlord amended his claim for rent arrears to include a claim for rubbish removal and the cost of repairing a window pane in the door.
I shall take each of the party’s claims in turn. The Landlord’s claim Rent arrears
At the hearing on 10 June 2025 I determined that there was a tenancy agreement in place and that the tenancy was to be terminated on that day on the grounds that the rent was more than 21 days’ in arrears.
While at today’s hearing I initiated further discussion on the impact of a trespass order, I accept that the tenant ought to pay rent as claimed because she effectively retained her tenancy by returning to the premises from time to time and by not removing her belongings.
I note that the tenant stated that she stopped paying rent because of what she perceived as the landlord’s failure to rectify issues brought to his attention.
However, a tenant’s primary obligation is to pay rent. If the landlord fails to remedy as required, her option is to give him a 14 day notice to remedy, and if that is not successful, then to bring a claim in the Tribunal against him.
Not paying rent is just a breach of her own obligations. Rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy tenants must have removed all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos showing that the tenant had left a lot of her belongings/rubbish behind, both inside and outside the premises.
While the tenant stated she left it clean, and that somebody else must have broken into the premises, there were no photographs of the state in which she says she left it. She acknowledged that she had left belongings/rubbish behind.
At today’s hearing we went through an invoice for rubbish removal provided by the landlord and I have ordered compensation relating to what I considered to be the tenant’s portion of that invoice for rubbish removal - $1,184.50.
I note that there was no claim for cleaning. Window repair
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.
It was accepted evidence that the window pane in the door was broken during the period of this tenancy.
The tenant has not been able to prove her assertion that the window was broken by an intruder after she left. There are no photos, nor evidence of a police report.
I am therefore requiring her to pay the cost of its repair which was invoiced at $140.00 plus GST – that is, $161.00. The tenant’s claim
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord’s obligations include: • provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair • comply with the healthy homes standards • comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided photos which she says were taken on or about 6 January 2025, prior to the beginning of her tenancy.
The photographs show a house that was very dirty and mouldy. She also stated that some windows could not be opened and that in particular, in the spare room, one window was boarded up and the rest could not be opened either because there were no latches on the window or the hinges were so rusted that to open the window would have meant the hinge breaking.
In defence to this claim, the landlord stated that he and the tenant agreed that she would have one week of free rent in exchange for her cleaning the premises to a reasonable standard. He considered that the mould was part of this agreement and would have not been an ongoing problem if the house had been ventilated by the tenant.
Further to this, the landlord stated that while he acknowledged that one window in the spare room was boarded up, at least the upper hinged window could be opened. He did not accept that some windows could not be opened because of the rusty condition of the hinges because he had paid Practical Building Solutions to complete work at the premises prior to this tenancy, including easing of the windows.
I accept that the landlord and the tenant had an agreement relating to cleaning the premises. However, s11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that any arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of such provisions, shall be of no effect.
The Tribunal has the discretion to permit an inconsistency having regard to such things as the nature of the tenancy and the interests of the parties. However I see nothing relating to this tenancy that would allow me to use my discretion in this way.
This effectively means that in spite of the tenant agreeing to clean the premises for one week rent free, the landlord is still under an obligation, pursuant to s45(1)(a) to provide premises that are reasonably clean.
The photographs evidence an obvious breach of this section.
Further to this, I do not accept that the mould issue can be included in the requirement that the landlord provide a house that is reasonably clean.
Section 45 (1)(c) provides that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. In that regard clause 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 is relevant. It states that every house shall be free from dampness.
Mould is a problem that arises out of dampness. While the landlord states that the tenant ought to have heated and aired the premises to prevent mould from growing, the photos show that the house had mould right at the very beginning of the tenancy. There are photos of sinificant mould on the walls and curtains.
Dampness was also evidenced in that the tenant ripped up the carpet that was wet and mouldy.
On this evidence I find that the landlord’s breach of cl 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 has breached s45(1)(c) which provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
I also find that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In my view the photographs taken by the tenant are evidence of this. There are latches to windows missing and rusty, door hinges that are rusty, the paintwork is in poor repair and patchy, with one photo of a door showing paint that has worn through to the wood.
Having found that the landlord breached s45(1)(a), s45(1)(b) and s45(1)(c), I also find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by virtue of these breaches – see s45(1A).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed these breaches intentionally. He cannot help but to have been aware of the condition of the house at the beginning of the tenancy, and if he was not aware, then it is his obligation to be aware.
I understand that the landlord’s intention was to provide a house at a reasonable rate to a tenant who was very keen to find accommodation for herself and her unborn baby.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she became very stressed with the condition of the house, in particular the mould and dampness and that she felt she had to leave the house because of its condition.
In making an award of exemplary damages I must also take into account the strong public interest in landlords abiding by their obligations to provide homes in a reasonable condition and which are not contrary to the legislative requirements.
I am making one award of exemplary damages in spite of there being multiple breaches of s45 by the landlord. This is because the principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014 -085-13) is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages can be ordered for that breach.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered under s45(1A) is $7,200.00. Taking into account the fact that an award of exemplary damages is intended to be punitive in nature, I am ordering the landlord to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages.
In coming to an award of this amount I have also taken into account that I am dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached s45(1)(bb) by failing to comply with healthy homes standards.
This is because I accept the landlord’s evidence that he is exempt from having to comply because he has applied for Resource Consent before 1 July 2025, which is the Healthy Homes compliance date, to subdivide the property which he says will involve the tenanted premises being demolished. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the 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. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am ordering both parties’ names to be suppressed because both parties have either wholly or substantially succeeded in their claims against the other. Filing fee reimbursements
For the same reason, I am ordering each party to reimburse the other the cost of filing these proceedings. In effect this means that each bears their own cost of filing. C ter Haar 11 August 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245691 — net $1,645.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 9 June 2025	$5,300.00		Rent arrears as at 9 June 2025
Rubbish removal	$1,184.50		Rubbish removal
Window repair	$161.00		Window repair
Exemplary damages – breach of s45		$5,000.00	damages is intended to be punitive in nature, I am ordering the landlord to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$6,645.50	$5,000.00
Net award	$1,645.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,645.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,645.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing – the landlord by video conference and the tenant by teleconference.
This Order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous Order dated 10 June 2025. In that Order I terminated the tenancy as at 11.59pm on 10 June 2025 and adjourned the hearing to allow the tenant an opportunity to make a claim against the landlord.
The tenant subsequently made a claim for exemplary damages for breach of s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and reimbursement of the filing fee.
During the adjournment period the landlord amended his claim for rent arrears to include a claim for rubbish removal and the cost of repairing a window pane in the door.
I shall take each of the party’s claims in turn. The Landlord’s claim Rent arrears
At the hearing on 10 June 2025 I determined that there was a tenancy agreement in place and that the tenancy was to be terminated on that day on the grounds that the rent was more than 21 days’ in arrears.
While at today’s hearing I initiated further discussion on the impact of a trespass order, I accept that the tenant ought to pay rent as claimed because she effectively retained her tenancy by returning to the premises from time to time and by not removing her belongings.
I note that the tenant stated that she stopped paying rent because of what she perceived as the landlord’s failure to rectify issues brought to his attention.
However, a tenant’s primary obligation is to pay rent. If the landlord fails to remedy as required, her option is to give him a 14 day notice to remedy, and if that is not successful, then to bring a claim in the Tribunal against him.
Not paying rent is just a breach of her own obligations. Rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy tenants must have removed all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos showing that the tenant had left a lot of her belongings/rubbish behind, both inside and outside the premises.
While the tenant stated she left it clean, and that somebody else must have broken into the premises, there were no photographs of the state in which she says she left it. She acknowledged that she had left belongings/rubbish behind.
At today’s hearing we went through an invoice for rubbish removal provided by the landlord and I have ordered compensation relating to what I considered to be the tenant’s portion of that invoice for rubbish removal - $1,184.50.
I note that there was no claim for cleaning. Window repair
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.
It was accepted evidence that the window pane in the door was broken during the period of this tenancy.
The tenant has not been able to prove her assertion that the window was broken by an intruder after she left. There are no photos, nor evidence of a police report.
I am therefore requiring her to pay the cost of its repair which was invoiced at $140.00 plus GST – that is, $161.00. The tenant’s claim
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord’s obligations include: • provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair • comply with the healthy homes standards • comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided photos which she says were taken on or about 6 January 2025, prior to the beginning of her tenancy.
The photographs show a house that was very dirty and mouldy. She also stated that some windows could not be opened and that in particular, in the spare room, one window was boarded up and the rest could not be opened either because there were no latches on the window or the hinges were so rusted that to open the window would have meant the hinge breaking.
In defence to this claim, the landlord stated that he and the tenant agreed that she would have one week of free rent in exchange for her cleaning the premises to a reasonable standard. He considered that the mould was part of this agreement and would have not been an ongoing problem if the house had been ventilated by the tenant.
Further to this, the landlord stated that while he acknowledged that one window in the spare room was boarded up, at least the upper hinged window could be opened. He did not accept that some windows could not be opened because of the rusty condition of the hinges because he had paid Practical Building Solutions to complete work at the premises prior to this tenancy, including easing of the windows.
I accept that the landlord and the tenant had an agreement relating to cleaning the premises. However, s11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that any arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of such provisions, shall be of no effect.
The Tribunal has the discretion to permit an inconsistency having regard to such things as the nature of the tenancy and the interests of the parties. However I see nothing relating to this tenancy that would allow me to use my discretion in this way.
This effectively means that in spite of the tenant agreeing to clean the premises for one week rent free, the landlord is still under an obligation, pursuant to s45(1)(a) to provide premises that are reasonably clean.
The photographs evidence an obvious breach of this section.
Further to this, I do not accept that the mould issue can be included in the requirement that the landlord provide a house that is reasonably clean.
Section 45 (1)(c) provides that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. In that regard clause 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 is relevant. It states that every house shall be free from dampness.
Mould is a problem that arises out of dampness. While the landlord states that the tenant ought to have heated and aired the premises to prevent mould from growing, the photos show that the house had mould right at the very beginning of the tenancy. There are photos of sinificant mould on the walls and curtains.
Dampness was also evidenced in that the tenant ripped up the carpet that was wet and mouldy.
On this evidence I find that the landlord’s breach of cl 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 has breached s45(1)(c) which provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
I also find that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In my view the photographs taken by the tenant are evidence of this. There are latches to windows missing and rusty, door hinges that are rusty, the paintwork is in poor repair and patchy, with one photo of a door showing paint that has worn through to the wood.
Having found that the landlord breached s45(1)(a), s45(1)(b) and s45(1)(c), I also find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by virtue of these breaches – see s45(1A).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed these breaches intentionally. He cannot help but to have been aware of the condition of the house at the beginning of the tenancy, and if he was not aware, then it is his obligation to be aware.
I understand that the landlord’s intention was to provide a house at a reasonable rate to a tenant who was very keen to find accommodation for herself and her unborn baby.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she became very stressed with the condition of the house, in particular the mould and dampness and that she felt she had to leave the house because of its condition.
In making an award of exemplary damages I must also take into account the strong public interest in landlords abiding by their obligations to provide homes in a reasonable condition and which are not contrary to the legislative requirements.
I am making one award of exemplary damages in spite of there being multiple breaches of s45 by the landlord. This is because the principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014 -085-13) is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages can be ordered for that breach.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered under s45(1A) is $7,200.00. Taking into account the fact that an award of exemplary damages is intended to be punitive in nature, I am ordering the landlord to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages.
In coming to an award of this amount I have also taken into account that I am dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached s45(1)(bb) by failing to comply with healthy homes standards.
This is because I accept the landlord’s evidence that he is exempt from having to comply because he has applied for Resource Consent before 1 July 2025, which is the Healthy Homes compliance date, to subdivide the property which he says will involve the tenanted premises being demolished. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the 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. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am ordering both parties’ names to be suppressed because both parties have either wholly or substantially succeeded in their claims against the other. Filing fee reimbursements
For the same reason, I am ordering each party to reimburse the other the cost of filing these proceedings. In effect this means that each bears their own cost of filing. C ter Haar 11 August 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245691 — Rent arrears at 33 Matatiro Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245691 — Rent arrears at 33 Matatiro Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions