What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297639 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 5297639?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,723.80 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement For Water Costs: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297639?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13507410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297639 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 5297639?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,723.80 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement For Water Costs: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297639?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13507410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297639 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297639 — net $4,873.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$6,723.80		Repairs
Reimbursement for water costs		$100.00	Reimbursement for water costs
Total award	$7,173.80	$100.00
Net award	$4,873.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,873.80

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297639 — net $4,873.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$6,723.80		Repairs
Reimbursement for water costs		$100.00	Reimbursement for water costs
Total award	$7,173.80	$100.00
Net award	$4,873.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,873.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
Danielle Katheen Rewi must pay [The landlord/s] $4,873.80 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The periodic tenancy commenced on 25 April 2020 and ended on 21 June 2025.
Following the end of the tenancy disputes have arisen between the parties and subsequently the tenant has applied for a refund of bond as well as seeking compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches.
The landlords have made a cross application seeking compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided significant amounts of documentation in support of their claims, and I confirm that I have reviewed and considered this even if there is no direct reference. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. Landlords’ claims
Moving now to consider the claims by both parties. The landlords claim for: a. Cleaning throughout the property. b. Replacement toilet seat and laundry sink. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014). c. Damages at the property including: i. Drawings on the entranceway walls and door. ii. Coat hook ripped from the wall inside the entranceway cupboard. iii. Drawings on the internal garage door (both sides). iv. Blue paint on the garage floor. v. Wall painted poorly in the downstairs bedrooms. vi. Second downstairs bedroom has drawings on the painted wall. vii. Sticky residue in downstairs common area. viii. Drawings on walls in second lounge area and upstairs bedroom. ix. Red paint marks on bathroom wall.
The landlords have provided photographs and evidence of costings in support of the 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) RTA.
The landlords say that the property was left extremely dirty and appeared to have only had a quick vacuum and light wipe of surfaces. The landlords have provided photographs of specific areas that required additional cleaning, including to cupboards, walls, around windows, sink, oven, toilet and drawers.
The landlords have provided an invoice for the additional cleaning of $600.00. The invoice details that there was a full clean of the kitchen, vacuuming, washing of floors and walls, window cleaning, bathroom and laundry cleaning and notes that dirty nappy were left in the home.
The tenant claims that she did leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and has provided photographs. She also disputes any comments around any nappies left at the property.
On review of the evidence, although it is clear that the tenant did clean the property, I consider that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and some further cleaning was required to reach the standard set in the RTA.
I have reduced the amount sought, to reflect the additional cleaning that appears to have been required, rather than the full deep clean that was carried out.
The amount ordered is 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 4
The landlords claim for both intentional and careless damage, including: a. Paint on the garage floor. b. Drawings on entranceway walls and doors and a coat hook ripped from the wall inside the entrance cupboard. c. Poorly painted downstairs bedroom. 4 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. d. Drawings on second downstairs bedroom, and a sticky residue across the walls. e. Drawings on walls in second lounge area. f. Scratches to the outdoor Kwila decking.
The invoice for the repairs totals $6,723.80 and notes: Entrance way felt pens, full repaint of walls required, floor to garage with felt pen, coat hooks ripped out of gib board, plaster repair, lounge walls and marks and damage to walls, paint marks on stainless steel bench top (solvent to remove), plastic drawer front broken off, wall opposite staircase sticky, cedar garage door has horizontal marking, scratching from dog on the Kwila deck.
The landlords also claim for a loss of rent due to the time it took to fix the damages, cleaning, plastering and painting and they claim four weeks at $640 per week (totalling $2,600.00).
The tenant agrees that there was some paint on the garage floor and accepts that her children did draw on the walls but otherwise disputes the claims and submits that these claims should be considered against the landlord’s breaches.
The photographs clearly show drawings on the walls, blue paint on the garage floor, painting on the downstairs bedroom wall (and in other locations) to a poor standard. The drawings on the walls are in several locations and so both this and the intentional painting by the tenant must be considered intentional. The damage to the Kwila decking was raised at a routine inspection, with photographs included, and in that inspection, it was recorded that the tenant had agreed to be responsible for damage caused by the dog.
On review of all evidence, the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls, garage floor, paint marks throughout, damage to the Kwila decking. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlords also claim for a replacement toilet seat ($79.82) and a replacement laundry sink ($527.00). Although I have evidence of the condition of these two items at the end of the tenancy, I do not have any evidence (for example photographs) of their condition at the commencement of the tenancy, so I cannot be sure enough that this damage occurred during the tenancy. These claims are therefore dismissed.
In respect of the claim for lost rent, it is reasonable that at the end of each tenancy, it will be unable to be tenanted due to regular maintenance requirements. This was a five-year tenancy, and therefore it is reasonable that additional time will be required to carry out works. I do not know whether other maintenance works was done during the time repairs works were done, or when a new tenant was found, whether the works could have been completed faster and have only been provided with a weekly rental appraisal. I do not consider in the circumstances that it is reasonable for this amount to be awarded and the claim for lost rent is dismissed. Exemplary damages for breaches of the tenancy agreement
The landlords claim exemplary damages of $2,00.00 for using the property to run and promote a business without consent. They say that the tenant consistently used videos and social media posts of the property as part of this, in breach of the tenancy agreement (that states the tenancy requires permission to operate a business from the tenancy address).
Exemplary damages are only available in circumstances specified within the RTA, where certain acts are considered unlawful, and exemplary damages are available. Although this may have been a breach of the tenancy agreement, there are no exemplary damages available, and this claim is therefore dismissed.
The landlords also claim that the tenant had more people living at the property than approved. However, I note that the property inspection report states: Tenant has also moved her partner in without notifying us. We have agreed he can stay. Therefore, I don’t consider that exemplary damages are available for this breach, when there had essentially been a variation to the tenancy agreement. This claim is dismissed.
The landlords also claim that the tenant had pets without consent. However, in a similar way, the same property inspection report records the landlords agreed the dog could stay provided the tenant was responsible for any damage. Accordingly, any breach was remedied by consent, and this claim is dismissed.
The landlords claim that the loft was used despite it being unsafe to do so and seeks exemplary damages. Again, there is no specific category of exemplary damages for this breach. I also consider that I have inadequate evidence of this alleged breach. Although I accept residing in this area was unsafe, it was an issue for a 14-day notice to remedy, rather than an application for exemplary damages once the tenancy has ended.
The landlords’ claims for exemplary damages are dismissed. Tenant’s claims
The tenant claims for compensation and exemplary damages due to alleged failures to maintain and healthy home breaches.
These claims specifically related to: a. A bathroom leak and its impact on an adjoining bedroom. b. A roof leak above the fireplace, causing mould. c. A delayed water credit and unpaid reimbursement. d. Unreturned rent paid in advance. e. Electrical issues at the property f. Lack of healthy homes compliance, healthy homes breaches and failure to provide a healthy homes compliance statement (including in relation to insulation). g. Turning up at the property without notice.
The tenant has provided a compensation schedule, where each issue has been detailed, with the impact recorded and the compensation sort.
The tenant has also raised issues alleging a pattern of deflection and poor communication by the landlords, power imbalance and a resultant emotional toll. Failure to maintain and healthy homes breaches
Danielle Katheen Rewi claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes Requirements (HHS) in different respects.
For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 5
Most of the requirements came into place from 1 July 2025, after this tenancy had ended. The only requirement during the tenancy was insulation, and on review of all evidence I consider that I have inadequate evidence that the property did not comply with insulation requirements.
This claim is dismissed. Bathroom leak
The tenant says that over the course of the tenancy, she raised repeated concerns about a persistent bathroom leak. She says that despite several reseals by the landlords, the leak was never professionally repaired and as a result, moisture spread into the adjacent wall and carpet, causing black mould and severe rot affecting the room next door where the tenant’s son resided.
The tenant says her son was unable to continue sleeping in the adjacent room, and that she advised the landlords of the same. The tenant submits that it caused inflammation and health issues, and that they were no longer able to use the room, reducing the three-bedroom home to a two-bedroom home. Medical evidence has been provided by the tenant describing her son’s medical condition(s) in detail. 5 Residential Tenancies Act s45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
The tenant claims $2,000.00 for the loss of the use of this room plus a further $2,000.00 for the health impacts and $500.00 for the lack of bathroom fan and rotten bathroom and walls.
The landlords say that there was a leak that was fixed by one of the landlords. They say the tenant did not raise any issues regarding this when routine inspections were carried out, and that they were never told that the tenant’s son had to relocate. They say that when they carried out inspections, the bedroom continued to be set up as a bedroom and there was no requirement for the leak to be fixed by a professional.
In addition, they dispute any claims that the issue had any medical impacts. They submit that there is no evidence provided that states that her son’s condition was caused by mould or exposure to dampness. They also refer to several documents that show the tenant enjoyed living there and only raised issues after the tenant had vacated.
I note that the tenant also claims that there were no extractor fans, heating, or insulation improvements made throughout the five-year tenancy. Some photographs have been provided, including a book from the loft (showing some black mould), some damaged flooring and timber in the bathroom, and some peeling and flaking of paint in the corner of a wall in a bedroom.
On review of all evidence provided, I consider that I have insufficient evidence of any major failings by the landlords in respect of this claim. The landlords appear to have acted promptly, and the evidence does not show any significant or major issues as indicated by the tenant. The medical evidence does not attribute medical issues to mould or living conditions and I have no evidence of unanswered repair or damage requests made by the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Unsafe electrical conditions
During the tenancy, the tenant says she experienced multiple power outages, three of which lasted several days. The tenant says that these were not due to external faults, but internal issues. On one particular instance, Powerco visited the property and in order to restore power, they had to reroute wiring from the hot water cylinder until a qualified electrician could attend. Although the landlord eventually sent an electrician to carry out repairs, they were without power for three days.
The tenant says she had to discard spoiled food and use a camping cooker to heat baby bottles.
The landlords say that they only have evidence of one power outage, which was part of a planned power outage. They say they were not told that the tenant was without power for three days, but as soon as they were advised of an issue, they sent an electrician on a Saturday to repair the issue (which came with an additional cost). They say they are not responsible for planned outages, and that electrical faults can occur as a regular part of owning a home.
On review of the evidence, and although I’m sure it was inconvenient for the tenant, I do not consider that the tenant has suffered any loss because of any failure by the landlords, and this claim is dismissed. The landlords acted as soon as they were aware and cannot be held responsible for any losses they were not advised of or given the opportunity to remedy.
The tenant also says that a garage power socket shocked the tenant leaving a visible burn mark on the wall. She says this was reported to the landlords, but no professional safety checks or repair were ever carried out.
The landlords dispute this and say that something used in the socket must have caused the burn mark damage, and that they were never notified of it.
I have inadequate information regarding this issue, and cannot be satisfied again of any landlord failure, and therefore this claim is dismissed.
In a separate incident, the tenant says that the kitchen hob (cooktop) stopped working and was unable to be used for three weeks. The tenant says that during that time, she had to continue to use a camp cooker.
The landlords say that the cooktop could be used, but was flickering on and off, and they had arranged an electrician to attend. It took some time to determine whether the hob should be sent away or repaired and the landlords decided it would be quicker to simply purchase a new one. However, it isn’t a standard size and had to be sourced and then installed.
The landlords say they acted quickly, to replace both the hob and the dishwasher.
I am not satisfied that the landlords acted unreasonably in all alleged instances, or that the tenant has proven any loss arising from the landlords’ actions. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Tenancy agreement deficiencies
Danielle Katheen Rewi claims the landlords have not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement and she also says that no Healthy Homes Compliance statement has ever been provided. She says that the insulation section within the tenancy agreement was left blank.
From 1 July 2016, a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: 6 a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenancy agreement provided does include an insulation statement that states that, due to Covid 19, the insulation information will be advised on the tenancy take over day. There is a declaration signed in respect of s13A of the RTA, providing that on or after the commencement of the tenancy, they will comply with healthy homes standards as required.
There is an email from the tenant clarifying move in dates (in light of Covid-19 restrictions) that states with that added and the insulation specified, yes I agree to the tenancy agreement. I have not been furnished, or have been unable to locate, the email to which this responds to, so do not know what insulation information has been provided. I have assumed that based on the email from the tenant, she was however satisfied with the insulation information provided.
The landlords say that the property was originally rented through a property management company and not them, although I note that this doesn’t mean their responsibilities as landlords cease. The landlords engaged a property manager to act on their behalf and any actions of the property manager are the actions of the landlord. Appointing a property manager does not transfer legal responsibility under the RTA, it only changes who carries out day to day tasks.
The landlords further say that the requirements at the time were for smoke detectors and insulation, of which the home had both.
The tenant submits that she requested a healthy homes compliance statement and insulation report but was not provided it. The landlords refute this claim and say there is no evidence of repeated requests and in fact, these were only requested once the tenancy ended (when there is no longer an obligation to provide it). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s13A(1).
The insulation certificate includes no information, explains why (Covid-19) it is unable to provide any details about the type or condition of the insulation and states that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain information about the location, type and condition of insulation at the premises.
Although it is less than ideal, and Covid-19 is no excuse, the landlords have complied with the requirements in the RTA.
The claim for exemplary damages for failure to provide insulation information in the tenancy agreement is dismissed. Delayed water credit, unpaid reimbursements, unpaid rent in advance and without notice property attendance
The tenant originally claimed for an unpaid water credit and unpaid reimbursements and rent in advance.
It appears from the evidence that the tenant has now been paid for the water credit directly from the council.
There does however appear to have been $100.00 that the landlords agreed to have deducted off the final amount owed, and I have therefore deducted this from the total amount owing in the order.
I have insufficient evidence of the claim for turning up without notice and this claim is dismissed. Likewise, I do not have sufficient evidence of unpaid rent in advance, or any other reimbursements and these claims are dismissed.
The tenant also raised that the landlords knew [details redacted]. The landlords advised that they didn’t know [details redacted] but that they were very flexible with moving dates and offering to assist the tenant.
There is no claim in respect of these submissions, and so I have not considered it further. There is no obligation on landlords to advise tenants of specific sections of the RTA, and on review of the correspondence, I am satisfied that the landlords were accommodating. [Details redacted].
The tenant sought compensation for what she describes as excessive power and water costs. She submitted that these were largely due to poor insulation, unresolved plumbing leaks, a faulty hot water system, lack of ventilation and internal electrical faults. I have inadequate evidence to determine that any or all of these issues contributed to higher power and water bills and this claim is dismissed. Other matters
I have not refunded the filing fee to either party. Despite the substantial success by the landlords, I consider these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlords did seek name suppression and as they have been substantially successful, this is granted. 7 R Harvey-Lane 06 March 2026 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s95A.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297639 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297639 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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