What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251599 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 5251599?

Compensation: Gardening: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Window Latch: $24.45 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $52.50 awarded to landlord; Wall: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251599?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12264340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251599 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 5251599?

Compensation: Gardening: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Window Latch: $24.45 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $52.50 awarded to landlord; Wall: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251599?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12264340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5251599 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5251599 — net $78.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall	$500.00		Repairs: Wall
Lightbulbs	$52.50		Lightbulbs
Filing fee	$27.00		Filing fee
Compensation: Gardening		$450.00	Gardening
Compensation: Window latch		$24.45	Window latch
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee
Total award	$579.50	$501.45
Net award	$78.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$78.05

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5251599 — net $78.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall	$500.00		Repairs: Wall
Lightbulbs	$52.50		Lightbulbs
Filing fee	$27.00		Filing fee
Compensation: Gardening		$450.00	Gardening
Compensation: Window latch		$24.45	Window latch
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee
Total award	$579.50	$501.45
Net award	$78.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$78.05

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 12 May 2021 and ended on 8 April 2025.
The landlord’s application seeks the cost of repairs to a bedroom wall, and replacement of lightbulbs.
The tenants’ application seeks compensation under several headings, as set out below.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 6 August 2025. [The landlord’s representatives] represented the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Landlord application Wall damage
At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered a large hole in the wall underneath a window in a bedroom. The tenants covered the area with a piece of plywood.
The claim seeks the cost of repairing the wall, $862.50.
[Tenant 1] said that: a. The house is aged and in generally poor condition, and there is evidence of historic leaks. b. The bedroom wall was compromised by moisture damage. c. The hole was caused by [Tenant 2] knocking into the wall gently.
Tenants are liable for damage that they (or their guests) cause intentionally or carelessly during the tenancy.
I was provided with photographs of the hole in the wall.
The landlords also provided a report from [building company], who inspected the damage and carried out a moisture meter test at the landlord’s request. [building company] found elevated moisture levels around the window but noted that there were no signs of water ingress through the exterior cladding or around the window. They noted that the window has a flyscreen on the window, and the opening is not waterproof if the window is left open with the flyscreen in place.
The damage is obviously beyond fair wear and tear, which means that the tenants have the burden of proof to show (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that it was not caused by a careless or intentional action by themselves or a guest. 1
It is difficult to see how [Tenant 2] could have created a large (approximately 400mm round) hole in the wall simply by nudging it with his elbow, even if the gib was compromised by water damage. The move likely result is a dent or crack.
Further, the evidence provided to me does not show that any excess dampness in that area resulted from a maintenance issue rather than rain coming through an open window.
My finding is that the tenants are liable for the damage.
I accept that the damage was accidental and not intentional, and therefore the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess. 2 In this instance the landlord’s excess if $500.00. Lightbulbs
[Tenant 1] accepted this part of the claim. Tenant application
[Tenant 1] explained that her application was prompted by the landlord holding them liable for the cost of repairs to the bedroom wall, which they disputed for the reasons set out above. Some of the issues set out in the application relate to problems / issues that bothered [Tenant 1] at the time, but that she would have been willing to overlook had the relationship with the landlord not become difficult at the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] set out the issues in detail in her written submission. There are 8 issues in total. Gardening
The written tenancy agreement provides that the landlord is responsible for the garden and lawns.
This is due to an error by the landlord’s property manager at the time, who ticked the wrong box on the agreement.
[Tenant 1] said that she relied on the terms of the tenancy agreement, and she understood that the landlord was going to take care of the lawns and gardens. 1 Section 49B(8)(b)(ii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA
About a month into the tenancy, when no work had been done on the lawns and gardens, [Tenant 1] queried this with the property manager and the error was identified.
The landlord contracted a gardener who did the work from September 2021 until February 2022. The gardener then had to stop work because of an injury. The landlord suggested that the tenants take over responsibility for the lawns and gardens in exchange for a rent reduction of $25 per week. The tenants accepted this.
The tenants’ claim under this heading is in two parts: a. Compensation for the period that no gardening was done. b. Compensation for the period after they took after responsibility for gardening, on the grounds that the $25 per week rent reduction was not fair and reasonable compensation for the work of maintaining the gardens to the standard required by the landlord.
In terms of the first part of the claim, I agree that there are grounds for compensation. Per the terms of the contract the tenants were entitled to receive gardening and lawn mowing from the landlord and they did not receive it from the start of the tenancy until September 2025.
I accept that this was a genuine error by the property manager, but the terms of the written agreement are clear, and the tenants were entitled to rely upon them.
The landlords themselves have valued the gardening work at $25 per week. I will award that amount for the (approximately) four months that the tenants did not receive the benefit of that work.
I do not agree that the tenants are entitled to additional compensation for the period after they agreed to a rent reduction and took over the gardening themselves.
The tenants agreed to the amount of $25 per week. Although they now believe that this amount is not sufficient to reflect the amount of work required to maintain the gardens, it is appropriate to hold adults to agreements that they enter into whether they are “good deals” or “bad deals”. Actions of property managers
[Tenant 1] raised two issues under this heading: a. That her first property manager opened cupboards and wardrobes during a property inspection. b. That a subsequent property manager left [The property management company] after being charged with a dishonesty offence.
The first property manager no longer works for [The property management company]. [The landlord’s representatives] said that they do not know whether that person opened cupboards and wardrobes during the one inspection that she carried out on these premises during this tenancy, but they noted that none of the photographs from that inspection show the inside of cupboards or wardrobes.
I agree that landlords should be cautious about opening cupboards or wardrobes during an inspection. As a general rule, landlords should avoid doing so unless there is a reason to, such as a concern about damage or moisture ingress.
This seems to have been a one-off incident, and I have not heard from the property manager in question. There may, or may not, have been a particular reason why she looked inside cupboards and wardrobes in this instance [Tenant 1] herself noted that there were signs of previous water damage / leaks in the house. It is also relevant that the property manager did not take photographs of the inside of the cupboards and wardrobes, which would have compounded the invasion of privacy.
In the circumstances it is not appropriate to make an award of compensation or exemplary damages.
In terms of the subsequent property manager, [The landlord’s representative 1] confirmed that: a. He was charged with a dishonesty offence while employed by [The property management company].The offending was unrelated to his work. b. He had no record of previous offending when [The property management company] hired him. c. He resigned immediately when the offending came to light. d. [The property management company] was advised not to disclose information while the court processes were underway. Those processes took a long time, and when they concluded [The property management company] considered that the matter was at an end and they had ‘moved on’.
I acknowledge [Tenant 1]’s concern. The property manager carried out inspections of the premises and in that capacity he was in the home alone and unsupervised.
However, I do not agree that [The property management company] has breached any legal duty it owed to the tenants, either in having this person as a staff member or in not giving information to [Tenant 1] (or any other tenants) when the offending came to light. I accept that it was appropriate for [The property management company] to take the advice that it was given to not provide information while the court proceedings were underway. Given that there was no information to suggest that the property manager had stolen anything from any property that [The property management company] managed, there was no known risk directly relevant to [The property management company]’s tenants that [The property management company] should have disclosed. Tenants’ maintenance
[Tenant 1] said that her partner carried out various minor maintenance work at the premises during the tenancy, such as replacing broken window latches.
[Tenant 1] said that this was done on the basis of an informal understanding with the owners that they would not bother them with minor repairs. [Tenant 1] said that the good faith basis on which they did this work was undermined by the landlord claiming (unfairly, in [Tenant 1]’s view) the cost of repairs to the bedroom wall, so it is appropriate for the landlord to compensate them for the repairs that they have done, which have benefitted the landlord.
[The landlord’s representatives] said that there was no agreement with the owner that the tenants could or should do maintenance, and they expected the tenants to contact them if anything needed to be done. They said that the owner is willing to reimburse the tenants for any actual, out-of-pocket costs that they have incurred, but they require receipts.
The landlords’ position is correct.
Tenants can only require landlords to pay for the cost of tenant repairs in certain limited circumstances, which do not apply in this instance. 3
The only documented cost incurred by the tenants is a window handle purchased on 16 February 2025 for $24.45. The landlord is to reimburse this cost to the tenants per his offer. Dryer
[Tenant 1] said that the dryer began making a noise and she let the property manager know about it during an inspection.
[The property management company] arranged for a technician to inspect the dryer. The technician reported back that the dryer was not economically repairable, and the landlord arranged for a replacement.
[Tenant 1] said that the technician told her that there were faults with the (old) dryer that made it unsafe to use. [Tenant 1]’s written submission states “this was pointed out multiple times but no action was taken for 6 months”. 3 Section 45(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The claim is not made out.
[Tenant 1]’s own evidence was that the technician told her about the safety concerns at the time that the dryer was replaced. [The landlord’s representatives] also confirmed that they were not told anything about this. They followed a correct process to send out a technician in response to [Tenant 1]’s complaint about the dryer (that it was noisy), and then to proceed with replacement when repair was not possible. The landlord met their legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. [Tenant 1]’s time
[Tenant 1] seeks compensation for her time spent on various tenancy matters, which she argues she did in “good faith” at the time, but that good faith has been undermined by the landlord’s bad faith in making “unfair claims” against them.
For the reasons set out above, I do not agree that the landlords claim for repairs to the wall is unfair or bad faith. It is a proven claim.
However, even if the landlords claim had been unsuccessful, I do not agree that this would allow the tenants to retrospectively seek compensation for things done in the normal ‘give and take’ of a tenancy. There is simply no legal basis for compensation of that type. Keys [Tenant 1] said that they were given 1 key at the start of the tenancy. They cut extra keys at a cost of $65 and left all of the keys behind at the end of the tenancy. They seek reimbursement of the $65.
[The landlord’s representative] provided evidence that the tenants were provided with 2 keys at the start of the tenancy.
The law says that: a. Landlords must provide sufficient “locks and other devices” for the tenant to secure the premises. 4 b. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all of the keys that the landlord provided to them. 5
In this instance: a. The landlord provided adequate locks and keys at the start of the tenancy. 4 Section 46(1) RTA 5 Section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA b. The tenant returned the landlord’s keys (plus more) at the end of the tenancy.
There is no legal basis to require the landlord to pay for the additional keys that the tenants chose to have cut. Cleaning
[Tenant 1] said that the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy and she paid $350 for commercial cleaning.
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 6
The standard required is “reasonable”. Because this is a subjective term, people can have genuinely different views about what amounts to a reasonable state of cleanliness.
In claims of this type, the Tribunal is heavily reliant on visual evidence (photographs or video) to show the actual condition of the premises.
There is no such evidence in this instance.
[The landlord’s representatives] did not agree that the premises were unclean at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants have the burden of proof.
The claim is not proven. “Other issues”
Under this heading [Tenant 1] described an incident where they returned to the property the day after the end of the tenancy to carry out more gardening work at the property manager’s request, to find that the owners were present on site. [Tenant 1] said that this “breached the tenants’ rights to complete the final items on the exit list” and that it was uncomfortable because of “bad vibes from the landlord”.
From a legal perspective, the owners had the right to be at the property because the tenancy had ended. If the owners’ presence did indeed prevent the tenants from completing the gardening work that they had been permitted to do, this could be a relevant consideration if the landlord was seeking garden tidy up costs at the end of the tenancy. There is no such claim from the landlord.
Under this heading I will also note an incident near the end of the tenancy where the owner came to the property with a plumber, and also brought his wife 6 Section 45(1)(a) RTA along. [Tenant 1] said that they were given notice of the plumber’s visit but were never asked about the owner’s wife.
I agree that notice of entry for a person for a particular purpose does not confer a right on anyone else to enter, without first obtaining the tenant’s consent. Owners cannot assume that they can just ‘come along’ with the tradesperson. No such implied right of entry exists.
It seems that this was a one-off incident and I accept that the owners may have simply assumed, incorrectly, that they had the right to go in with the plumber. In the circumstances I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
Both parties were successful or partially successful in their applications. Both parties are entitled to recover the filing fee. 7
Both parties sought name suppression. I am satisfied that both parties were substantially successful in the proceedings in that they succeeded partially or wholly in respect of their own applications. I also acknowledge the tenants’ right to raise genuine concerns / issues about tenancy matters without assuming a risk that bringing such concerns to the Tribunal may affect their prospects of getting tenancies in the future. Name suppression is granted to both parties.
Per the calculation above, the landlords will receive $78.05 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251599 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251599 — Property damage

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