What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302380 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (BN-00079570) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5302380?

Compensation: $495.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302380?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12566306-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302380 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (BN-00079570) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5302380?

Compensation: $495.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302380?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12566306-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 137 Karapiro Road, Karapiro, RD4, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302380 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Introduction

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302380. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for carpet stains	$495.00		Compensation for carpet stains

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Unit 1, 137 Karapiro Road, Karapiro, RD4, Cambridge (the Premises) owned by [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] (the Landlord) for two months.

The Landlord says the Tenant caused staining to the carpet in the second bedroom and seeks compensation for replacement of the carpet in that room.

The Tenant admits causing the carpet stains but disputes the amount sought in compensation. The Tenant also seeks general damages for the Landlord’s breaches of the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment during the tenancy.

The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Tenant compensate the Landlord for the cost of replacing the carpet in the second bedroom? b. Should the Tenant be awarded general damages for emotional distress caused by the Landlord breaching her quiet enjoyment of the Premises? The Tribunal’s approach to the issues

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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. Should the Tenant compensate the Landlord for the cost of replacing the carpet in the second bedroom?

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. 1

The Landlord says the Tenant left three blue stains on the carpet in the second bedroom. The Tenant admits the damage was caused during the tenancy.

The Landlord has obtained a quote for $990 for the cost of replacing the carpet in the second bedroom. The quote dated 9 July 2025 was produced.

The Landlord says she has not had the carpet replaced. The Landlord relet the Premises to new tenants who moved in on 8 August 2025. The new tenants pay rent of $550 per week, an increase from $500 per week in rent paid by the Tenant.

The Tenant accepts liability for staining the carpet, but says the amount sought in compensation is too much. The Tenant says she should not be liable for the cost of recarpeting the entire second bedroom. The Tenant has not obtained a quote to compare, but says a fair amount would be half that sought by the Landlord, being $495.

While it is not in dispute that the Tenant caused the carpet stains, the Landlord has not established they have suffered any actual loss as a result. The Landlord has not incurred any cost to replace the carpet, and has relet the Premises (with the stain in place) at an increased weekly rent.

On the Landlord’s evidence alone, I would have dismissed the claim for compensation entirely. However, the Tenant accepts compensation of $495 would be a fair amount to account for the damage she caused. Given the Tenant makes that concession, by consent, I order $495 of the bond be refunded to the Landlord for the stains in the second bedroom carpet. Should the Tenant be awarded general damages for distress caused by the Landlord breaching her quiet enjoyment of the Premises?

Compensation is money ordered to remedy an actual loss which results from a breach of a party’s obligations under the Act, or under the tenancy agreement. 2

General damages are similar to compensation however rather than a monetary order made to “compensate” an actual loss, they are a monetary order to 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 2 Such as where a tenant has damaged fixtures or chattels (such as carpet). “compensate” a failure of mental satisfaction under the tenancy agreement or the Act.

In this case, the Tenant says the Landlord breached the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment as provided for under s38 of the Act. The Tenant says, by doing so, the Tenant suffered emotional distress.

The Tenant says the Landlord breached her right to quiet enjoyment by: a. In the first few weeks of the tenancy, during a phone call, asking the Tenant why there was a mattress on the floor of her bedroom and asking other personal questions; b. In the weeks after the above phone call, asking the Tenant why her son was staying more than one night a week; c. On unknown dates, watching the Tenant coming and going including watching her take the rubbish out.

The Tenant says the cumulative effect of these breaches made her feel uncomfortable living in the Premises and resulted in the Tenant giving notice to end the tenancy.

The Landlord denies breaching the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises. In respect of each of the alleged occasions, the Landlord says: a. The Landlord did not question the Tenant regarding a mattress on the floor. The Landlord says the Tenant informed the Landlord that she had a mattress on her bedroom floor in a text message sent on 2 June 2025. 3 The Landlord says the parties discussed the matter during the first inspection on 4 June 2025, and the Landlord expressed some concern for potential damage to the carpet beneath the mattress. The Landlord says they discussed agencies that can assist with providing a bed base but that the Landlord did not otherwise ask personal questions. b. The Landlord denies asking the Tenant about the nights the Tenant’s son stayed. The Landlord says the tenancy agreement stated the Premises could have a maximum occupancy of one adult and one child. The Landlord understood the Tenant’s daughter lived with her full-time, and that her son stayed one night a week. The Landlord denied making any comments about how often the Tenant’s son stayed, or which night of the week he stayed. c. The Landlord denies watching the Tenant take her rubbish out. She says they discussed that the Tenant would need to arrange her own rubbish collection service, as the Premises is rural and there is no Council rubbish collection service. The Tenant’s Premises is located close to the Landlord’s 3 Produced as evidence. (the houses are within line of sight of each other) but the Landlord denies watching the Tenant coming and going or taking her rubbish out.

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the Tenant to prove the breach alleged. In this case, the Tenant must prove it is more likely than not that the Landlord acted in the alleged way, and that by doing so, the Landlord intruded upon the Tenant’s right to enjoy her home in peace.

The Tenant has not shifted that burden. The Tenant’s oral evidence as to when the incidents occurred was vague and was without any corroborating evidence, such as a written record, or written communications between the parties (such as email or text messages). The Tenant was unable to say with any certainty when the specific examples occurred and/or which conversations were by phone, and which in-person.

By contrast, the Landlord’s evidence was more exact and included corroborating evidence in the way of text messages. I find the Landlord’s version of events (particularly around when matters such as when and how the mattress on the bedroom floor was discussed) is more likely to be true.

I am not satisfied the Tenant has proved the Landlord breached the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and dismiss the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages.

Reasons

Introduction

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302380. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for carpet stains	$495.00		Compensation for carpet stains