What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266661 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Coromandel

How much money was awarded in case 5266661?

Compensation: Dispose Of Old Pipes: $125.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Door Fix: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $310.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266661?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12535668-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266661 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Coromandel

How much money was awarded in case 5266661?

Compensation: Dispose Of Old Pipes: $125.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Door Fix: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $310.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266661?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12535668-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

292 Kuaotunu Wharekaho Road, Kuaotunu, RD 2, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266661 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266661 — net $75.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$310.90		Window repairs
Compensation: Door fix		$50.00	Door fix
Compensation: Dispose of old pipes		$125.00	Dispose of old pipes
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$60.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$310.90	$235.00
Net award	$75.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.90

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266661 — net $75.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$310.90		Window repairs
Compensation: Door fix		$50.00	Door fix
Compensation: Dispose of old pipes		$125.00	Dispose of old pipes
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$60.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$310.90	$235.00
Net award	$75.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.90

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Coromandel Beaches Rentals Limited, Jenny Stillborn $75.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. This included the owners J and P Stillborn. The tenants and owners had filed claims.
There were three applications filed, however the landlords, who were property managers for part of the tenancy, made an application but confirmed that they were not seeking any claims to be determined and used the application to upload their evidence in relation to the other claims made.
The bond has been disbursed following the end of the tenancy and no party sought name suppression.
The tenancy began on 26 October 2019 and ended when the landlords issued a 42-day notice on the grounds that the owners sought to move back into the premises.
The property had a post and wire fence that separated the premises from a back section that the landlords said was grazed by a local farmer. All parties agreed that this back section did not form part of the rented premises that the tenancy agreement related to.
The parties have settled claims for the tenants purchase of water and the tenants’ costs for spreading gravel on the driveway.
The tenancy ended on 24 June 2025 and the landlords gave the tenant a few extra days to remove the last of the large items due to one of the parties being unwell.
After the final inspection, conducted by the landlord, the tenant’s bond was refunded less the cost to repair a broken window. No other end of tenancy damages claims was made by the landlord, and they stated that everything else they classed as fair wear and tear.
The owners moved their belongings into the premises on 2 September and moved in themselves on 9 September 2025. Upon moving in the landlord’s discovered damages and other matters that they seek to be determined.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The owners have applied for compensation for damages and rent for a section used during the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant’s application
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant seeks and award exemplary damages and compensation for a loss suffered.
The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below .All breaches under this claim will be first determined and compensation awarded if proven. Then, one award for exemplary damages will be considered at the end of the claims.
The tenants also claim compensation for these breaches as they completed the work that they wanted done but was not remedied by the landlords. The tenants presented an invoice for maintenance items that they undertook, and they seek reimbursement of costs acknowledging that part payment was made by the owners for water and gravel.
The tenant claimed the landlord failed to. a) To fix the front door that was sticking when opened. b) Mow and maintain the back section. c) To dispose of old pipes that a plumber left behind after repairs. d) To clear the drains in the back section. Front door
The tenant let the landlord know about the front door issues in December 2019 the tenancy began in October of that year. The tenant did not want to keep waiting for it to be fixed so paid a builder in beer to fix it and seeks compensation. No receipt for payment was produced.
It was not disputed that the owners knew about the door problem. They said by the time they had organised someone the tenant had fixed it. I find that the owners failed to maintain the door.
Compensation for this is nominal because although the parties agreed that there were repairs required and the landlord has breached their obligations, the tenant has not been able to quantify their loss. Mowing back section and Digger hire back section drains.
These compensation claims are considered together because they both relate to the back section located over the fence from the premises. All parties agreed that it was not include in the tenancy.
The tenancy is defined by the tenancy agreement. What is included as the premises or residential premises is contained in that agreement. The back section is not included in the tenancy agreement, expressly or otherwise, therefore the use of that section is not part of the tenancy.
The landlord is not liable under the RTA to maintain this. This claim is dismissed. Disposal of old plumbing pipes
The plumber left old piping behind after attending to replacement of old pipes under the house. This was confirmed by the plumber in an email dated 8 October 2025.The tenant asked the landlord when they would be removed from the section in an email on 6 December 2024, but nothing happened. The tenant the removed and dumped them themselves. An invoice for dump costs was provided dated 31 March 2025.I find the landlord failed to maintain the section.
For compensation dump fees are awarded and nominal amount for the time as no other invoices were provided establishing the costs.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

An award of exemplary damages can be made if the landlord has breached specific sections of the RTA. A landlord or tenant may not apply for an award of exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. See section 109(2)RTA.
On this basis no exemplary damages are award for failure to maintain the door. as this occurred more than 12 months ago.
Failing to remove the plumbing pipes I find is a breach and find it just to award $60.00. 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 landlord knew these items had been left after maintenance and it was not attended to. It is not the tenant’s responsibility to remove these item.

Was the notice ending the Tenancy retaliatory?

On 9 May 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 24 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that she had discussions with the landlord reminding them that they had to be healthy homes complaint by 1 July 2025 and right after that she received a 42-day notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenant said that if they had given a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy it would have taken them past the 1 July 2025 compliance date and this is why they ended the tenancy with a 42-day notice. She believed it was retaliatory.
The landlord said that owners were retiring to the premises and are living there now. She received written request from the owners on 9 May 2025 confirming that the owners had decided to retire and move back to their property and required to move in on Tuesday 13 May 2025. A copy of the email was provided.
The 42-day notice was issued on 9 May 2025 and specified 24 June 2025 as the date that the tenancy was to end.
The owners explained that they believed they needed to move in and transfer as soon as possible to a new health care region in order to organise an operation. They landlord ended up having the surgery earlier due to a cancellation and this is why their move in date was delayed to 9 September 2025.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to establish the claim that the notice was retaliatory. A 42-day notice can be used if an owner requires the premises within 90 days after the termination date. The landlords moved in within that timeframe and provided an explanation for the delayed move in date.
I do not find that the tenant has provided evidence which established that the termination was retaliatory, and this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes standards, HHS?

All premises must comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025. This tenancy began in 2019 and ended on 24 June 2025 so the landlord was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards during the tenancy.
The premises were insulated as required when ceiling and underfloor insulation became compulsory in 2016 but this did not require the installation of a moisture barrier.
It was not disputed that there were no extractor fans. These were not legally required during the tenancy and no breach occurred.
These claims are dismissed. Owners’ claims

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 owners said that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlords moved in on 9 September 2025 and were not happy with the condition of the grounds. The photographs produced by the owners were not taken on the day that the tenancy ended.
Photos that were taken during the tenancy were provided and showed some food scraps, shells and some rubbish in a pile.
The tenant said it was not like that when the tenancy ended, and the owner’s photographs were taken awhile after they had left the premises .
The landlords agreed with the tenants and said the photographs did not show the condition of the grounds at the end of the tenancy.
A tenant must leave the premises at the end of a tenancy reasonably clean and tidy and did must remove all rubbish. The end of tenancy inspection photographs shows the condition of the premises on the date the tenancy ended and they do not support the owners claim.
The tenancy ended on 24 June and with it the tenants’ responsibilities. This claim is dismissed.

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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage occurred during the tenancy. a) Fire hearth. b) Window latch and wood damage c) Edge of door damage to the wood d) Fence e) Bedroom wall f)Toilet seat g) Hand basin. Bricks in the fire hearth, bedroom wall and toilet seat
The property managers conducted the final inspection and stated that they did not raise the bricks in the fire hearth, bedroom wall and toilet seat as damages that the tenant should be responsible for as they believed these areas reflected fair wear and tear.
The tenant said she was not asked about these at the end of the tenancy and did not know about the handbasin leaking as it did not leak while they were living there. Her bond was deducted the cost to fix a window and then returned to her and nothing else was claimed so she thought that everything was fine.
During the tenancy the landlords were employed as the agent of the owners and as such had the right to act as if they were the owner themselves and had the power to manage the tenancy and make claims on their behalf. No evidence was provided that the property managers were not employed on that basis. The owners are generally bound by the actions of their property managers through this agency relationship. S 2(1) of the RTA definition of landlord includes agent.
The agents performed the final inspection and decided in their experience what was wear and tear and what the tenant was required to pay for. If the owners are not happy with the actions of their agents, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes between owners and their agents.
The tenant dealt with the landlords as the agents, and I find that the owners are bound by these actions. These claims are dismissed. The fence
The tenants had asked the neighbouring farmer to fix the post and wire fence at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said that the farmer called the owners who told him not to do it.
The tenant provided a copy of a text from the farmers partner, confirming that the owner told him not to worry about it.
The owners confirmed this saying that that he asked him not to fix it because it was too wet to do the job properly.
The tenant tried to fix the fence, but the owner prevented this from happening. I do not find it appropriate to award compensation as the owner failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss by refusing the repair offer. See section 49 RTA . Edge of the door
The edge of a door was damaged where it closed it . The owner sought the cost to fix this. It was noted in the end of tenancy inspection but not raised as an issue with the tenants as the landlord considered it fair wear and tear. As discussed, the landlord was acting as the agent for the owners in the end of tenancy inspection. They found that this was fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Window latch
The window latch was damaged and the wood surrounding it during the tenancy. The tenants left a replacement latch, but the owners claim is that the wood needed to be replaced so that it can seal properly. The tenant was given a 14-day breach notice on 6 October 2022 for having a cord pass through this window. but nothing was remedied.
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.
I do not find the damage to the window intentional, but it was careless. The tenant was breached for leaving a cord out of the window but did not change this behaviour. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This amount for repairs is awarded as claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Is the tenant required to pay rent for use of back section?

The owners said that the tenant was never rented the back section and did not have the right to use it ,but they did. They sought compensation of $10.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
The back section was used by the tenant during the tenancy, but no 14-day notice was issued stating the tenant had breached the agreement. The owners and landlord knew that they parked a trailer and had a chicken coup there. The tenants also worked on the section and sought costs for this in their application previously discussed.
This raises a question of jurisdiction.s77(1)RTA jurisdiction.
S2(1) RTA definition of a tenancy is a right to occupy a premise and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction only to hear claims in relation to residential premises and claims between a landlord and tenant.
There was no amendment of the tenancy agreement to include the back section, and no evidence of an agreement that the tenant could use it. The use of the back section was not part of the tenancy.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim as it is not a dispute between a landlord and a tenant of a residential premises. This may be a dispute that would need to be dealt with in a different venue.
This claim is dismissed.
Both parties were somewhat successful with their claims therefore no filling fees are reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266661 — Property damage at 292 Kuaotunu Wharekaho Road, Kuaotunu, RD 2,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266661 — Property damage at 292 Kuaotunu Wharekaho Road, Kuaotunu, RD 2,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Was the notice ending the Tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes standards, HHS?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant required to pay rent for use of back section?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Was the notice ending the Tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes standards, HHS?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant required to pay rent for use of back section?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions