What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248556 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 5248556?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248556?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248556?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12791947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248556 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 5248556?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248556?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248556?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12791947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248556 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,643.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,890.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenant has made a cross application seeking a refund of the bond, disputing the landlord’s claims and claiming compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, healthy homes breaches and retaliatory notice.
The tenancy commenced on 29 January 2018 and ended on 26 May 2025.
Both parties have provided significant information and evidence, and I confirm I have considered this information, even if there is no direct reference to it.
Originally the landlord had also applied for termination, however, as the tenancy has ended that aspect of the application was no longer relevant. The termination related to allegations of unlawful subletting and claims for accounts of profits. Evidence was provided by both parties in respect of this, however, as these claims were either not required or not pursued, I have not considered these further. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That 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 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 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 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The law on exemplary damages
The tenant has sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person 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. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, [1986] NZLR 732. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. The landlord’s claims
Turning now to the claims made by the landlord, namely: a. Rent arrears and b. vacated damages for painting and repairs at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 May 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing of $4,230.00 at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not dispute the actual rent arrears amount (except to the extent discussed further in this order).
The amount ordered is 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 4
The landlord claims that there was a substantial hole in the wall, a broken door and portions of the house had been repainted in a contrasting white colour. Photographs have been provided. The landlord has provided a painting invoice for the entire house of $6,000.00 plus GST but says that he was verbally advised by the painter that the cost of repainting the walls due to the mismatch in colour was $2,500.00 of this total quote.
The landlord also provided a plaster damage invoice, for plastering the new wall and entry to the bathroom, and patching damage for $316.25.
The tenant advised that the repainting was done while she was living in the property to freshen up the space, and although standard white paint was used to cover the scuff marked, the paint was likely not an exact match.
This was a long tenancy, and some wear and tear to the walls would be expected, however, the mismatched paint and holes in the wall are clear in the photographs and were not directly disputed by the tenant.
I therefore consider that it is appropriate for the tenant to contribute to these costs and have awarded $2,000.00 in total. I have reduced it from the total claimed amount to reflect likely wear and tear included in the total amounts, and because that the landlord was unable to provide exact details on the portion of the invoice that related to the mismatched painting.
The amount ordered is proved. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claims: a. The landlord has breached their obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. b. The landlord has breached healthy homes requirements. c. The landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant. d. The landlord has issued a retaliatory notice. e. The landlord has breached their obligations in relation to entry to the property. 4 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. f. The landlord owes her amounts for compensation for a gas bottle, exterior garden works, bathroom works and exterior house washing. g. The landlord mispresented the option to purchase the property and has sold the property without advising the tenant. h. There was an agreement that some items of the tenant’s furniture would be left at the property to reduce the debt owed and these items have not been accurately considered. Furniture left at the property
The tenant says that there was an agreement that the landlord would purchase some of her furniture to reduce the amount of rent arrears owed. This included a recently purchased fridge, cabinet, washing machine and king bed.
Text messages between the parties show that there was an agreement that if the items were left at the property, that could offset some of the outstanding rent.
The landlord had messaged that “if you leave those three items and sign bond over to me that should square it up. Subject to final inspection and all personal items being out today”.
The tenant claims that the value of the items was: fridge ($2,000.00), washing machine ($1,000.00), TV cabinet purchased second hand ($200.00) and king bed ($3,000.00 or $1,000.00 in the original application form). The purchase invoice for the washing machine and the fridge has been provided and show these were purchased in December 2016 and February 2025 respectively.
The landlord says that he allowed the tenant 35 days to collect the items, and when the tenant didn’t, he was within his rights to sell the items to recoup some of the rent arrears. However, he gives vastly different values and says that refrigerator was sold with the house, the bed had a broken frame and stained mattress and was sold for $200.00, the washing machine was damaged and was sold for $60.00 and the TV cabinet had a stain on the top and was sold for $75.00. I note that the landlord assigned different and higher values in correspondence in June. Photographs of the broken bed, staining and washing machine seal have been provided.
I have had to assign a value to these items, for a reasonable deduction off the amount owed. It is impossible to provide exact values (particularly when the fridge was sold with the property), however, the amounts assigned take into consideration the age, original purchase price, landlord’s advice on sale prices (noting no evidence of these have been provided), likely depreciation and photographs.
On review I have assigned the following values to these items: Fridge $1,200.00, washing machine, $200.00, TV Cabinet, $100.00 and Bed $400.00.
The total amount to be deducted from the amount owed is $1,900.00.
The tenant believed there was an agreement that all the debt would be paid through these items (and some of the bond), but on review of the text messages I don’t consider there was an agreement. The text messages use the words “could” and “should” indicating that there was no final agreement. The messages record that it was subject to the bond being signed over to the landlord and that there were still some unknown damages to repair, noting that it was all “subject to final inspection”.

Has the landlord breached their obligations to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
The tenant says that despite assurances and regular rent increases, essential maintenance was not completed as promised. This included: a. A rotting, unstable upstairs deck with a broken balustrade. b. A swollen and partially collapsed downstairs ceiling. c. A completely rusted roof, rotting timber, deteriorated external cladding and worn exterior paint. d. Downstairs bathroom was left exposed for an extended period before being covered, but never property finished. e. Water pressure and drainage issues. f. Issues with dampness and mould. g. Broken or missing window latches (resulting in failure to ensure security of the property). h. Failure to install smoke alarms (later installed by the fire service as referenced and confirmed in a letter provided by a Senior Firefighter from Mount Maunganui Fire Station).
Photographs have been provided together with text messages between the parties.
The landlord says that urgent repairs were always attended to within 24-48 hours, including several priority call outs for plumbing problems and electrical faults. He also provided a valuation report that notes the property to be in good condition. The landlord says that although the tenant has raised issues now about rotting window frames and mould issues, there were never raised during the tenancy, or included in a 14-day notice for example. The landlord believes that while the tenant was not living in the property at times and the property was sublet, the general upkeep of the property was not maintained.
When the landlord was made award of repairs required to the ceiling panel in the bathroom and rotting timber on the exterior portico, they were both addressed by a builder in November 2024 and the builder also added another lower rail to the deck to present any falls from the areas where the skirting had been damage. At the same time, the decking timber was examined and found to be sound.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 RTA.
I consider from the evidence provided, that it is more likely than not that the landlord did fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
It is in the public interest that landlords continue to maintain properties. All properties require ongoing maintenance throughout a tenancy, to ensure safe and habitable conditions. The lack of smoke alarms is a safety hazard. I note that there is limited evidence of the tenant raising issues throughout the tenancy, however, that is not the only time a landlord should carry out repairs and maintenance, and procedures such as routine inspections assist with identifying issues.
In my view, is consideration of all relevant factors it is just to award exemplary damages in the amount of $700.00. Has the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them. In particular she says that during the tenancy they received several inappropriate personal messages of a sexual nature from the landlord. The tenant says that these were unsolicited, unprofessional and placed the tenant in a position of discomfort and undermined her ability to enjoy reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
Copies of the text messages have been provided.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The RTA further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, 5 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder, 6 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 6 Whatiura v Shoulder, Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987.
The text messages reviewed show that the relationship between the landlord and tenant went beyond a typical landlord/tenant relationship. It was clear they were, at least at some stage, friends, and some exchanges refer to spending time together.
In normal circumstances, the messages from the landlord would have been wholly inappropriate. However, I am only considering these claims under the ambit of the RTA and requirements of landlord (and tenants).
The legal standard for harassment under the RTA is relatively high. Although there is no doubt that correspondence between the parties blurred the lines, there are only a few messages, and the tenant always responds favourably.
Accordingly, I don’t consider that the evidence provided meets the standard of harassment in accordance with the RTA.
This claim is dismissed.

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

The tenant says that a 90-day notice was issued soon after complaints and submission of security footage indicating a retaliatory motive.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Although the tenant says that there was notice issued to terminate, I assume under section 51 of the RTA, I have not been provided with a copy of the termination notice. I have seen 14-day notices issued for rent arrears, that say that if the rent is not paid, the landlord may apply to the tenancy tribunal to terminate and the landlord did originally make an application to the Tribunal for termination, however, none of these relate to the sections where retaliatory notice can be considered.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, this claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached entry requirements?

The tenant says that the landlord’s wife entered the property without consent, remaining for 31 minutes.
The tenant says that the landlord’s wife entered the premises on 6 July 2024 without consent or adequate notice and made mocking comments directed towards the tenant and the tenant’s children. Access had been arranged solely for an electrician to attend to the downstairs part of the house for scheduled works.
The tenant had left a key for the electrician and confirmed this with the landlord. However, the tenant says that there was absolutely no reason for the landlord’s wife to be at the property, let alone enter the upstairs living area where the tenant and her family reside.
The security recording allegedly shows she was at the property for 30 minutes and was making remarks about turning the house into a salon or Airbnb.
The text messages show that the tenant advised the landlord that she had approved the electrician but not his wife, and the landlord responded that as he hadn’t heard from the tenant about leaving a key in time, the landlord’s wife had instead gone to the property to drop the key and at the same time was taking photographs of the areas that needed repair, for example the deck and the entrance.
I have watched a video taken from the entrance door, where the landlord’s wife is making the alleged comments and looking in the windows downstairs, but from outside the property. I have not seen any evidence that shows that the landlord’s wife was inside the property.
The landlord says that his wife was acting as his representative when she visited the property to let the electrician in, as he had covid at the time. He says he cannot speak to what was said or occurred while she was there, as he was not there.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The landlord is however, entitled to access the exterior of the property without giving notice, for maintenance and other reasons. See section 48 of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I have no doubt that the comments made by the landlord’s wife were upsetting to the tenant.
However, I do not have sufficient evidence that the landlord breached their obligations, and I do not have adequate evidence to show that the landlord’s wife was inside the property unlawfully. It is clear from the video that the arranged electrician was also at the property (as arranged).
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to have underfloor insulation in the downstair area and ongoing ventilation, dampness and draught issues. The tenant says the landlord failed to provide a healthy homes certificate.
Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS requirements in several different respects.
For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord says that as the tenancy commenced on 25 January 2018, and was continuous through to 26 May 2025, compliance with most healthy home standards were not required until 1 July 2025.
The landlord says that the insulation standard (that was required from 1 July 2019) was met, except for underfloor insulation in the single downstairs garage, which was not accessible (due to being locked) at the time the contractors visited.
A greater hurdle to this claim is that I do not have sufficient evidence, for example an expert report, to say that the property did not comply with healthy homes standards. Accordingly, I consider that I have insufficient evidence to prove non-compliance with healthy homes requirements.
This claim is dismissed. Additional compensation sought
The tenant also claims compensation for: a. Reimbursement for the cost of replacing a gas bottle that was removed by the landlord ($97.00). b. Reimbursement for locksmith fees and key cutting costs - after locking herself out and the landlord being unable to provide a working spare set of keys ($327.00). c. Hedge trimming and trees ($400.00) d. Exterior house washing ($600.00). e. Reseal bathroom ($200.00). f. Misrepresentation and emotional harm – the landlord had throughout the tenancy suggested that the tenant might be able to purchase the property, and the property has now been sold without advising the tenant. Misrepresentation and emotional harm
Although I have no doubt of the tenant’s attachment to the property, the suggestions of a possible future purchase and the impact of that not occurring, there is no requirement in the RTA for a landlord to make a property available to a tenant to purchase (even if promised or assured).
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Gas bottle, exterior garden, house washing and bathroom
The landlord states that he does not dispute the cost of the gas bottle as one was left at the house. Accordingly, and based on the evidence provided, the amount of $97.00 is awarded to the tenant.
I have inadequate evidence of the cost of the lock smith fees. In addition, there is no requirement or obligation for a landlord to hold a spare set of keys. The cost was incurred due to the tenant locking themselves out of the property. This claim is dismissed.
I have insufficient evidence of the costs for hedge trimming and trees, the exterior house washing and resealing the bathroom and accordingly these claims are dismissed. Market rent
The tenant also seeks a refund the rent paid above market value. Rent increased from $630.00 to $780 despite poor conditions and a lack of repairs or improvements. The tenant has provided four other listings with similar or better features and the landlord has responded with contrary evidence.
The tenancy has ended and there is no ability for the Tribunal to carry out a retrospective market rent assessment.
Section 25 of the RTA states that a tenant may apply at any time for the Tribunal to reduce the rent is the current or proposed rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. That power is tied to a tenancy. The section refers to “on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for a tenancy”.
I consider that once the tenancy has ended a fresh, market-rent application under section 25 is not available. 7
This claim is therefore dismissed. Other matters
As both parties have some level of success, I consider that the filing fees should lie where they fall.
Both parties also sought name suppression and for the same reason, I have granted this to both parties. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 28 November 2025 7 This is further endorsed by s25(4) of the RTA that states that the effect of a market rent order shall take effect no earlier than the date of the application for the order. The date of the tenant’s application was 18 June 2025, after the tenancy ended.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248556 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248556 — Rent arrears

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord breached their obligations to maintain the premises?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Has the landlord breached entry requirements?

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord breached their obligations to maintain the premises?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Has the landlord breached entry requirements?

Has the landlord breached healthy homes obligations?