What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320728 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (5405149-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5320728?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To End Of Tenancy: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320728?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073339-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320728 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (5405149-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5320728?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To End Of Tenancy: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320728?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073339-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

88 Settlement Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5320728 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5320728 — net $87.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to end of tenancy	$600.00		Rent to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$437.00		Cleaning
Repairs to wardrobe	$200.00		Repairs to wardrobe
Replace carpet	$300.00		Replace carpet
Compensation - failure to investigate heat pump		$350.00	Compensation - failure to investigate heat pump
Compensation - failure to maintain oven		$700.00	Compensation - failure to maintain oven
Compensation - storage costs		$400.00	Compensation - storage costs
Total award	$1,537.00	$1,450.00
Net award	$87.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$87.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 February 2026.

The tenant made two applications to the Tribunal on 6 August 2025 and 20 January 2026. The tenant requested refund of the bond and raised issues relating to the Healthy Homes Standards.

The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 13 January 2026. Landlord’s Applications

The landlord’s claims were resolved by consent at the hearing. The parties agreed that the tenant will pay in full and final settlement of the landlord’s application: • Rent arrears of $600.00 to the end of the tenancy. • Cleaning costs of $437.00. • The sum of $200.00 for repairs to a wardrobe. • The sum of $300.00 towards the cost of replacement carpet in one room. Tenant’s Application

The tenancy started on 14 August 2020 and ended on 18 July 2025.

The tenant said they were not provided with the original signed version of the tenancy agreement. She said they had been sent four versions. These were provided without the covering emails. All but one created a periodic residential tenancy from 14 August 2020 (15 August in one case) at a weekly rent of $700.00: • An agreement (unsigned and undated) was emailed to the tenant on 11 August 2020. The landlord (acting as agent) was Harcourts. • An agreement was emailed to the client by MSD on 18 September 2020. The landlord was Harcourts. The agreement was signed by the tenants on 14 August 2020. • An agreement was emailed to the tenant on 28 July 2022. The landlord was Harcourts. The agreement was signed by the tenants on 14 August 2020. This agreement appears to be identical to the version emailed by MSD, except that it has also been signed by the landlord on 9 April 2020. • An agreement was provided to the tenant on 20 August 2021 with a start date of 15 August 2020. The landlord (acting as agent) was Client First Realty. The document was signed by Client First Realty on 20 August 2021 but not by the tenants.

The tenant explained that the tenancy was signed by them during the lockdown in 2020. The tenant said they were not provided with the original signed copy of the tenancy agreement, despite requests to various property managers and property management companies. The landlord told them that they would provide a copy to MSD for a rent redirection, but the tenant said the version they received back from MSD was not the document they had signed. The tenant said she wanted a copy of the tenancy agreement to show that she was entitled to have a dog (none of the agreements allows pets).

The tenant said the tenancy agreement did not indicate the location of the insulation. The version provided by MSD, for example, states that the ceiling insulation met the minimum requirements but does not provide details such as the location, type, and condition of the insulation.

The “Healthy Homes Statement of intent and insulation statement signature section” has not been completed. Perhaps this is unsurprising given the circumstances in which the document was signed. These failures were, however, a breach of section 13A(1A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) which was not remedied by section 13A(1B) and (1CB). Breach of these provisions was an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

I do not consider that exemplary damages would be appropriate. Admittedly the tenant was provided with several tenancy agreements for reasons that are not entirely clear, however the agreements are very similar. The lack of a fully completed insulation statement does not seem to have caused the tenant great concern, because they were not trying to obtain a copy of the original agreement to check those details. The application was filed about five years after the start of the tenancy. The delay in bringing the claim tends to support the view that the lack of information was not a cause for concern at the time.

In any event the wrong parties are before the Tribunal. I consider that the current property manager cannot be held liable for any failures of previous property managers.

I also note that, to the extent the tenant may have been claiming that there was a breach of section 13, I am not satisfied this was the case. The tenant was provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement, signed by the landlord, as required. It is unfortunate that so many versions of the same document were circulated but I do not consider this translates into a claim meriting exemplary damages. Healthy Homes Standards and Roof Maintenance

The tenant said that the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenancy commenced before 1 July 2021 but was not renewed. In my view, there was one periodic tenancy from 14 August 2020 which continued. There were various (rather strange) efforts to document the contract, but I am not satisfied that this meant the tenancy was being renewed. In my view, the Healthy Homes Standards did not apply to this tenancy until 1 July 2025 pursuant to clause 2 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.

The landlord had an obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45 of the Act).

The tenant said the premises suffered from a leaking bathroom ceiling and subsequently from mould. Both parties suggested that some tiles had been broken during gutter cleaning by a contractor on 17 December 2024, leading to the leak and mould from moisture ingress. It follows that the leak was not caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain but by a contractor while performing maintenance.

The tenant had reported the leak by 23 December 2024 and by 30 December 2024 the landlord had issued a work order. A roofer instructed by the landlord contacted the tenant on 7 January 2025 about attending the following day to assess the issue. There is a text between the tenants on 8 January 2025 noting the roofer’s attendance. The landlord notified the tenant on 21 February 2025 that a contractor would be there on 25 February 2025. The tenant said that repairs were performed between 13 and 24 March 2025.

The tenant notified the landlord about ceiling mould in her son’s bedroom on 8 and 10 April 2025. The tenant had to move her son out of the room because of the mould. There was also paint peeling from the ceiling of the separate toilet. A roof assessment was requested on 9 May 2025. The tenant noted that she had cleaned the mould on 11 May 2025 and provided further photographs of the mould on 12 May 2025. In texts and/or emails the parties agreed to keep an eye on the issue and the roofer advised that it was probably not a leak but might be due to a lack of ventilation or condensation. In a text message on 25 June 2025, the tenant said she was “not demanding repairs”. The text messages provided suggest that tradespeople were at the premises to repair the toilet ceiling on 29 June 2025.

I find that the landlord responded within a reasonable time, investigated the leak and the mould and, after the leak was repaired, agreed with the tenant to monitor things, which was thought appropriate at the time. I am not satisfied that the landlord was in breach of its maintenance obligation by not repairing the ceiling in the separate toilet earlier. Heat Pump and Oven

The tenant said a heat pump was installed in 2023, but it was not working. The tenant notified the landlord on 22 August 2023 that the heat pump needed repairs or maintenance because it would run for a few minutes and then display an error message. A contractor visited to assess the issue on 12 September 2023. The tenant said the issue remained unresolved until they vacated. A healthy homes assessment on 25 February 2025 reported compliance with the heating standard, although the required heating capacity of 1.6kW appears to be more than the stated heating capacity of 1.4kW.

The landlord referred to a text message from the tenant which said the tenant was not demanding repairs. The landlord confirmed that no repairs had been performed to the heat pump, however, new tenants had moved in and there were no issues: the heat pump is working. An email from the new tenants to this effect was produced dated 3 February 2026.

It is unclear whether any form of heating was provided prior to the installation of a heat pump (see the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947). This was not raised with the parties and so it would not be appropriate to make any findings. The tenant’s lived experience was that the heat pump was not working, and they raised the matter again in a handwritten document for an inspection on 7 November 2023 which they left for the property manager. This noted that the repair had not worked since installation. It may be that the heat pump is working normally again but I consider the landlord ought to have followed up in late 2023 to check that this was the case.

My finding is that the landlord did not investigate sufficiently, not that the heat pump was not working. I award compensation of $350.00 for the failure to respond to the tenant’s concerns.

The tenant claimed compensation for loss of use of the oven. The tenant said two elements had stopped working by early 2024. The door would not stay closed resulting in excessive power consumption. The tenant said these issues were raised during inspections in 2021, 2022, and 2023. A tradesperson came to assess the oven on 12 September 2023 and recommended replacement. On 7 November 2023 the tenant raised an issue about the door not shutting properly in a handwritten note. A further handwritten note for an inspection in June 2025 referred to elements not working. The oven was replaced after the end of the tenancy, on 31 July 2025.

It does seem likely that the tenants had to cook for a family of seven using an inefficient oven and possibly for a lengthy period. The tenant’s handwritten notes suggest that the issue with the elements was a more recent problem. I find that the issue ought to have been remedied by the landlord prior to the end of the tenancy. I award one week’s rent ($700.00) for the tenant’s loss of amenity. Vacant Possession

The tenant said the premises were supposed to be provided without furnishings. The premises had previously been used for emergency accommodation and contained beds which the tenants did not want. The premises remained furnished until 23 August 2020. The tenants had to store their belongings at a cost of $400.00 (one week). This was supported by a statement of account from the storer. The tenant also claimed two weeks’ rent as compensation.

The landlord said the tenant changed their minds about whether the premises would be furnished, and the rent was kept at $700.00 and not $750.00 because of the furniture.

The tenant’s email dated 24 July 2025 reveals that the premises were initially offered fully furnished at $750.00 per week. The tenant could not afford this, and the landlord then agreed to a weekly rent of $700.00 – presumably on an unfurnished basis.

I award the storage costs claimed but decline to award any reimbursement of rent. The tenants had an expectation that they could move their belongings into the premises. Their loss from the failure of that expectation was reflected in the continuing storage charges. Filing Fee

The parties will bear their own costs.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5320728 — net $87.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to end of tenancy	$600.00		Rent to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$437.00		Cleaning
Repairs to wardrobe	$200.00		Repairs to wardrobe
Replace carpet	$300.00		Replace carpet
Compensation - failure to investigate heat pump		$350.00	Compensation - failure to investigate heat pump
Compensation - failure to maintain oven		$700.00	Compensation - failure to maintain oven
Compensation - storage costs		$400.00	Compensation - storage costs
Total award	$1,537.00	$1,450.00
Net award	$87.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$87.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 February 2026.

The tenant made two applications to the Tribunal on 6 August 2025 and 20 January 2026. The tenant requested refund of the bond and raised issues relating to the Healthy Homes Standards.

The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 13 January 2026. Landlord’s Applications

The tenancy started on 14 August 2020 and ended on 18 July 2025.

In any event the wrong parties are before the Tribunal. I consider that the current property manager cannot be held liable for any failures of previous property managers.

The landlord had an obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45 of the Act).

My finding is that the landlord did not investigate sufficiently, not that the heat pump was not working. I award compensation of $350.00 for the failure to respond to the tenant’s concerns.

The landlord said the tenant changed their minds about whether the premises would be furnished, and the rent was kept at $700.00 and not $750.00 because of the furniture.

The parties will bear their own costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320728 — Cleanliness at 88 Settlement Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320728 — Cleanliness at 88 Settlement Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions