What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5263495 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 5263495?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Materials Used: $531.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $134.29 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,978.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $283.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263495?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12245751-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5263495 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 5263495?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Materials Used: $531.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $134.29 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,978.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $283.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263495?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12245751-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

66 McLean Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5263495 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263495 — net $454.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025	$134.29	Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Water rates	$283.30	Water rates
Repairs: Includes cleaning, rubbish	$1,978.00	Repairs: Includes cleaning, rubbish
Materials used	$531.43	Materials used
Exemplary damages (maximum number of persons	$500.00	Exemplary damages (maximum number of persons
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$454.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$454.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Moala Folau Tavalea and Seramanu Serenity Pani Lolohea must pay [The landlord/s] $454.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 4 September 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 4 September 2025.
There is a sealed Mediator’s Order dated 1 April 2025 which terminated the tenancy on 1 May 2025, awarded rent arrears of $855.00 and water rates of $263.47.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove that the balance owed for rent arrears up to 1 May 2025 was $134.29.
The landlord claims water rates for the invoice dated 13 May 2025 amounting to $283.30 (after the fixed charge is deducted).
These amounts are awarded.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant claimed to have left the keys at the premises, but the landlord could not locate them.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and door jamb. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of five people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that eight people (five adults and three children) lived at the premises from at least February 2025. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants asked the landlord if other family members could live at the premises. The landlord did not agree to the request, but the tenants continued to allow the extra people to stay on the basis that they would take the consequences of allowing this. The extra people were the tenants’ mother and adult siblings.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 27 February 2025 which the tenant was not present for. The landlord said that the house was in disarray, and it was clear that many people were staying there.
The landlord said that if the premises was in a tidy condition the issue of the extra people could have been negotiated.
The tenants intentionally breached the tenancy agreement and the Act in relation to the number of people able to stay in the premises. It is likely that the extra people impacted on the facilities (one bathroom and one extra toilet) and wear and tear of the premises.
The tenants said that their mother and sister were unwell, but they could have handled the situation differently, such as being present for the landlord inspections and keeping the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, which they did not.
The object of exemplary damages is not to compensate, but to punish and deter those who breach the relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act. Having considered the circumstances I consider that an award of $500.00 is justified in the circumstances.
The landlord had claimed for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant removing one of the two smoke alarms at the premises. The tenant’s evidence was that she had used the broom to stop the alarm from sounding, but it fell. She said that she did not have a ladder to replace it and did not want to risk climbing and falling.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that there has been a breach in respect of the smoke alarm. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant having a dog at the premises. The tenancy agreement states at clause 25; “Pets – the tenant agrees not to keep or feed or allow or permit any other person to keep or feed or allow any pet or other animal on or about the property unless the landlord agrees otherwise and modifies this agreement in writing to reflect landlord’s permission.”
The landlord’s evidence is that during a routine inspection on 31 March 2025 she noticed that there was a dog at the premises. A 14-day breach notice was issued that same day.
The landlord had received a letter from Watercare dated 23 April 2025 advising that the water meter could not be read because of the presence of the dog on the premises.
The tenant acknowledged that the dog was at the premises but did not recall when it moved there. She said that she did not let the landlord know about the dog. She said that it was originally only supposed to stay for one night but ended up staying until near the end of the tenancy when it was removed by the SPCA after complaints from neighbours.
The issue of whether the clause in the tenancy agreement can be enforced is not straightforward. There is case law 1 which states that a no pets clause in a tenancy agreement is not enforceable.
Section 11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that landlords cannot enforce clauses in a tenancy agreement that conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 unless approved by the Tribunal.
There is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which prohibits a tenant from having pets in a tenancy. Neither is there any provision that would allow pets to be prohibited.
While a landlord could apply to the Tribunal for termination of a tenancy if a 14- day breach notice 2 is not complied with there is no provision for exemplary damages where a tenant has kept a pet at the premises.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the dog is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the landlord’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263495 — net $454.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025	$134.29	Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Water rates	$283.30	Water rates
Repairs: Includes cleaning, rubbish	$1,978.00	Repairs: Includes cleaning, rubbish
Materials used	$531.43	Materials used
Exemplary damages (maximum number of persons	$500.00	Exemplary damages (maximum number of persons
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$454.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$454.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Moala Folau Tavalea and Seramanu Serenity Pani Lolohea must pay [The landlord/s] $454.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 4 September 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 4 September 2025.
There is a sealed Mediator’s Order dated 1 April 2025 which terminated the tenancy on 1 May 2025, awarded rent arrears of $855.00 and water rates of $263.47.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove that the balance owed for rent arrears up to 1 May 2025 was $134.29.
The landlord claims water rates for the invoice dated 13 May 2025 amounting to $283.30 (after the fixed charge is deducted).
These amounts are awarded.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant claimed to have left the keys at the premises, but the landlord could not locate them.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and door jamb. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of five people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that eight people (five adults and three children) lived at the premises from at least February 2025. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants asked the landlord if other family members could live at the premises. The landlord did not agree to the request, but the tenants continued to allow the extra people to stay on the basis that they would take the consequences of allowing this. The extra people were the tenants’ mother and adult siblings.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 27 February 2025 which the tenant was not present for. The landlord said that the house was in disarray, and it was clear that many people were staying there.
The landlord said that if the premises was in a tidy condition the issue of the extra people could have been negotiated.
The tenants intentionally breached the tenancy agreement and the Act in relation to the number of people able to stay in the premises. It is likely that the extra people impacted on the facilities (one bathroom and one extra toilet) and wear and tear of the premises.
The tenants said that their mother and sister were unwell, but they could have handled the situation differently, such as being present for the landlord inspections and keeping the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, which they did not.
The object of exemplary damages is not to compensate, but to punish and deter those who breach the relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act. Having considered the circumstances I consider that an award of $500.00 is justified in the circumstances.
The landlord had claimed for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant removing one of the two smoke alarms at the premises. The tenant’s evidence was that she had used the broom to stop the alarm from sounding, but it fell. She said that she did not have a ladder to replace it and did not want to risk climbing and falling.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that there has been a breach in respect of the smoke alarm. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant having a dog at the premises. The tenancy agreement states at clause 25; “Pets – the tenant agrees not to keep or feed or allow or permit any other person to keep or feed or allow any pet or other animal on or about the property unless the landlord agrees otherwise and modifies this agreement in writing to reflect landlord’s permission.”
The landlord’s evidence is that during a routine inspection on 31 March 2025 she noticed that there was a dog at the premises. A 14-day breach notice was issued that same day.
The landlord had received a letter from Watercare dated 23 April 2025 advising that the water meter could not be read because of the presence of the dog on the premises.
The tenant acknowledged that the dog was at the premises but did not recall when it moved there. She said that she did not let the landlord know about the dog. She said that it was originally only supposed to stay for one night but ended up staying until near the end of the tenancy when it was removed by the SPCA after complaints from neighbours.
The issue of whether the clause in the tenancy agreement can be enforced is not straightforward. There is case law 1 which states that a no pets clause in a tenancy agreement is not enforceable.
Section 11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that landlords cannot enforce clauses in a tenancy agreement that conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 unless approved by the Tribunal.
There is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which prohibits a tenant from having pets in a tenancy. Neither is there any provision that would allow pets to be prohibited.
While a landlord could apply to the Tribunal for termination of a tenancy if a 14- day breach notice 2 is not complied with there is no provision for exemplary damages where a tenant has kept a pet at the premises.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the dog is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the landlord’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263495 — Cleanliness at 66 McLean Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263495 — Cleanliness at 66 McLean Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions