What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315784 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $390.12 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5315784?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $73.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $65.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Key: $7.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $8.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315784?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315784?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12726015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315784 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $390.12 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5315784?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $73.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $65.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Key: $7.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $8.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315784?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315784?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12726015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44 North Road, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315784 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315784 — net $390.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$65.86	Rent arrears
Power	$73.70	Power
Water rates	$8.06	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace key	$7.50	Replace key
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$390.12
Bond	$1,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$390.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315784 — net $390.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$65.86	Rent arrears
Power	$73.70	Power
Water rates	$8.06	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace key	$7.50	Replace key
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$390.12
Bond	$1,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$390.12

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $390.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 (BN-00086551) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $390.12 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $929.88

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 11 May 2025. On 29 June 2025, Ms Higgins sent the landlords an email giving 28-days’ notice to end the tenancy.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and raises issues relating to healthy homes compliance and maintenance.
The landlords’ application seeks rent arrears, power and water costs, carpet cleaning, and the cost of a new key.
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 17 November 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Landlords’ application Rent arrears
The claim seeks rent arrears of $440 (one week’s rent) to 26 July 2025.
Ms Higgins left the tenancy on 20 July 2025. Ms Higgins said that she was only obliged to give 21-days’ notice, so she should not be held liable for rent for the last week.
There was a change to the law around termination notices in January 2025. The notice period for termination of a periodic tenancy by the tenant was reduced from 28 days to 21 days.
Mr & Mrs Joe were not aware of this law change, but they argued that Ms Higgins should be held to the 28-days’ notice period because she specified that time frame in her termination notice.
The legal requirement is a minimum of 21-days’ notice. Ms Higgins was free to give a longer notice period than the minimum. If Ms Higgins had intentionally given 28-days’ notice she should be held to that notice period.
However, in this instance Ms Higgins did not make a deliberate decision. She thought that she was giving the minimum notice period. She was encouraged in that misunderstanding by the tenancy agreement that the landlords gave her. The tenancy agreement states, incorrectly, that tenants must give 28-days’ notice.
Although this was a genuine error by the landlord, it would be unjust to allow the landlord to benefit from that error.
Therefore, I find that Ms Higgins’ email on 29 June should be treated as a 21- day notice to end the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 20 July. The rent is paid to 19 July.
There are rent arrears of $65.86 (one day). Power and water
Tenants must pay for outgoings that they consume during the tenancy. 1
Ms Higgins questioned the landlord’s claim for power and water to the end of the tenancy on the grounds that the landlord failed to show how he had calculated her power and water use (there is a minor dwelling on the property that has a sub-meter).
At the hearing, Mr Joe showed how he had calculated the power and water use. Mr Joe’s methodology was correct, and his calculations are accurate.
The claims for power and water are proven. Lawns
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will mow the lawns, and the tenant will pay $20 per mow.
Mr Joe mowed the lawns on 23 July 2025. The claim seeks payment for that mow.
I have made a finding above that the tenancy ended on 20 July. Therefore, this mow was after the end of the tenancy and Ms Higgins was not contractually obliged to pay for it. Carpet cleaning
Near the end of the tenancy Mr Joe discovered two large areas of stains on the carpet in the lounge when showing a prospective tenant through the property.
The claim seeks the cost of carpet cleaning, which was carried out on 24 July 2025.
Ms Higgins disputes the claim on the grounds that the stains are due to mould.
Ms Higgins said that the property was damp and cold during her brief tenancy. She has provided evidence showing that, at least for several days in July, stormwater pooled around and underneath the house. This is discussed in more detail below.
Mr & Mrs Joe said that the carpet was new when they purchased the property in August 2024. There was one tenancy before this one. The carpet was professionally cleaned after that tenancy and there were no stains. 1 Section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Mr Joe said that the carpet cleaner told him that the stain was not mould but probably food / drink of some kind. He said that the carpet cleaner used a moisture meter to show that there were no high levels of moisture in the house.
My finding is that it is more likely than not that the stain is not mould, having regard to the following factors: a. Visually, the stains do not look like mould / dampness stains. b. Ms Higgins was in the tenancy for two months only. To develop mould stains of that size in that timeframe the house would have to have an extreme problem with dampness / moisture ingress. If it did, there would be many other signs including mould development on walls, ceilings, soft furnishings and the tenant’s belongings. There is no such evidence in this instance. c. The house has polystyrene underfloor insulation. There is no evidence of rot or water damage to the floor. These factors make it unlikely that moisture has come up from below to the extent that it caused mould damage to the carpet.
The stain occurred during this tenancy, and it is not due to mould. The tenant is liable for the cost of carpet cleaning. Key
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must return all keys and security devices to the landlord. 2
The landlord’s claim seeks the cost of copying one key that the tenant did not return ($7.50).
Ms Higgins did not dispute that she failed to return one key, but she said that she returned an extra of a different key, which she had copied at her own cost, so she considered that this ‘cancelled out’ the landlords’ claim.
I disagree.
Ms Higgins did not meet her duty to return all of the keys that were provided to her. The landlord was entitled to change the locks and recover the cost from Ms Higgins. They have taken the far less expensive option of having another key cut.
The claim is proven. Tenant application 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Healthy homes / maintenance
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards 3 , and they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 4
One of the healthy homes standards is for moisture ingress and drainage. The standard states that rental properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water and ground water, including an appropriate outfall.
Ms Higgins said that: a. Immediately upon moving in she noticed that the house was cold and damp. b. Within a week she noticed that water backed up and overflowed around one of the downpipes, near a path. c. She also noticed that water ponded on the front lawn when it rained. d. She told Mr & Mrs Joe about this at a meeting on 28 May. They did not take any action. e. She became aware of the possibility that water was getting underneath the house. f. In July she took a series of photographs and video showing the backed up / overflowing pipe, water ponding on the lawn, and water pooling underneath the house.
Mr & Mrs Joe said that: a. Ms Higgins did not tell them about any dampness or water ponding issues at the 28 May meeting or at any other time during the tenancy. b. In July, Ms Higgins’ husband (who resides in Tauranga) rang Mr Joe and they spoke about various issues relating to the tenancy. Mr Higgins mentioned that Ms Higgins was taking photographs and video of flooding and ponding. c. At that time there was a bad storm in Northland. There was widespread flooding and power outages. The weather caused a slip that closed the Mangamuka Gorge road. The total rain over the period of a week (the heaviest rainfall occurring on 11 July) was the equivalent of the rainfall that Kaitaia usually receives in an average winter. d. They were away when Mr Higgins rang. When they got to the property approximately two weeks later, the area under the house was more or less dry, and there was no water on the lawn. 3 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA e. Mr Joe has tested the drain using a garden hose and it is not blocked.
Ms Higgins’ videos and photographs show significant ponding on the lawn and water underneath the house.
Ms Higgins’ photographs and videos were taken during the severe weather event in July 2025.
There is no evidence of any issues with ponding or with the gutters in ‘normal’ rain.
It is not proven that Ms Higgins informed Mr & Mrs Joe about any issues with flooding, ponding, or dampness at the meeting on 28 May or at any other time during the tenancy.
Mr Joe’s videos show that the downpipe next to the concrete path is not blocked. The problem in July was simply that there was too much volume of water.
The requirement for “efficient drainage” is not a guarantee that the drainage system at any given property will be able to deal with extreme weather conditions and flooding.
The drainage around this property needs to be monitored by the landlord. It is a concern that water ponded under the house to the extent shown in Ms Higgins’ photographs. The fact that the drainage could not cope under those extreme conditions does not mean that the drainage cannot cope with normal or even heavy rainfall, but now that the landlord is aware of this possibility they have a positive duty to monitor it in a range of weather conditions.
My finding is that there is no proven breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide efficient drainage. Insurance statement
Ms Higgins’ application states “I don’t think the house is insured”.
At the hearing, Ms Higgins explained that the landlord failed to provide an insurance statement.
In the tenancy agreement the landlord must provide information about: 5 a. Whether or not the premises are insured; and b. If so, the amount of the policy excess for damage or destruction of the premises; and c. The landlord must also state that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant upon request. 5 Section 13A(2) RTA
The tenancy agreement is not on the standard Tenancy Services form.
The tenancy agreement does include an insurance statement. The statement states that the property is insured and that a copy of the policy is available upon request. The only piece of information missing in the statement is about the amount of the policy excess.
This is a breach of the legal requirement for an insurance statement, but it is a minor and technical breach. There is no evidence that Ms Higgins ever asked the landlords what the amount of their policy excess is, or that she asked them for a copy of the policy.
Ms Higgins’ argument that the landlords did not provide an insurance statement is incorrect. The landlords did provide an insurance statement. The statement is deficient in one respect, but it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages given the minor and technical nature of the breach. `Heating and asbestos
Ms Higgins’ application states: a. “Only portable heaters provided since we move in”; and b. “He never told me about the asbestos in the house, no wonder I keep coughing if I am in the house”.
The healthy homes standards require that landlords must have a fixed means of heating in the main living area that is capable of heating the area.
The house has an electric heater in the main living area. It is not portable, it is hard-wired and permanent. Mr Joe said that it is a 2.4kW heater. He said that he used the heating calculation tool on the Tenancy Services website, and he believes that the heater is of sufficient capacity to meet the healthy homes standard.
The landlord provided portable heaters for the bedrooms.
Ms Higgins’ statement that only portable heaters were provided is not correct. The heater in the main living area is not portable. Ms Higgins said that she does not spend much time in that part of the house, but the healthy homes standards only require a fixed heater in that area, not in the bedrooms.
It is not proven that the landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standard in respect of heating.
Ms Higgins said that she was told that there is asbestos in the ceiling in the lounge. Mr Joe said that he has been told that it is not an asbestos ceiling.
I have no evidence other than this hearsay.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to investigate this properly, and obtain written clarification about whether the ceiling contains asbestos material. There is no evidence to suggest that the ceiling is crumbling or damaged, but it is important for the landlord to know whether there is asbestos in the ceiling in case it is damaged in the future. Outcome, bond, filing fee, name suppression
The landlord was partially successful in their application. I will award the landlord the filing fee. 6
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression.
The tenant was not substantially successful in the proceedings. 7 There are no particular interests of the parties or public interest considerations that justify name suppression in this instance. 8 The application for name suppression is not granted.
The landlord will receive $390.12 from the bond, calculated per the table above. The balance will be paid to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315784 — Cleanliness at 44 North Road, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315784 — Cleanliness at 44 North Road, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.