Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5297946 — Exemplary damages
Decided 16 Feb 2026 · Published 16 Feb 2026 · Application 5297946
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $4,480.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing with a support person.
- These claims concern the tenancy of a three-bedroom standalone house located in [Event location suppressed]. The tenancy began on 8 July 2024 and ended on approximately 26 June 2025.
- The landlord seeks compensation for: a. Cleaning; b. damage to carpet; c. lawnmowing and garden work; and d. repairs to a hole in the hallway wall.
- The tenant seeks: a. refund of her bond together with an award of exemplary damages for the landlord requiring more than 4 weeks bond and for failure to lodge the bond; b. clarification regarding water bills together with compensation of overpayments; c. Compensation for the house not being clean when she moved in; d. Healthy Homes/maintenance breaches concerning insulation and mould; and e. Breach of quiet enjoyment/privacy due to the behaviour of a neighbouring tenant and the landlord coming around unannounced to pick lemons. Onus and evidence
- As with all claims brought before the Tribunal, it is for the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
- For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed or given in evidence during the hearing. However the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching this decision. The landlord’s claim Cleaning, lawns and carpet
- The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
- Tenants must return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
- In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
- The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
- The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
- The landlord said that the house was not clean, the lawns were not tidy and mowed and that the carpet was stained and smelly.
- The landlord produced invoices as follows: a. Cleaning - $400.00 b. Steam cleaning of carpet - $276.00 c. Lawnmowing and garden work - $165.00
- The landlord also produced photos taken at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant said that the property was not clean when she moved in and that she cleaned the property before she left. She produced photos that she had sent to the landlord approximately two weeks before moving out (for the landlord to send to a prospective tenant) which show the property in a clean condition.
- Having reviewed the invoices and the photos I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the inside of the property and the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. I make this finding because: a. There are photos of the tenant’s belongings and rubbish left behind but the landlord has not claimed for rubbish removal (and the tenant said that there was an altercation with the landlord while she was moving out and so she did not have the opportunity to remove these items). b. The invoice for cleaning refers to areas that were either not photographed or did not appear to require further cleaning (bathroom and kitchen deep clean, inside and outside cabinets, full house skirting board, ceiling lights and flypoop cleaning, full house cabinets inside outside, paint marks vacuum whole house). The windowsills did need wiping down but I consider this to be a minor matter that could have been very quickly and easily resolved. A property does not need to be reasonably clean and tidy in every single area, it only needs to be reasonably clean and tidy overall. While I do consider that the oven required cleaning, the tenant was adamant that it was not clean when she moved in and there was no evidence showing the condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged not cleaning on top of the rangehood but I consider this to be deep-cleaning and a fairly minor issue. c. The landlord produced photos of the lawns/garden areas from the end of the tenancy but there were no photos from the end of the tenancy so that I could establish the condition at the start.
- The condition of the carpet was more complicated. The landlord said that the carpet had been left stained but was mainly smelly because the tenant had two dogs. The tenant denied that the carpet was smelly. She acknowledged that her daughter had made a hole in the carpet when burning a candle and that she had obtained a quote for repair ($100) which she offered to pay but this went no further.
- The photos of the carpet at the start of the tenancy were taken at different angles and were from a distance and so it is difficult to see the condition at the start. There was no independent evidence confirming the condition of the carpet. In the circumstances I do not find this claim proved, although I do consider that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the hole in the carpet which was proved. I consider that $100 is reasonable compensation. Damage
- The landlord said that the tenant caused a hole in the wall. The landlord said that the tenant’s son caused a hole in the wall when banging into the wall at shoulder height.
- 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 ss 40(2)(a), 40(4) and 41 RTA).
- The landlord produced an invoice from [handyman service] in the amount of $320.00 which states:
- The landlord relies on the report as evidence that the damage was more than fair wear and tear and was in fact carelessly or intentionally caused.
- The tenant said that the section of wall had become soft because the shower was on the other side and there were holes in the shower coating which caused moisture to travel through and compromise the jib.
- She said that her son just leaned on the wall and that a hole appeared and that she had a tradesperson come to investigate to take photos. She said that they found mould in the cavity between the wall and the shower from moisture. She explained that the landlord asked her to cover the area due to the mould and then came and boarded up the area and had it fixed.
- This issue was discussed at some length during the hearing. It was clear that there had been moisture trapped behind the shower which could well have compromised the wall in the hallway behind. It do not consider that it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the statement made in the invoice when they were aware of the moisture issue.
- I am not satisfied that the damage was carelessly or intentionally caused. In my view it is just as likely that the wall had been compromised due to moisture and has then given way when the tenant’s son leaned on it.
- This claim is not proven and is dismissed. The tenant’s claim Bond
- [The tenant/s] a. requested the usual bond of four weeks’ rent but also requested a further two weeks as a “pet bond”, so that she paid a total of $4,080 (six weeks rent); and b. did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The landlord acknowledged that they had not lodged the bond. They said that they were overseas at the time and dealing with a stressful family matter, and that they only realised the bond had not been lodged when the tenant filed this claim. At the date of the hearing the bond had still not been lodged. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
- 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) RTA.
- The obligation by landlords to lodge the bond is such a fundamental obligation that a failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional. The bond is the tenant’s money and is paid as security for the landlord. If parties cannot agree then it is essential that the bond is secured until a Tribunal determination can be made. It is the public interest to ensure that bonds are secured. Landlords must ensure that they have systems in place to ensure that the bond is lodged.
- It is common practice in the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum amount on the occasion of a first breach by the landlord. I therefore order exemplary damages in the amount of $500.00.
- A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 18(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The landlord required a bond of six weeks rent. The landlord said that they were mistaken and thought that they could charge a pet-bond to cover any damage caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- 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. Section 109(3) RTA.
- There are time limits for claims for exemplary damages. With the exception of claims that relate to the lodgement of the bond, a party seeking exemplary damages must apply no later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act.
- In this case the unlawful act was committed when the six weeks bond was paid on 9 July 2025. This claim was filed on 30 June 2025 and so the claim for exemplary damages has been filed in time.
- In this case I consider that the landlord has been mistaken about the timing of the new law (which comes into force on 1 December 2025) and has charged a pet bond without realising that they were not entitled to do so. The breach was not intentional. Even if I had found the breach I would not have found it in the public interest to award exemplary damages as the law has now changed and landlords will very shortly be able to charge a pet bond. Water invoices
- The tenant said that landlord did not provide her with invoices from Watercare, but his own calculations, so she had not real understanding of how water was charged.
- The landlord explained that the tenant lived in the main house, and that there is another house behind with a check-meter. The landlord therefore had to attend and read the check-meter and calculate the usage of each party which they sent to the tenant.
- The landlord produced a copy of the water invoices and calculations at the hearing and the tenant was satisfied with the clarification provided.
- The tenant said that she did not wish to pursue this claim any further. Cleaning at start of tenancy
- The tenant said that the property was not clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy.
- Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA).
- The tenant said that she got the key a few weeks early as the landlord was to be overseas when she moved in. She said that when she got to the property there were cockroaches, rodent droppings and that the bathroom was not clean.
- The tenant engaged cleaners and produced an invoice in the amount of $567.81 for “full spring cleaning” which she now claims from the landlord.
- The tenant also produced correspondence with the landlord of a discussion about cleaning where the landlord said that if she wanted to do further cleaning the landlord would reimburse her, but there was no evidence of further discussion as to the amount.
- The landlord said that the property was reasonably clean and tidy when the tenant moved in. They said that they had paid professional cleaners to clean the property prior to the start of the tenancy.
- Having reviewed the photos I am not satisfied that the property was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. There were no photos of the bathroom. The only photographs showed some dead cockroaches (following fumigation) and a tiny amount of mouse droppings. These could simply have been swept up. There were no photographs of the bathroom or any other area showing that it was not clean, other than a laundry shelf with dust. I am not satisfied that any compensation is justified.
- This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Healthy Homes/failure to maintain
- The tenant sought compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards but it was clear at the hearing that the claim was really for failure to maintain and I have dealt with this claim on that basis.
- Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and character of the property.
- The tenant said that her son accidentally made a hole in the wall in the hallway because the landlord had not maintained the property, but at the hearing accepted that the landlord had acted swiftly and had resolved and sealed up the area within approximately 4 days.
- It is normal for houses to require repair and maintenance from time to time. Landlords are only in breach of their obligations if they are aware of a repair and/or maintenance issues and fail to attend to it within a reasonable time frame.
- In this case the landlord acted quickly. I do not consider that there has been any breach by the landlord. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- The tenant said that the tenant next door, who was also a tenant of the landlord, became aggressive and abusive and that she ultimately left the tenancy because of it.
- A landlord has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
- The tenant produced text messages and other messages with the neighbouring tenant. It is clear that they were initially friendly but then their relationship broke down. At one stage the tenant called the police when the neighbour threatened to shoot them and/or their dog. The tenant produced confirmation of the report to police.
- The landlord said that there appeared to be issues on both sides and they contacted the neighbouring tenant on multiple occasions on behalf of the tenant. The landlord said that things would then improve. The landlord said that things never got to the point where they had evidence that would support an application to the Tribunal.
- This was obviously a very difficult living situation for the tenant and it was clear at the hearing that she did not feel safe with this neighbour next door. However the situation was complicated by the fact that the tenant and the neighbour were initially friendly. There was no evidence produced proving that the tenant had passed on any information (for example photos or video) that might support further action by the landlord.
- I consider that the landlord has acted reasonably and was not in a position to do more given the information available to them at the time.
- This claim is not proved and is dismissed.
- The tenant also claimed that the landlord would pop over from time to time to pick lemons from the tree without giving any notice. The tenant said that this happened between 5 – 7 times during the tenancy and that she felt as though she had no privacy when this happened as the landlord could see inside. She said that she felt very uncomfortable but never raised her concerns with the landlord.
- The tenant did not seek compensation or exemplary damages but sought acknowledgement of a breach by the landlord.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
- Landlords must give 48 hours’ notice when attending to do repairs and maintenance inside but do not have to give notice when doing maintenance outside. However when attending to do maintenance outside, they must ensure that they do not interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property.
- The landlord said that they never came over just to pick lemons. They accepted that on some occasions they came to do maintenance or do read the check- meter when doing the water calculation and would take some lemons home with them at the time. They said that they discussed and agreed with the tenant that they could pick lemons at the start of the tenancy.
- There was not enough evidence for me to find this claim proved. It was simply not possible for me to determine exactly when and why the landlord had attended at the property and for what purpose. Filing fee and name suppression
- In my view both parties have had some success, particularly in defending each other’s claims. I have therefore not reimbursed either filing fee.
- I consider that as both parties have had some success, it is appropriate to make an order suppressing both parties names pursuant to section 95A RTA.