What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288141 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $536.10 from

How much money was awarded in case 5288141?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $61.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Power Reimbursement: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288141?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379750-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288141 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $536.10 from

How much money was awarded in case 5288141?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $61.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Power Reimbursement: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288141?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379750-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Lomond Avenue, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288141 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288141 — net $536.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and oven	$400.00	Cleaning: and oven
Rubbish removal	$5.10	Rubbish removal
Power reimbursement	$50.00	Power reimbursement
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Light bulbs	$20.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Light bulbs
Cleaning: curtains	$61.00	Cleaning: curtains
Net award	$536.10
Bond	$1,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$536.10

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288141 — net $536.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and oven	$400.00	Cleaning: and oven
Rubbish removal	$5.10	Rubbish removal
Power reimbursement	$50.00	Power reimbursement
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Light bulbs	$20.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Light bulbs
Cleaning: curtains	$61.00	Cleaning: curtains
Net award	$536.10
Bond	$1,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$536.10

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $536.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 (3349474016) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]: $536.10 [The tenant/s]: $1,163.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The premises were purchased by the landlord with this tenancy in place.
The premises are a 3-bedroom house with single bathroom, dining and living area. During the tenancy the landlord put in a new bathroom fan and heating unit, a second bathroom fan, a driveway was installed and a waste pipe was repaired which was then covered by a concrete pad.
The tenant claimed retaliatory notice, exemplary damages compensation and refund of the bond.
The landlord filed a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond.
Both parties claimed reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

A valid notice terminating the tenancy was issued on 29 May 2025 ending the tenancy on 1 September 2025.The landlord said that they wished to give the tenant as much time as possible to find a new property. 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.
On 16 June 2025 the tenant gave the landlord a 21 days’ notice ending the tenancy on the earlier date of 8 July 2025.They believed that because of the ongoing problems with the bathroom the premises were unable to be lived in.
The landlord accepted this notice and replied with end of tenancy expectations as to the condition of the premises and services.
There was no application by the tenant to have the notice set aside as the tenancy has ended. A claim for exemplary damages was made based on the ongoing consequences of the termination.
It is the tenant’s position that the landlord ended the tenancy because of the tenant raising many maintenance issues with the bathroom condensation and concerns about the growth of mould.
The problems with the bathroom are not disputed.
It is the landlords claim that when a fan and heat lamp were added to the bathroom the tenant failed to follow the directions for their use. A further ‘inline fan’ was installed to stop the condensation and mould growth issues.
The problems persisted with the tenants sometimes saying that it was working fine and other times that it was not. In June 2025 after following up inspections by electricians the landlord was told that the electricians were concerned that the tenant was not using the system correctly due to cost.
The tenant said that it was unreasonable to have to run the fan during and after they used the shower as they had to go to work. They did not have to do this with the previous fan, and it costs more to run for this extra time.
The landlord said ultimately the situation did not improve and the condition of the bathroom deteriorated. The tenancy was ended because substantial works were needed to get to the cause of the issues and repair the bathroom. The bathroom has been gutted and the ceiling replaced since the tenancy ended. This could not be done while the tenant was there.
The tenant said the issue was out of their control as it started when the new fan was installed.
The issue here is whether the notice to end the tenancy was due to the tenant making a complaint about the landlords’ obligations or requesting repairs and maintenance. It is the tenant’s obligation to prove on the balance of probabilities that these are the reasons for the termination.
The landlord provided comprehensive evidence about attending to the issues as raised by the tenant. Copies of invoices and follow ups were provided where it was confirmed that the ventilation system was working properly.
The landlord confirmed that despite trying everything in their power to fix the issue, and using reputable work people, the bathroom continued to deteriorate. They became concerned for the tenant’s wellbeing believing that they had no other option and as a last resort ended the tenancy to completely repair the bathroom.
I find that the notice to end the tenancy was in response to the increasing damage and deterioration of the bathroom and based on a genuine reason , not the tenant’s complaint and requests. The landlord was diligent in their response to the problems raised with the only delays being due to the tenant’s unavailability.
I do not find that the landlord committed an unlawful act. This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises.
[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. Bathroom.
The tenants said that after the fans were upgraded in the bathroom the condensation and mould became a problem. This was not disputed.
The tenant was concerned that she was required to run the fan during and after the shower had been used. This was time consuming and there was a cost attached to this.
The landlord agreed that they had installed an additional inline extractor fan in the bathroom after the tenants’ raised concerns about the condensation issues to boost extraction. This was addition to the 3 in 1 heat lamp and fan installed and that the landlord said was compliant.
A bathroom must have a fan and ducting with a minimum diameter of 120mm, or an exhaust capacity of at least 25 litres per second . The landlord’s evidence is that the fan airflow was < 50 litres and inline fan was 150mm.
It was not disputed that after the installation of the new bathroom fan and heat lamp the conditions in the bathroom deteriorated.
There were different suggestions about what caused the increased mould and moisture in the bathroom from the parties. This claim turns on whether the landlord fulfilled their obligations to provide and maintain the premises.
The landlord sent many repair people to the premises to attend to this issue and responded to all the tenants’ requests.
The landlord claimed that it was the tenant’s responsibility to run the new fan during and after the use of the shower to reduce condensation build up. The landlord provided a video of tests carried out running the shower, then the fan for the recommended times resulting in very little condensation. The bathroom has been rebuilt since the end of the tenancy.
The extraction system installed met the requirements of the Healthy Homes Regulations and possibly exceeded them.
I find that the landlord has met their obligation as required by the RTA. Even if I did find a breach occurred, for an award of exemplary damages to be made I needed to be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally and I do not.
This claim is dismissed. Oven elements
The tenant said the large oven element would heat up and then cool down. They said this happened 4-5 times and they told the landlord.
The landlord said they were informed that this occurred twice and provided copies of invoices from Lazer electrical,13/2/22025, 26/2/2025 and Gofox Electrical 30/6/25 for repairs to connections. They said that they believed it was fixed after this and had not been told otherwise.
The tenant was unable to establish that they had told the landlord that the problem persisted. This claim is dismissed. Driveway
The landlord installed a driveway during the tenancy because the tenant said the section was becoming muddy and unsafe. The tenant said it was shallow with loose uneven stones that became slippery and poorly finished. One truck had a puncture due to the sharp wood that had come away from the boxing.
The landlord had the driveway reassessed, fixed and the wood boxing remedied contacting the tenant to say works were finished on 31 October 2024.There was no reply to this.
The tenant said she felt a burden to the landlord and decided to deal with the problems. It was explained that the landlord’s duty to maintain is balance with the tenants duty to inform them of any repairs required. See section 40(1)(d)RTA. This claim is dismissed as there were no issues for the landlord to address.
This claim is dismissed. Parking changes.
The tenant usually parked on the lawn and accessed the backdoor to the premises because she found it easier and safer for elderly relatives. When a burst pipe was replaced, a concrete slab was laid over this area and the tenant was told not to drive over it therefore preventing her from parking in the usual spot.
The tenant was also concerned with the cut in the concrete slab that was left.
The landlord said that the concrete was to protect the pipe as it was not able to be replaced further underground due to age of the plumbing system.
I do not find that this was a failure to maintain the premises. The landlord said there was enough room for off street parking for 3 cars.
The change in parking and use by the tenant was not a maintenance issue. This claim is dismissed.

Were there any health consequences from the tenancy?

It was not established that there were any health issues resulting from the actions of the landlord and this is dismissed. Compensation for end of tenancy costs
The tenant sought the costs on the grounds of financial hardship to cover the bond for her new tenancy of $2750.00 and moving costs.
The bond for the current premises would have been frozen when the tenant filed her application to the Tribunal. The tenant gave notice to the landlord to end the tenancy choosing to move earlier that the 90 days’ notice issued and applied to the Tribunal the same day.
It was not established that the premises were ended in a retaliatory way. There were no invoices or other evidence to support the claim for moving costs. No grounds were raise supporting a claim for the landlord to pay for the new bond for the next tenancy. These claims are dismissed. Landlords 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,RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant organised for their own cleaner, the landlord was not happy with the standard and paid for another cleaner including the oven. Photographs were provided of the oven and floors and bathroom that required further cleaning.
The landlord provided evidence of a small amount of rubbish collected from the grounds, inside and shed. The cost of the rubbish bag is reimbursed.
The costs to clean the curtains is awarded as the tenants said that they were unmarked and then became dirty and mouldy .They tried to clean them but were not successful.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace light bulbs for the bathroom and range hood that the tenant did not know as not working.
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: Window crack in bedroom by driveway.
The landlord provided a photo after the hearing of the pre-tenancy state of the window. The tenant disputed that this was the same window. During the tenancy the landlord had the windows repaired and said they would have repaired this if it had been there then.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage occurred to this window during the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Bathroom ceiling damages caused by condensation and mould.
I have found that the landlord installed ventilation to the bathroom that complies with the RTA requirements. The tenants claimed that the landlords’ tests do not reflect real life use of the bathroom and that they ran the fan and opened the window.
There is no dispute that the bathroom condition of the bathroom got worse after the new ventilation system was installed and it was more than fair wear and tear, so did the tenant carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage?
Prior to the install there were no issues with the bathroom, the tenants informed the landlord regularly about the issues and in the end left the premises because of the increasing damage and their perceived lack of repair and solution.
It was not established how the bathroom came to deteriorate, suggestions have been made but it has not been established on the balance of probabilities that the tenants acted carelessly or intentionally resulting in damage.
This claim is dismissed. Bathroom windowsill damage.
The windowsill is made of wood and forms part of the shower wall where it would get water constantly. It is not reasonable to require tenant to wipe down and dry after every use, an obligation greater that RTA requires. This claim is dismissed. Lino
The claim for Lino repair is dismissed as the landlord was unable to provided pre-tenancy evidence of the floor unmarked and that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Power reimbursement to dry carpet
The landlord claimed that the carpet was left sodden by tenant’s cleaner and required the heat pump to be left on to dry it out from 9 July to 19 July 2025.
The landlord provided a picture of a wet sock and prints. The tenant provided a response from the cleaner that she used that ‘the carpets were professionally cleaned and left in a clean and presentable condition, no areas were left wet or untreated’.
I award $50.00 toward the costs claimed for drying The landlord’s evidence provided photographs taken on 19 July where the carpet was still wet after the end of tenancy clean on 8 July 2025.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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
Because neither party has wholly succeeded with the claim the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288141 — Cleanliness at 29 Lomond Avenue, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288141 — Cleanliness at 29 Lomond Avenue, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Were there any health consequences from the tenancy?

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

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Were there any health consequences from the tenancy?

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