What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304689 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,678.00

How much money was awarded in case 5304689?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13090356-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304689 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,678.00

How much money was awarded in case 5304689?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13090356-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 34 Punjab Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304689 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304689 — net $1,678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Compensation for loss of toilet	$100.00	Compensation for loss of toilet
Window latch compensation	$100.00	Window latch compensation
Compensation for flooding	$400.00	Compensation for flooding
Compensation for step damage	$50.00	Compensation for step damage
Exemplary damages: Bond non-lodgement	$500.00	Bond non-lodgement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,678.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304689 — net $1,678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Compensation for loss of toilet	$100.00	Compensation for loss of toilet
Window latch compensation	$100.00	Window latch compensation
Compensation for flooding	$400.00	Compensation for flooding
Compensation for step damage	$50.00	Compensation for step damage
Exemplary damages: Bond non-lodgement	$500.00	Bond non-lodgement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,678.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,678.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Cleaning Compensation for loss of toilet $500.00 $100.00 Window latch compensation$100.00 Compensation for flooding$400.00 Compensation for step damage$50.00 Exemplary damages: Bond non-lodgement$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,678.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$1,678.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing held in Wellington today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2025, and is a periodic tenancy. The weekly rental was $475.00.
As will be discussed further below, the tenants report that when they first moved into the tenancy, it was not clean, requiring extensive cleaning on their part. The tenants consider the premises had issues with mould, and was generally unhealthy.
There were other problems that arose during the tenancy, including flooding which I understand was from a blocked drain, blockages to the toilet, and issues with an insecure window.
Ultimate the tenancy ended following notice from the tenants.
The tenants have now filed this claim with the Tribunal. I will set out the relevant background for each of the claims more fully below. I note that in advance of the hearing, the tenants provided a written claim setting out a summary of what orders they were seeking, and the reasons for them.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 Cleaning and mould

The tenants state that when they moved into the premises, they found mould in various locations throughout the house. The tenants spent about 8 hours on the day they moved in cleaning. The tenants said that over the course of the tenancy, the mould would regrow frequently. The tenants say: On moving in, we spent 8 hours each on the first day, 6 hours each on the second day, and 3 hours each on the third day scrubbing mould, grime, cobwebs, and dirt that should have been addressed before the tenancy began. Ongoing mould regrowth required at least 2 hours of extra cleaning every couple of weeks throughout the tenancy. This caused significant inconvenience, loss of time, and health concerns.
The tenants describe health issues, and seek $975 compensation for their time and effort.
The landlord states that before the tenants moved in he had the premises professionally cleaned. The landlord considers that some of the appearance above the radiators was soot from a candle. Otherwise, the landlord did not know about a recurrence of issues until later in the tenancy. The landlord accepts that the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. The landlord offered $500.00 compensation, noting that if this had been raised as an issue, he would have got professional cleaners in. Analysis
As I noted at the hearing today, at the start of the tenancy the landlord is required to provide the premises reasonably clean, and over the course of the Tenancy the obligation switches to the tenants, and it is the tenants that must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy period.
I am satisfied that the premises were not provided to the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I have available photographs that the tenants sent to the landlord on 6 February 2025, that is within a week of the tenancy commencing, and those plainly show premises that were unclean premises, in particular, there is the appearance of mould around the floor level.
It is reasonable that the tenants be compensated for their time, the question is what a fair level of compensation would be. The landlord considers $500 would be fair, the tenants seek $975. I consider that compensation at $500 would be reasonable. The Tribunal receives numerous claims for cleaning each week. To that extent, the Tribunal has some experience in understanding what commercial cleaning rates would be, and given the photographs provided, I consider that if a commercial cleaner was engaged, the cost would be around the $500 mark. I do not consider it would be reasonable to compensate the tenants for cleaning at a rate higher than a commercial rate would be expected. To that extent, I have ordered $500 compensation for the tenant’s time and undertaking cleaning at the premises. Claim 2 – Toilet blockage
The tenants state that they had a blocked toilet for 24 hours before the plumber to come to unblock the toilet. The tenants say that there were two later episodes of blockage. The tenants either needed to use a blocked toilet, or use other community facilities. The tenants seek two days of rent to compensate.
The landlord states that unblocking the toilet would be the tenants responsibility. The landlord states that they have lived in the premises and had no issues with the toilet being blocked, so this issue is most likely to be the result of tenant-caused blockages. Otherwise the landlord states that when the issue was raised plumbers were arranged to attend the tenancy. The landlord indicates that roots were later found, which may have been relevant, but maintains this would be a tenant’s responsibility. Analysis
There is no dispute that the toilet was blocked, but the cause of the blockage is not entirely clear. It is possible that the blockage was caused by improper use from the tenants, or it may have been a mechanical blockage such as from tree roots. I note that the tenants have reported in emails to the landlord that the toilet had not been flushing properly prior to the blockage, which does argue for a conclusion that the tenants had not caused the blockage.
However, the evidence is that when the blockage was raised with the landlord, the landlord did act to get a plumber to the premises, and the toilet was unblocked. I am not persuaded that there is a basis to order compensation to the tenants for a lack of maintenance, because the landlord has in my view, complied with his legal obligation to repair and maintain the premises, which could extend to engaging a plumber for a blocked toilet.
Nevertheless, I accept there has been an inconvenience for the tenants, and I also accept that the tenants were not receiving what they were paying rent to receive, that is a working toilet. It is fair that compensation be ordered to the tenants for loss of amenity for living in the premises without a working toilet. Claim 3 – Broken window
The tenants say that there was a broken window, where the window would not lock, and it could be opened by the wind. The tenants said that this was raised in a 14-day notice. The tenants said this caused stress and insecurity to them.
In response, the landlord states that latch for the window had fallen off. The 14-day notice came at a time when there was flooding in the premises, and that was the focus. The landlord accepts it was not fixed at the time, but notes that heating is included in the rent. Given the size of the window, the landlord did not consider this to be a security issue. Analysis
There is no dispute that there was a problem with the window latch. That was a maintenance issue; the obligation was on the landlord to have the latch fixed within a reasonable period of time, and I find he has not done so.
The tenancy compensation of $200.00. I am not persuaded that level of compensation would be reasonable, because compensation is intended to remedy a loss incurred. I am not persuaded that the landlord’s failure to maintain the window latch, would have resulted in a loss to that degree, but it is fair that some level of compensation for a loss of amenity is provided. Taking into consideration the likely detriment, I consider an order of $100 would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 4 – Flooding to carpets
The tenants said that they woke after a rainy night, and found that there was flooding to the carpets. The carpet was lifted so it could be dried. That meant there were rusty tacks on the floor, which the tenants stood on at various times. There was also noise and inconvenience from the machine used to dry the flooring. The flooding also increased the mould growth, and caused damage to their furniture. The tenants are not certain what caused the flooding, but it could have been a blocked drain. The tenants have claimed $950.00 compensation.
The landlord agrees that the likely blockage was from a blocked drain by the front door, which was the tenants responsibility to keep clean. The landlord states that the tenants would turn off the drying machines. The landlord states that shortly after the flood, the tenants gave notice. The landlord refers to the tenancy agreement confirming that it was the tenant’s responsibility to keep the sidewalks clear.
In response, the tenants said that the flooding occurred following a period of heavy rain. The tenants said that the premises are surrounded by trees, and they regularly sweep the area. The tenants believe the drain was clear, but it blocked following heavy rain. The tenants said that Chemdry said that they needed to keep the drying machine on for 8 hours, but that it could be turned off at night. The tenants believe they should have been offered alternate accommodation. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that there was flooding at the premises. The evidence indicates that the flooding came from outside of the dwelling, from a blocked drain. The landlord’s position is that the flooding was in fact from a blocked drain, which was the responsibility of the tenants to keep clear.
I am not persuaded that responsibility for this flood should sit with the tenants. At the time of the flood, the tenants had been in the premises for only five months. If the landlord’s position is correct, over that period of time there had been an accumulation of leaves etc, which caused blockage to a drain which resulted in flooding to the premises. It seems unreasonable to put the responsibility on the tenants, because if the premises were constructed in a way, that there was such a significant vulnerability to flooding, then the landlord must accept the risk for that.
Also note that there is evidence that the premises have previously flooded. No evidence is available in relation to that earlier flooding event, but if it was related to the drain, then it would be further indication that there is a risk beyond what a reasonable tenant would be expected to carry.
I have no doubt that the flooding and the efforts to dry the carpet have caused significant inconvenience for the tenants. The tenants seek compensation to the level of two weeks of rent, that is $950. In my view that would not be a reasonable level of compensation to take account of the loss of amenity that the tenants have faced, and also the fact they had full use of the reminder of the tenancy at that time. I consider compensation at $400 would be fair, and that is ordered. Claim 5 – Broken steps
The tenants seek compensation for broken steps. One of the tenants was walking down the steps where it gave way causing her to fall. The tenant states that this was raised with the landlord, but not repaired during the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that the stairs gave way. He was notified on 14 June. The steps were fixed, but the landlord is not certain if that was prior to the tenancy end date. Analysis
Again there is no dispute between the parties that the steps broke during the tenancy. On the face of it, that is a maintenance issue. The issue was reported to the landlord on 14 June 2025, and it was not resolved. It seems, before the Tenancy ended three weeks later on 6 July 2025.
In my view, a reasonable landlord would have fixed the broken steps well within the three-week period. It is fair that compensation be provided for loss of amenity, but the loss would be modest, and I order $50 for the delay in maintenance. Claim 6 – Cleaning products
The tenants claim $150.00 for cleaning products used at the premises over the course of the tenancy.
The landlord’s position is that an offer has been made around cleaning at the start of the tenancy, but the landlord does not consider he should be liable for cleaning during the tenancy. Analysis
The tenants position is that they needed to provide cleaning products at the start of the tenancy to clean the premises when they took it over, as well as regular cleaning during the course of the tenancy.
I have already ordered a compensation of $500 for the state the premises when it was rented, it would not be reasonable to order compensation beyond that. Otherwise, the obligation to keep the premises clean during the tenancy, is one that falls to the tenants. If the tenants could prove that there was some inherent defect with the building that made it more prone to mould and damp, then the tenants may be able to claim compensation for cleaning during the tenancy term, but that is not the case here. I accept that the dwelling flooded, and I have ordered compensation for that. Beyond that, the tenants have not convinced me that there was otherwise any inherent defect in the property, where further cleaning costs should be the responsibility of the landlord. Claim 7 – Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
The tenants say their bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre, but at the end of the tenancy, the bond was refunded by the landlord directly.
The landlord agrees that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. Mr Pinner advised that he does not rent many properties. The landlord states that the bond was released in full at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
In this case, there is no dispute that the bond was not lodged, and that is an unlawful Act, so could be the subject of an exemplary damages order.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 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 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.
Taking those factors into consideration, in my view, the landlord’s decisions around the bond must be viewed as intentional. Lodging bonds is a fundamental obligation for landlords, and it is well recognised that bonds must be lodged with the Bond Centre. I have no reason to believe that the situation will be any different for this landlord. The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants’ bond money was not secure, and conceptually, the tenants could have had difficulties in getting it back from the landlord at the end of the tenancy, although that was not the case here. There is a strong interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that there be a strong bond system, which requires that landlords lodge the bonds as required. I consider it would be just to make an order.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a failure to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00. I consider it reasonable that the landlord pay exemplary damages to the level of one third of the maximum, that is $500. In setting that level, I am minded that there is no evidence before me that the landlord has a history of failing to lodge bonds. I am also minded that at the end of the tenancy the bond was returned to the tenants in full, if that had not been the case, then undoubtedly a higher level of exempt damages would be called for.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304689 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat A, 34 Punjab Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304689 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat A, 34 Punjab Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions