What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258539 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 5258539?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258539?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676090-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258539 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 5258539?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258539?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676090-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258539 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258539 — net $477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$477.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$477.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258539 — net $477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$477.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$477.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $477.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord/s], one of two trustees of the [Landlord family trust], the other trustee being his mother, and [The landlord’s support person], his support person, both attended the hearing. [The landlord/s] confirmed he had his mother’s authority to speak on behalf of both trustees of the Trust, and that she is aware of the application. The tenant had contacted the Court to say she would not be attending the hearing as she could not drive due to an injury. The tenant was offered the opportunity, because of her circumstances, to attend the hearing by phone, but declined this offer and did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for breach of tenancy agreement prohibiting smoking, exemplary damages for interfering with smoke alarms and harassment of neighbours, for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At a case conference before the hearing, the landlord withdrew claims for termination for assault, termination for remedy of breach, termination for destruction of premises and for refund of the bond.
The landlord confirmed the tenancy started on 2 November 2020 and finished on 22 September 2024. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to prove their claims to a standard of a balance of probabilities, i.e. that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
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.”
The tenant provided some written evidence prior to the hearing, which has been considered and was discussed with the landlord during the hearing.
All evidence provided by both parties has been considered, even if it is not specifically referred to in this decision.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord confirmed there was no Entry Inspection Report, with photographs or otherwise, from the start of the tenancy, nor were there any formal routine inspection reports, with photographs or otherwise, conducted during the tenancy.
The landlord also did not provide a Final Inspection Report, but provided some photographs taken after the tenancy, according to the landlord, and invoices. The landlord said that, whilst he completed a tour of the property at the end of the tenancy on 21 September 2024 and saw what he needed to, he did not complete the final inspection with the tenant, as the tenant’s partner assaulted him, and so he had to leave the property immediately. The landlord indicated the police were called, the tenant’s partner was charged with assault, arrested and released the following day. As such, the tenant left on 22 September 2024.
The landlord confirmed he had not provided any written report to the tenant, by email, text or otherwise, setting out any concerns he had with the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant had pets at the property, a dog and a cat, without permission. During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged that the tenancy agreement indicated the tenant could have a cat, but reiterated that there was no permission given by the landlord for the tenant to have a dog. The landlord said they were unaware of the tenant’s dog until almost the end of the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged he had gone out to the property a few times during the tenancy for a coffee and chat with the tenants about whether the property needed anything doing to it, but had not seen the dog during these visits. The tenant said in her evidence that the landlord was aware they had a cat and a dog and did not raise any issues about this. The tenant said their dog was kept only outside. Cleaning
The landlord provided a few photographs of pet hair in the carpet and said the photographs were taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided some photographs of mould on windowsills and a sliding door frame in two bedrooms and in the lounge, some photographs of the condition of the kitchen showing the tops of the pantry cupboard and extractor fan that were not cleaned, the oven that was still dirty, the filter from the rangehood which had not been cleaned, the bathroom sink was not cleaned and the toilet basin was left dirty. The landlord provided photographs of the floor by the shower and said it was left dirty, but these photographs were unclear and did not show a dirty condition on the shower floor.
The landlord amended their claim for cleaning during the hearing to $2,381.96, which included around 49 hours of cleaning, carpet cleaning products and the cost of a specialist tool for pet hair removal, as per an invoice they provided. The hourly rate claimed was $45.00 per hour for cleaning.
The landlord said the house was newly built and the tenants were the first tenants in the property.
There was no Entry Inspection Report provided to show the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. Further, the limited number of photographs provided by the landlord of the property at the end of the tenancy, did not reflect a requirement for around 49 hours of cleaning or to the extent as claimed. However, I accept it is likely that the windowsills and sliding door frame were mould-free at the start of the tenancy, that the oven was likely provided in a clean condition at the start of the tenancy and that the tops of the pantry cupboard and extractor fan were also likely clean then. I also accept the landlord likely needed to hire a carpet steam cleaner and specialist pet hair removal tool, given the photographs of the animal hair found in the carpet that was provided. However, there were only a few photographs of the pet hair provided, and no photographs provided of the carpet’s condition generally to show further pet hair or the extent of this as claimed. As such, I find it reasonable, based on the limited photographs and evidence provided, to allow 10 hours of cleaning and carpet cleaning @ $45.00/hour for a total of $450.00, which includes hiring a steam cleaner for the carpet. To be clear, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the full extent of the amount claimed for cleaning. Therefore, I award the landlord $450.00 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal/water blasting
The landlord claimed $675.00 for rubbish removal, water blasting the deck and house, and doing the lawns and gardens. This amount was confirmed in an invoice from the landlord’s cleaner, dated 21 November 2025, which should have read 21 November 2024.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, other than a photograph of a mop left, which I consider minimal. There were no photographs provided that showed a lawn or garden requiring garden work either. The landlord said the water blasting of the deck and house was required because of dog hair and oil stains on the deck left by the tenant. However, there were no photographs of dog hair on the deck, though there was a photograph of a dog and a small mattress pet bed on the deck, nor were there any photographs provided of oil stains on the deck at the end of the tenancy. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of this claim and so dismiss this claim. Keys
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The tenant said they returned all keys except the front door key to the landlord at the final inspection, then they dropped off the front door key, in the landlord’s mother’s letterbox when they left. The landlord said there was no front door key found in his mother’s letterbox at the end of the tenancy. However, there was no additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord, such as a Final Inspection Report indicating the keys were not returned, nor any correspondence with the tenant after the tenancy ended about the keys. Further, the landlord did not provide any quote or invoice for the cost of replacing the locks at the end of the tenancy and, during the hearing, confirmed they still had not changed the locks to the property, despite there now being a new tenancy in the property. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss the claim for the cost of keys. Missing chattels
The landlord said the tenant had sold their washing machine at the property, with their permission, for $200.00 and had purchased a yard broom, a shovel, 2 plastic rakes and solar lights for the driveway from this money. The landlord provided a text confirming this from the tenant’s partner in 2021. The landlord indicated these items were not left at the property by the tenant when the tenancy ended. The landlord did not provide any additional supporting evidence of this, such as a Final Inspection Report reflecting this, nor any correspondence with the tenant about this at the end of the tenancy, or any other additional supporting evidence for this claim. As such, this claim is dismissed.
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 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 [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said the amount of insurance excess indicated in the tenancy agreement, which was $1,650.00, was incorrect, and the correct insurance excess was $650.00, which was the case throughout the tenancy.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Septic system
The landlord said the tenant put wet wipes into the septic tank system, contrary to the tenancy agreement which indicated the tenant was not to intentionally or carelessly cause any obstruction, blockage or damage to the drains, including the septic system.
The landlord said the tenant also had used an incinerator near the raised box effluent field (Wisconsin Mound) for the septic system and had damaged the plastic lining around the Wisconsin Mound as a result. The landlord provided a couple of photographs of the septic pump, and a couple of photographs of an incinerator near the raised box, the detail of which was somewhat unclear. The landlord also provided invoices from [Waste removal company] dated 13 March 2023 for $610.25 that indicated a pump failure when the septic tank was cleared out, and another invoice from [Waste removal company] dated 22 April 2025 for $628.82 when the septic tank was cleared out again, an invoice from [Pump supplier] dated 23 April 2025 for $1,382.00 to replace the pump and a Quote from [Contractor] dated 7 January 2025 to replace and fix the raised box effluent bed in the amount of $4,807.00.
The landlord claimed a total of $7,428.33 to clear out the septic tank, replace the pump and replace and fix the raised box effluent field.
The tenant said in her written evidence that the septic system had been working fine when they left, that after Cyclone Gabrielle hit the area in February 2023, the septic tank had overflowed and blocked up and they were unable to flush the toilet and had limited showers. She said the landlord was aware of this and got them a Portaloo to use, which they used for 5-6 weeks until [Waste removal company] came to empty the septic tank. The tenant also said that after heavy rain, water used to sit under the house for 2-3 days, which they had asked the landlord to rectify on numerous occasions, without success. This was disputed by the landlord, but the landlord acknowledged there was heavy rain and a lot of water on the property and in the immediate area, after Cyclone Gabrielle, and that he had sourced a Portaloo from the local Council for the tenant to use. At the time, the landlord said in 2023 they did not know the cause of the septic blocking up then, and assumed it was the heavy rain and excess water in the area. However, the landlord said that later they worked out it must have been the tenant using wet wipes in the system.
When asked about what alerted them to issues with the septic system after the tenancy ended, apart from seeing the incinerator by the raised box effluent field, to the point where they called [Waste removal company] to empty the septic again, the landlord was somewhat unclear about this, indicating the system had blocked up, but also saying there was nobody living at the property during that time after the tenancy ended.
I note there was no mention of any wet wipes in either of the [Waste removal company] invoices provided. Nor were there any photographs provided showing wet wipes in the septic system. Also, [Waste removal company] cleaned out the septic tank on 22 April 2025, which was the day before [Pump supplier] went to the property on 23 April 2025, so the septic tank presumably would have been completely clean by 23 April 2025. The invoice from [Pump supplier] indicated at the start, “Travel to site, pump had been blocked and jammed by wet wipes”, though the landlord acknowledged that, as [Waste removal company] had cleaned out the septic tank the day before they got there, this was likely a description of the job as told to [Pump supplier].
The landlord said the septic pump had been replaced after the septic system was cleaned out in March 2023, but it was under warranty at that time. The landlord said they thought the warranty had expired by the time the pump was replaced again in April 2025.
The landlord confirmed it was a quote and not an invoice from [Contractor] to replace and fix the raised box effluent field, and that this work has not been undertaken yet. The landlord said he has not proceeded with several projects claimed yet, as they have not had the funds to do so. However, the landlord also confirmed they have not made any insurance claims about any of the damage claimed, as they were waiting for the outcome of this application.
The landlord has claimed a significant amount, $7,428.33, for cleaning out the septic tank, replacing the pump and for replacing and fixing a raised box effluent field, the latter of which has not yet been undertaken. The landlord did not, however, provide any additional supporting evidence, such as a technical report or other similar evidence from a professional about the cause or extent of any damage to the septic tank or raised box effluent field, that might show any damage was likely caused during the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence provided about any wet wipes used by the tenant, as alleged by the landlord, as this is not reflected in either of the [Waste removal company] invoices, nor are there any photographs of any wet wipes in the septic system. The [Pump supplier] invoice reference to this is, as acknowledged, likely a description of the job as told to them, rather than what they viewed at the property, as the septic tank had been cleaned out the day before their visit. I note the second [Waste removal company] invoice of 22 April 2025 is also several months after the tenancy ended. Whilst the landlord said there was nobody else living at the property until June 2025 after this tenant, the landlord had confirmed that there were a number of tradespeople coming and going at the property on a number of occasions from the end of the tenancy onwards. The tenant had said the neighbour told them somebody moved into the property just days after they left, but the landlord denied this.
The [Contractor] quote refers to fixing a fire damaged raised box effluent bed, but the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence, in my view, about the extent of any damage or of any link to this being likely caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord said they saw what they needed to during the final inspection, even though they could not complete this process with the tenant, but the issue of the incinerator and septic was not raised with the tenant in any correspondence at the end of the tenancy provided by the landlord, for example. Nor was there any evidence by way of routine inspections, or correspondence with the tenant during the tenancy dealing with any incinerator at the property, for example. The landlord has an obligation to mitigate any potential loss by conducting regular routine inspections and bringing any issues to the attention of the tenant to rectify in a timely manner during the tenancy.
Given the insufficient evidence of the extent of any damage to the septic system or field or evidence linking any damage to the septic system as being caused by the tenant, I dismiss this claim. Deck
The landlord claimed the tenant damaged the deck outside the property by having their dog on the deck and with the tenant’s partner using the deck to fix mowers and small engines. The landlord said the dog left claw marks in the decking and the tenant’s partner left oil stains on the deck. The landlord provided 2 photographs of the deck, with a dog in one of the pictures. The photographs provided were not clear and I could not see any marks in the decking from the photographs. The tenant’s written evidence said the deck was one of the most walked on areas in the house and the landlord had not allowed for normal wear and tear.
The landlord provided a quote, rather than an invoice as indicated on the document, as clarified by the landlord during the hearing, for $4,550.00, which the landlord claimed to replace the deck. The landlord said this work had not been undertaken yet due to financial issues. No insurance claim has been made about this either, according to the landlord. The landlord said the deck was new at the start of the tenancy.
The photographs provided of the deck do not show any dog claw marks, nor do they show any oil stains. The photographs of the deck show the deck’s condition as being that of fair wear and tear, in my view, given the tenancy lasted about 4 years and this was a high-use area. Given the insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove this claim, and that it is likely the deck’s condition indicates fair wear and tear, I dismiss this claim. Carpet and vinyl
The landlord claimed the tenant burned the carpet with cigarettes in the back bedroom and caused some fire spark damage to the carpet in the lounge, as well as damaged the kitchen vinyl. The landlord provided a quote from [Flooring company] dated 16 April 2025 to replace the vinyl in the kitchen and to replace the carpet in the back bedroom and living area in the amount of $10,051.00, which indicated patching repairs were not appropriate.
The landlord provided some close-up photographs of carpet, which showed small smoke burn dark marks in the carpet. The landlord said they could not distinguish whether all 5 photographs provided of the carpet were from the back bedroom or the living room area, as the carpet was the same style throughout the property. The landlord acknowledged they could understand why there might be some sparks from the fireplace coming on the living room carpet, but not the burn marks left in the carpet from the small bedroom, as smoking was not allowed in the property as per the tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided some photographs of two gouges in the kitchen vinyl, one thinner one they said was at the edge of a moveable kitchen island, and another gouge in the kitchen vinyl which was discovered under this moveable kitchen island when they moved it.
The landlord did not provide any Entry Inspection Report, nor any routine inspection reports during the tenancy that would provide photographs and information about the condition of the carpets and vinyl at the start of the tenancy, or even during the tenancy, to use as a baseline to assess the photographs from the end of the tenancy. The landlord said during the hearing that the carpet and vinyl were new at the start of the tenancy, but did not provide confirmation of this from the carpet and vinyl’s provider, given there was no Entry Inspection Report provided. I find the landlord has not provided additional supporting evidence sufficient to prove this significant claim. I further note that the carpet and vinyl replacement cost was by way of quote only, not an invoice. It was unclear from the evidence as to whether this work has been undertaken yet by the landlord either, despite there being a new tenancy at the property currently. No insurance claim has been made yet in relation to the carpet and vinyl, according to the landlord. Given the insufficient evidence provided to prove this claim, as outlined above, I dismiss this claim. Fireplace
The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the fireplace by breaking 6 bricks inside the fireplace. The landlord thought this may have occurred with the tenant throwing wood into the fireplace and breaking the bricks. The landlord said the fireplace was new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided some photographs of the inside of the fireplace showing some bricks with cracks that they said were taken after the tenancy. The landlord claimed $341.00 to replace the firebricks. The landlord said this included a package of 10 firebricks, as you had to buy a package of 10 to get the 6 firebricks required.
There was no evidence provided about why throwing wood into a fireplace would have damaged the interior firebricks, given that is a normal use of a fireplace, though the landlord believed the tenant may have thrown in wood with force. In my view, there was insufficient evidence provided as to why the firebricks damage should be considered more than fair wear and tear in this context and so I dismiss this claim. Trees
The landlord claimed the tenant removed trees at the property without their permission and claimed $4,000.00 to remove tree stumps.
The landlord said they planted nectarine, plum and loquat trees with their grandparents, which were all removed without their permission. The landlord provided photographs of the boundary fence, which showed a large tree largely over the boundary of the neighbour and another tree behind it, followed by a photograph of the same boundary fence without these trees. The landlord said these were before and after photographs of the area with two of the trees. The landlord provided photographs of the loquat tree at the front of the property, one taken apparently some time ago and the other taken after the tenancy, without the loquat tree in the photograph.
The tenant said in their written evidence that there were 2 trees on the property, a plum tree which blew over in Cyclone Gabrielle, which the landlord was aware of, and a nectarine tree that had been cut down by the neighbour, a relative of the landlord, because it was overhanging his section and the neighbours were moving their house onto the section next to this property.
The landlord confirmed the neighbour had moved a house onto the next-door property a couple of years ago. The landlord was unsure, given the tenant’s written evidence, as to whether the tree was removed by the tenant or by their neighbour. The landlord did not know what date the trees were removed or by whom. The landlord acknowledged the front of the property, where the loquat tree was planted near the road, in an unfenced, open property, was very close to the church and marae, at which there were a number of large events, with people coming and going. The landlord did not know what date the loquat tree was likely removed either.
The only invoice provided by the landlord in relation to the tree removal claim was for the removal of a tree stump by the cleaner, in the amount of $150.00. There was no other invoice or quote evidence provided by the landlord for this claim for $4,000.00.
Given the evidence provided, that the landlord was unsure who cut down the trees along the boundary line or when any of the trees may have been removed, and limited invoice evidence, as outlined above, I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove the tenant removed these trees during the tenancy, or for the amount claimed, and so dismiss this claim. Loss of rental income
The landlord claimed they lost rental income due to damage caused by the tenant and claimed $16,500.00 for this. The landlord said the period claimed for went from 22 September 2024, when the tenancy ended, to 16 May 2025, when they filed the application, which is 33 weeks @ $500.00/week rent = $16,500.00.
The landlord said the main reason they could not rent the property after the tenancy was the septic system, as the toilet and shower could not be used, and it was uninhabitable until that was fixed. The landlord acknowledged the septic pump was fixed on 23 April 2025, and so the property was habitable from then. It is unclear as to why it took several months for the pump to be replaced after the tenancy ended also. The tenants said the septic system was fine when they left, which was disputed by the landlord.
The landlord said they had not repaired the septic issues fully due to not having the money. They confirmed the landlord still has not filed an insurance claim for loss of rental income, nor for the septic issues, however. The landlord acknowledged that, had they filed an insurance claim early on, they likely could have mitigated their losses regarding any potential rental income also.
As the landlord said the main reason for them not being able to rent the property was due to the septic issues, but the landlord’s claim for damage to the septic system is dismissed due to insufficient evidence, then I must also dismiss the landlord’s claim for loss of rental income. To be clear, there is also insufficient evidence to prove loss of rent for the period claimed, in any event, given the delay of several months in getting the pump fixed, that the pump was fixed before the end of the period claimed by the landlord, and that the landlord likely failed to mitigate any loss in this regard. Mental stress
The landlord claimed compensation of $8,000.00 for mental stress caused by the tenant’s partner assaulting him, for the tenant abandoning the property when she went overseas for a time without notice to the landlord and for other issues with the tenant and her partner.
The landlord said things had been fine with the tenant and her partner, that they kept the property spotless and in good order, up to a few months before the end of the tenancy, when the tenant and her partner began having domestic issues of their own, which resulted in the tenant going overseas, leaving the landlord to deal with the tenant’s partner, who was aggressive, threatened to also leave the property and not pay rent. The landlord felt stuck in the middle of their domestic dispute and contacted the tenant about difficulties with her partner, so the tenant then agreed to return to the property and help sort things out, which she did. The landlord said they asked the tenant not to have her partner at the final inspection on 21 September 2024, as they had experienced aggression and threats from her partner during a visit to the property earlier on 10 August 2025, when the tenant was away. However, the landlord said the tenant’s partner was present at the final inspection and ended up assaulting the landlord at that time.
The landlord indicated he had a background working in mental health and so was familiar with mental health issues and stress and that he had been supervised professionally over this period.
The landlord said that over the period of the tenancy, his father passed away, his brother committed suicide at the time of Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023, his truck got stolen and then he got assaulted by the tenant’s partner. The landlord said he then experienced a breakdown. He said he was “totally gutted” when he went into the property after the tenancy and realised all the issues that needed to be fixed. He explained that there were potential mortgage issues that involved his family, with no rent being paid after the tenancy. The landlord further described how he was in ICU with major health issues at the start of the tenancy but had tried to be helpful in giving the tenant a place to live at that time. He further described significant health issues experienced by his wife, making it impossible for them both to move into this property, which had initially been planned.
The landlord has obviously been through much trauma over the period of the tenancy, though much of it is unrelated to the tenant. The landlord did not provide any additional supporting evidence as to his mental stress issues directly relating to the tenancy, such as medical reports or letters, and confirmed the amount claimed of $8,000.00 was a random amount chosen, as this was difficult for him to quantify.
Whilst the landlord may well have experienced significant mental stress over the period of the tenancy, as he indicated, several incidents such as his father and his brother passing away, his truck getting stolen and his wife’s significant health issues, were unrelated to the tenancy. It is difficult to separate all the different incidents in ascertaining the cause of a party’s stress in such a situation. However, the onus of proof is on the landlord in this regard.
There was no evidence provided as to whether the impact of the tenant’s partner’s assault on the landlord was considered by the sentencing judge of the assault charge, though I note these issues are usually considered in that forum. Given this lack of evidence, and a lack of any additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord to prove this claim, such as medical or counselling reports, that indicate any stress is directly attributable to only the tenant, I must dismiss this claim. Harassment of neighbours
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord said there had been an altercation with the neighbours involving the tenant’s partner. The landlord also indicated the tenant and her partner were harassing his family who lived around the area of the property. The landlord said he was unable to get documents from the police confirming the altercation with the neighbours, which the landlord said was serious.
There was no additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord at all about this claim, such as any witness statements from anyone involved, or police reports, only verbal evidence from the landlord, which was fairly general in nature. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Removal of smoke alarms
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that, when they went through the house after the tenancy ended, they noticed 2 smoke alarms were missing and one smoke alarm had no batteries.
There was no Entry Inspection Report showing smoke alarms in place at the property, nor was there any Final Inspection Report or any other photographs of smoke alarm fittings with missing smoke alarms at the end of the tenancy. There was also no correspondence about this from the landlord to the tenant, either during the tenancy, as there were no routine inspections by the landlord, or after the tenancy ended. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient supporting evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Smoking inside the property
The landlord said the tenant breached the tenancy agreement that prohibited smoking inside the property, pursuant to section 43AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant, or her partner, smoked inside the property, which was shown from smoke burns in the carpet. The landlord provided some photographs of smoke burns in the carpet, which were provide in relation to the landlord’s claim for damage to the carpet, deal with above. There was no other additional supporting evidence provided as to the tenant or her partner smoking inside the property, such as routine inspection reports dealing with this issue during the tenancy, for example, or any witness statements indicating the tenant or her partner smoked inside the property. Further, I have dismissed the landlord’s carpet claim for insufficient evidence. I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove the tenant smoked inside the property and so dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been partly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. Given the evidence of the landlord’s personal circumstances in this application, I find the landlord’s personal interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I continue suppression of the tenant’s name from an earlier order to suppress the tenant’s name. Therefore, I also order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258539 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258539 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions