What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5285520 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, suppression of the Tenant, Landlord, and Landlord’s representative,

How much money was awarded in case 5285520?

Compensation: Oven: $371.43 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285520?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12717481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5285520 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, suppression of the Tenant, Landlord, and Landlord’s representative,

How much money was awarded in case 5285520?

Compensation: Oven: $371.43 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285520?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12717481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5285520 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5285520 — net $998.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement breaches	$250.00	tenancy agreement breaches
Exemplary damages: cleanliness	$350.00	cleanliness
Compensation: oven	$371.43	oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$998.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$998.43

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by legal counsel, [name suppressed].

The tenants seek a total of $9,750.00 compensation and exemplary damages for the following: (a) Landlord failure to provide certain information in the tenancy agreement. (b) Landlord failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

This tenancy commenced on 22 March 2025 and was due to run for a fixed term until 22 March 2026. However, the parties agreed the tenancy was to end early on 22 June 2025.

I note that the Healthy Homes compliance date for this tenancy is 1 July 2025.

At the outset, the tenants claimed there was a conflict of interest and bias as they believe the landlord and the landlord’s legal representative are related.

I am satisfied that the issues of bias and conflict of interest do not arise because the landlord’s counsel is free to represent a family member if they wish.

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement included all required information?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not ensure the tenancy agreement was fully completed as required by section 13A(1) and section 13A(1CA), of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is seeking maximum exemplary damages for each alleged breach.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See sections 13A(1AAA), 13A(1F)(a), and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenants say that the landlord did not complete the property inspection report, chattels list, information on smoke alarms, water meter reading, or provide a Healthy Homes statement. The tenants sent the tenancy agreement back to the landlord with sections marked “TBC,” but the landlord did not update.

The landlord does not dispute that some details were not completed but they rely on the fact that this is a near new build property with no compliance issues.

Firstly, landlords’ obligations under section 13A RTA do not extend to completing a property inspection report, nor providing an initial water meter reading. Similarly, although the premises must meet the requirements in regulations for smoke alarms, and there is no evidence that it does not, it does not amount to an unlawful act if this information is omitted from the tenancy agreement.

However, I do find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not completing the chattel list and by not providing a healthy homes statement.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.

It is settled law that only one award of exemplary damages may be awarded for the same event or set of circumstances.

After considering the above factors and in particular the high public interest in ensuring that landlords provide all fundamental elements of a tenancy agreement, and comply with their statutory requirements under the RTA, I find it just to award $250.00 exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants are seeking exemplary damages of $1,500.00 for lack of cleanliness, and $6000.00 compensation for the oven not working, and excessive moisture and lack of ventilation in the premises.

Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

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 tenants say that the premises was not provided in a reasonably clean state at the start of the tenancy, and rubbish was left outside. They say they contacted the landlord immediately, and because of the lack of cleaning they felt unable to stay over the first night. Despite the landlord coming the next day and cleaning, the tenants say the premises were still not in a reasonable state and they had to spend a full day cleaning to bring it up to a reasonable standard.

The tenants say that the oven was not working at the premises and despite repeated complaints, it was not fixed for 7 weeks and 3 days.

The tenants also raised concerns about moisture and ventilation at the premises. They say that they had to run the heat pump 24/7 to keep the premises cool and there was excessive condensation.

The landlord acknowledges that the previous tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonable state and there was a short turnaround time. They say they removed the rubbish and completed the cleaning the following day.

The landlord says they sent the oven manual to the tenants around a month into the tenancy. The landlord thought the oven was working as they did not hear from the tenants for another month. The landlord then asked their contractor to contact the tenant, but there were delays as the tenant changed his phone number.

After viewing the photographs and video provided by the tenants, I find that the premises was not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and some rubbish was left behind. However, the tenants have not provided any photographs to show the premises required additional cleaning after the landlord came back to clean. I am therefore unable to conclude that the premises remained in an unreasonable state. Weighing the factors in section 109 RTA, and particularly the inconvenience and annoyance caused to the tenants, I award $350.00 exemplary damages.

I also find that the landlord was in breach as the oven was not working for an extended period. I agree with the tenants that there should have been more urgency and more of a follow-up by the landlord. Although the tenant did change their phone number which may have contributed to delay, I also acknowledge that they could have been contacted by email at any time.

Weighing the substantive merits and justice, I award $371.43 compensation which equates to $50.00 per week for the loss of amenity.

I find no evidence that there is any issue with excessive moisture and lack of ventilation at the premises. Preventing the development of excessive moisture is a dual obligation of the tenant and landlord. Tenants must take preventative measures such as heating, ventilation (e.g. opening curtains and windows), using extractor fans, and wiping away daily condensation that arises from ordinary living. Landlords must provide a house that is not prone to excessive moisture or mould, fix any defect, and provide an approved form of heating in every living room.

This is a near new build property with extraction fans in the kitchen and bathrooms, all window openings are fully functioning, there is a heat pump in the living area, and there are no other related defects.

This part of the claim is dismissed.

As the tenants have partly succeeded with their claims, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties agree to name suppression for everyone.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5285520 — net $998.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement breaches	$250.00	tenancy agreement breaches
Exemplary damages: cleanliness	$350.00	cleanliness
Compensation: oven	$371.43	oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$998.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$998.43