What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287065 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 5287065?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide was…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $231.42 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,994.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $3,178.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287065?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287065 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 5287065?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide was…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $231.42 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,994.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $3,178.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287065?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287065 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287065 — net $10,240.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 August 2025	$8,994.30		Rent arrears to 15 August 2025
Water rates: and power	$3,178.02		Water rates: and power
Compensation: Failure to provide the property in a clean		$300.00	Failure to provide the property in a clean
Compensation: Failure to repair oven		$500.00	Failure to repair oven
Compensation: Failure to repair toilet		$231.42	Failure to repair toilet
Compensation: Failure to provide washing pipes		$100.00	Failure to provide washing pipes
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain- rubbish at		$800.00	Failure to maintain- rubbish at
Total award	$12,172.32	$1,931.42
Net award	$10,240.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,240.90

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287065 — net $10,240.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 August 2025	$8,994.30		Rent arrears to 15 August 2025
Water rates: and power	$3,178.02		Water rates: and power
Compensation: Failure to provide the property in a clean		$300.00	Failure to provide the property in a clean
Compensation: Failure to repair oven		$500.00	Failure to repair oven
Compensation: Failure to repair toilet		$231.42	Failure to repair toilet
Compensation: Failure to provide washing pipes		$100.00	Failure to provide washing pipes
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain- rubbish at		$800.00	Failure to maintain- rubbish at
Total award	$12,172.32	$1,931.42
Net award	$10,240.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,240.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $10,240.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 19 August 2025. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended for the landlord.
The tenancy began on the 1 November 2023 and ended on the 22 April 2025.
At the hearing [The landlord’s representative 1], for [The property management company] confirmed that he had not been to the property since before this tenancy started. He said that the house is one of four in a block that he is the landlord for. [The landlord’s representative 1] said that at the beginning of the tenancy he employed [letting agent] as a letting agent to show potential tenants through the property and that she also read the power and water meters each month.
The landlord did not conduct a full pre-tenancy inspection before the property began. Therefore, there are no photographs or a report describing the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.
After the previous tenants had left the landlord says that they employed cleaners to clean the inside of the property.
Near the end of the tenancy [The landlord’s representative 1] employed [The landlord’s representative 2] to read the meters. Whilst [The landlord’s representative 2] says that she was not engaged as a property manager, it is clear from the text communications provided by both parties to the tribunal, that at times that she acted as the landlord’s agent in liaising with the tenants.
Throughout the tenancy the parties used the My Rent software system, this system allows the landlord and the tenant to view all the tenancy documents, including rent ledgers. The system also allows electronic signing of documents.
The landlord filed their claims before the tenancy ended. The landlord confirmed at hearing that the only claims it is seeking are rent arrears and utility (power and water) arrears.
The tenant confirmed that their claims are: a. That the landlord rented the property to them without cleaning, that the previous tenants rubbish was left there, and it took weeks for some of the rubbish to be removed, and that other items stayed at the premises during the tenancy. b. That the property was infested with mice at the beginning of the tenancy and continued to have a rodent problem throughout the tenancy. c. That the oven was not working from the beginning of the tenancy, it could not be used for cooking by way of baking or the stove top. d. That the toilet cistern was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy and was not fixed for a considerable time. e. That the outlet pipe of the washing machine, had been disconnected and that the tenant had to source her own pipe to use her washing machine. f. That there was a problem with mould in the bathroom and on the walls. The tenants claim that the walls could not be properly cleaned of the mould because of the type of surface. g. That the bond was not lodged. h. That the landlord continued to charge for rent even after the tenancy ended. i. That there was no clear access to the front door. Bond, rent arrears and utilities.
The tenants say that at the beginning of the tenancy they paid a bond of $2160 to the landlord. The landlord accepts that the bond was paid but says that because the tenant never signed the My Rent bond lodgement, the bond was never sent to the Bond Centre.
In 2024 the tenants were in rent arrears and the landlord used the bond, with the tenants agreement to pay for the arrears. Even after the bond was used to pay for the arrears the tenants were still in rent arrears and the landlord made a claim for the rent arrears to the Tribunal ([redacted]).
The parties reached agreement at mediation. A sealed mediated order was dated 30 August 2024. That order provided: As at Friday, 6 September 2024, the total debt is $3960.00, being $1800.00 for rent arrears and $2160.00 for the bond. 2) [The tenant/s] agrees to make payments to [the landlord/s] to pay off the rent arrears and the bond as follows: Weekly payments of $690.00, being $540.00 for current rent and an extra $150.00 for rent arrears and the bond. These payments will begin on Saturday, 7 September 2024 and will continue to be paid weekly each Saturday until the rent arrears and the bond are paid in full. 3) All money paid will go firstly to current rent, secondly to rent arrears, then to the bond.
The landlord provided a rent summary of the rent owing at the date of the hearing to the Tribunal, that rent summary shows that the bond paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy was used to pay for rent and rent arrears. As the tenants never caught up on the rent order of the 31 August 2024, they never reinstated the bond as per the mediated order.
The landlord accepts that the bond should have been lodged at the beginning of the tenancy and says that he missed doing so simply because this was the first bond he had managed using the My Rent software and he had not realised that the bond had not gone to the Bond Centre. In effect he says that this was an oversight caused by the change in administration systems.
Whilst I am satisfied that there was a technical breach of s19(2) RTA by the landlord failing to deposit the Bond to the Bond Centre, I do not consider that any compensation or exemplary damages should be paid for this breach for the following reasons: a. I do not consider that the landlord acted with intention. This was not a case where the landlord intended to hold back the tenant’s money or failed to have systems in place. I consider that this was a genuine oversight caused by new systems being implemented and the tenants failing to sign the bond lodgement form. b. The bond was used for the tenants’ benefit to pay their rent arrears and the tenants agreed to this. c. The tenants did not raise the failure to lodge the bond in the first Tribunal proceedings. That claim should have been properly brought in the first tenancy proceedings.
The landlord provided me with the rent ledger showing the amount owing. The landlord seeks rent only up to the termination date of 20 April 2025 and no rent has been charged after that date. One of the tenants has been paying money off the debt since leaving the tenancy and the amount owed has reduced to $8994.30. That amount is awarded.
The tenants were required to pay for power and water that they used. The landlord said that there was a check meter for the power and the water on site and his agent would read the meters on or around the first of each month and calculate the use and bill the tenants. The landlord accepted that in early 2024 there was a period of three months when the meters were not checked and therefore invoices had not been generated. However, it is clear that throughout the whole tenancy the tenants had only paid $300.00 towards the power and the water.
The landlord provided photographs of the meters, and the invoices. I am satisfied that the tenants are liable for the water and power of $3178.02 that has been calculated. It is for power and water that they have exclusively used. Did the landlord rent the property to the tenants in an unclean condition and fail to remove rubbish?
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord had an obligation to provide the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and free of the rubbish. 1 1 Section 45(1)(a) RTA.
The tenants say that when they viewed the property before signing the tenancy agreement there was a lot of belongings on both the deck and under the house (the house is raised with a concrete pad under the house). The tenants say that [letting agent] told them the rubbish would be removed before they moved in. When they moved in and complained about it, they were told that the landlord would get a skip bin in. The landlord got a skip bin but placed it at another house, he expected the tenants to take the items left behind to the skip bin to dispose of them. The tenants did do some of this but could not move some of the items as they were too large or too smelly. They say they informed the landlord of this.
The tenants say that items such fridges, ovens and general rubbish were never taken away during the tenancy by the landlord. The tenants say that the rubbish left at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy included food scraps and dirty diapers.
The tenants also say that because of the condition of the property there was a significant rodent problem at the property, they provided pictures showing dead mice, chewed carpet and rodent droppings in the kitchen cupboards.
The landlord says that after the previous tenants left in August 2023, he had the interior of the house cleaned, and the cleaner was supposed to remove all rubbish. The landlord accepts that there was an old fridge and oven left at the property and a few other items but says that this was less than one cubic metre, so they organised the Council to do an inorganic collection. The landlord says that the Council failed to do the collection, and this was the reason that the rubbish got left behind. The tenant says that she was told to bring the rubbish to the curb for collection, however when she did that people would just turn up and add their rubbish to the collection site, and she would have to tell them to go away.
Both parties accept that the area is known for having rodent issues. This makes it even more necessary to ensure that rubbish is removed in a timely fashion.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants provided photographs which showed fridges (some containing food) left at the property, rubbish in rubbish bags left at the property and other items.
I am satisfied that the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy caused considerable inconvenience and annoyance to the tenants, they complained about it frequently. I am also satisfied that it was the cause or a contributing cause to the rodent problem at the property.
The landlord accused the tenants of adding to the pile of rubbish so that it was larger at the end of the tenancy, and that the photographs that the tenants’ produced in evidence to the Tribunal shows rubbish that belongs to the tenants. The tenants dispute this but accept that they had to move the rubbish from time to time to clear a space to put their belongings in the downstairs area. They also accept that the mattress put there was theirs.
I am also satisfied from the photographs that were produced (and confirmation of dates that the photographs were taken) that there was a significant amount of rubbish at the property from the previous tenants which should have been removed before this tenancy began and was not.
As the tenant’s did not remove the rubbish themselves at any cost, I do not award any compensatory damages, but I award the tenants $300 as nominal damages for failing to provide the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, this amount takes into account the time, inconvenience and annoyance experienced by the tenants as a result of the landlord’s failure. It also takes into account the rodent problem, which I consider was exacerbated by the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.
I have also awarded exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to remove the rubbish which I also consider a breach of s45(1)(b)RTA failure to provide the property and maintain the property in a reasonable condition. discussed further down in this decision.
The landlord says it brought rat bait but the tenant did not use it. The tenants say that the bait provided (on only one occasion) was potentially poisonous to their dogs (which the landlord allowed them to have) so they could not use it. The tenants say that they used other pest control methods.
I also note that whilst the landlord may have thought that they had made arrangements with Council to remove the rubbish, that is not an excuse, it is the landlord’s responsibility to remove the rubbish, if the Council was not collecting it, then the landlord should have paid to have the rubbish removed themselves. The oven.
It is accepted that from the 1 November of the tenancy until the 15 January January the oven was not working. It could neither bake or cook on the elements.
The oven had to be replaced.
The tenants provided text messages which showed that they notified the landlord of the problem as soon as it was discovered. The landlord promised them a new oven, but they did not get one until January 2024. The tenants says that they had to purchase a cooktop and used gas cannisters at a cost of $42 per week to cook, especially over the Christmas period.
The tenants sent this message to the landlord on the 16 November 2023;
I am satisfied that the landlord took too long to repair the oven, this was a breach of both s45(1)(b) RTA and regulation7(2)(b) Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (meaning that it was a breach of s45(1)(c)RTA).
I award the tenants the sum of $500 in compensation for this breach, this includes the costs of gas cannisters for the period 16 November to 15 January 2024, and the inconvenience and lack of amenity of having to limit their cooking to stove top cooking, especially over the Christmas period. The toilet.
At the beginning of the tenancy the toilet cistern was in a poor condition having been allegedly damaged by the previous tenants. As the landlord did not conduct a pre tenancy inspection he may not have been aware of the condition of the cistern. On the 12 January 2024 the toilet broke. The water kept on continually running. The tenants immediately let the landlord know. The landlord said that he would investigate getting a new toilet. The tenants turned off the water as they were concerned about their water bill. As a result, they had to manually fill the cistern and manually flush the toilet. On the 13 January, the tenants, having become frustrated with the number of items that were failing around the property, were concerned that the landlord would delay having the toilet fixed as well, so they sent a text to the landlord that said:
The landlord then had the toilet fixed on the 15 January.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not repair the toilet in a reasonable time. What is reasonable is contextual and will depend on the item and type of repair needed. I consider that a repair of the only toilet in a tenancy needs to be afforded urgency. I consider 3 days too long to expect the tenant to wait for a toilet repair. The repair should have happened immediately. Tenants should not be in a situation where they are left without an operable toilet or one that they have fill up with water or allow water to continually run.
Having a flushing toilet is a basic requirement of a tenancy. Especially at this in the middle of summer, when it is hot and this can lead to smells and attraction of flies etc.
I consider that the breach to be of such significance that the tenants should not have to pay rent for the 3 days it was broken and therefore award the tenants $231.42 for this breach. The outlet pipe for the washing machine.
At the beginning of the tenancy there was no outlet pipe for the washing machine. The tenants’ text messages say that they noticed this on the 28 November. The landlord says he fixed the problem immediately 28 November, but the tenants say it was the 1 December. The tenants say that the problem is shows another issue with the property that they had to deal with at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to provide the tenant with washing machine pipes in reasonable condition.
I award $100 in nominal damages for this breach, which takes into account that the tenant had to try and fix the problem herself, buying material to do so, and the inconvenience of having no washing machine pipes. The stairs
The tenants say that the stairs were covered in dirt and slippery, the tenants had to waterblast the stairs.
The tenants provided photographs of the stairs.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached their obligations in respect of the stairs, whilst the water blasting certainly improved the look of the stairs, I could not tell from the photographs if they were dirty from use or weathering. I do not consider that a landlord has to water blast a wooden stair structure before a tenancy when it is simply discoloured from age or weathering. Given that I could not ascertain if the stairs were weathered or dirty from the photographs provided, and given that the landlord was not told before the water blasting that the stairs were slippery or dirty, then I do not consider that the landlord should be liable for this claim. Mould on the bathroom wall surfaces.
The tenant complained that mould grew on the bathroom surfaces and was difficult to clean off because of the type of surface.
The landlord accepted that the surfaces made cleaning more difficult than usual but it was still able to wiped down The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they cleaned the property and were able to wipe away dirt and any mould buildup.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant was unable to clean off any dirt or mould on the property. Further there was insufficient evidence to allow me to make any finding on the cause of the mould, such as whether it was a defect, lack of ventilation or from natural causes, such as the positioning of the bathroom.
The tenants claim for mould being on the surfaces is not proven. Exemplary damages.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and that the landlord failed to provide working washing machine pipes and failed to provide and maintain the oven. I am also satisfied that the landlord failed to fix the toilet in a reasonable timeframe.
However, I cannot make any award of exemplary damages for the failure to provide working washing machine pipes, the failure to provide a working oven, the cleanliness when the tenant took over and the failure to fix the toilet in a timely manner as those breaches all occurred and were remedied more than 12 months before the tenants filed this claim. The tenants are out of time for seeking an award of exemplary damages. 2
I can award exemplary damages however for the landlord’s continuing breach to failure to remove rubbish at the property, 3 which I consider a failure to maintain the property in a reasonable condition. The tenants did not have full use of the storage area downstairs; it attracted rodents at the property to the property, it look unsightly, and the tenants say it also smelled. The tenants constantly told the landlord about this problem. The landlord’s agents who visited the property could see the problem and did not deal with it.
I award $800.00 in exemplary damages for this breach, in coming to this amount I have taken into account the ongoing stress inconvenience, annoyance lack of amenity (space) that the tenants were paying rent for, the smell, and that it brought down the general appearance and condition of the property. The landlord should have dealt with this problem early in the tenancy and not left it for the Council or tenants to deal with. I consider that the landlord acted with intention, they were told that this was a problem from the beginning of the tenancy and did very little to deal with it. The provision of the skip bin was too far away and left it to the tenants to remove the rubbish, but it was not their problem. 2 S109(2)(b) RTA 3 Section 45(1A) RTA for a breach of s45(1)(b).
I consider that it is in the public interest to award this amount. When there is an ongoing beach of a failure to remove rubbish including food waste from a premises by a landlord, there is a public health aspect and the amount awarded takes this into account. Name suppression and filing fee.
Both parties asked for name suppression. The landlord has been successful in proving his claims for rent and water. He is to be granted name suppression. The tenants have also been mainly successful in proving the breaches and they are granted name suppression as well.
As both parties have been successful in their claims, I do not award either the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287065 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287065 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions