What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323920 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5323920?

Compensation: loss of use of two bed…: $1,085.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress, Inconvenience: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; 50% Repaint Windowsill: $73.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323920?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398595-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323920 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5323920?

Compensation: loss of use of two bed…: $1,085.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress, Inconvenience: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; 50% Repaint Windowsill: $73.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323920?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398595-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Edinburgh Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323920 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323920 — net $1,640.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: 50% repaint windowsill	$73.31		Repairs: 50% repaint windowsill
Compensation: loss of use of two bedrooms		$1,085.71	loss of use of two bedrooms
Compensation: stress, inconvenience		$600.00	stress, inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$73.31	$1,713.71
Net award		$1,640.40
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,640.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323920 — net $1,640.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: 50% repaint windowsill	$73.31		Repairs: 50% repaint windowsill
Compensation: loss of use of two bedrooms		$1,085.71	loss of use of two bedrooms
Compensation: stress, inconvenience		$600.00	stress, inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$73.31	$1,713.71
Net award		$1,640.40
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,640.40

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 38 Edinburgh Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 is reduced and now ends on 5 August 2025.
Glasshouse Property Management Limited As The Agent For Kesar Tech Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,640.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord was represented at the hearing by its agent (NE and JN for Glasshouse Property Management Limited As The Agent For Kesar Tech Limited). [The tenant/s] attended for both tenants.
This was a fixed term tenancy starting on 11 October 2024 and due to end on 12 October 2025.
The tenancy ended early after the tenants noticed mould and condensation in two bedrooms, gave notice to the landlord, and moved out on 5 August 2025.
The landlord says it took all reasonable steps to remedy the issues. It offered to end the tenancy early on condition the tenants remain liable for rent until new tenants were found. The tenants did not agree to these terms.
Both parties then made applications to the Tribunal. a. The landlord seeks refund of the bond, and:- i. rent owing under the fixed term tenancy until new tenants were found which is $2,571.43 to 4 September 2025, and ii. compensation of $517.50 for end of tenancy costs (cleaning, gardening, painting). b. The tenants seek refund of the bond, and:- i. to be released from the fixed term tenancy as from 5 August 2025, and ii. compensation of $7,000.00 for breaches of maintenance and/or the Healthy Homes Standards.

What is the law that applies to ending a fixed term tenancy?

The starting point is that a fixed term tenancy is a binding contract. It is a promise by the landlord to provide the premises and by a tenant to pay rent until the end of the fixed term.
A fixed term tenancy can end early by giving notice in some limited circumstances; see section 50(1)(a) and 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 1 1 Notice by a landlord when a tenant has been charged with physical assault on a landlord, owner or agent (s55AA); notice by a tenant where premises are unlawful for residential use and the landlord has caused or contributed to that (s56A); by a mortgagee, subsequent purchaser or tenant if a property is sold (s58(1)(d)(da)(e)); where premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable (s59 and s59A); in some instances, where premises are contaminated (by methamphetamine or other specified contaminant) above a maximum inhabitable level (specified in regulations); s59B RTA. A tenant may give notice to withdraw from a tenancy due to proven family violence (s56B).
Those circumstances include where the premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. 2
The Tribunal may make an order to terminate (end) or reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy if either party applies for that, and:- a. The premises are partially uninhabitable, there is no breach by either party, and the Tribunal is satisfied it would be unreasonable to require the premises to be reinstated or for the tenancy to continue at a reduced rent; s59(4) RTA. b. The other party has breached the tenancy agreement or the RTA, and if, the breach can be remedied, a notice has been given requiring remedy within a reasonable period of at least 14 days and the breaching party has failed to do so, and the breach is of such a nature or extent it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy; s56 RTA. c. There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances and the severe hardship caused to the applicant if the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced. 3
A landlord and tenant can agree to end a fixed term tenancy early; section 50(1)(d) RTA. The agreement should be in writing and a landlord may charge the tenant their actual and reasonable expenses for the early termination (in an itemised account). 4

What are the issues to be decided?

The issues are:- a. Has the landlord breached its legal obligations regarding the moisture and mould in the two bedrooms? b. Does the law allow the tenants to give notice to end the fixed term tenancy in these circumstances? c. Can the Tribunal terminate or reduce the term of the tenancy because the premises are partly uninhabitable or due to the landlord’s breach? d. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances causing severe hardship greater than any hardship to the landlord? e. Must the tenants pay rent up to when replacement tenants were found? 2 Section 59(1) and section 59A RTA as provided for in section 50(1)(a) RTA. 3 Section 66 RTA. 4 Section 44A RTA. f. If the landlord did breach the law or tenancy agreement, must the landlord pay compensation to the tenants? g. Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning and weeding? h. Has the landlord proved the claim for damage to the paint on the kitchen windowsill? Has the landlord breached its legal responsibilities regarding the moisture and mould in the two bedrooms?
Both landlords and tenants have legal responsibilities relating to maintenance:- a. a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 5 b. comply with the healthy homes standards: the ceiling must be “fully covered” by qualifying insulation except so far as “clearances are reasonably required around any other item that is installed in or above the ceiling”. 6 c. comply with all other laws relating to buildings, health and safety that apply to the premises which includes a requirement that houses be “free from dampness”. 7 d. tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage premises, keep premises reasonably clean and tidy, and notify the landlord of any damage or the need for any repairs. 8
The tenants say that the premises were unsafe and uninhabitable due to dampness, moisture and mould on walls and ceilings in two of the three bedrooms in the house. Their view is that this was not remedied with sufficient urgency and that they were justified in giving notice to end the fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord does not dispute that two bedrooms were indeed affected by mould and moisture of a level more than to be expected as part of normal living. It says it took prompt and reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the problem so has not breached its legal obligations.
Tribunal decisions recognise that some level of mould is common in many residential dwellings in New Zealand, so its presence does not always mean one or other party has breached their responsibilities. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord is responsible to remedy the fault. The premises must be able to be lived in, in the normal 5 Section 45 RTA. 6 Regulation 13 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 7 Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. 8 Section 40 RTA. way, without excessive mould developing. Where it is caused by tenants failing to adequately ventilate the house or by their damage, it is the tenant’s responsibility. 9
Photographs and video evidence supplied by the tenants show mould and moisture evident in distinct patches along the bottom and top of the walls in the two affected rooms, and along the wall edges of the ceiling.
Written and oral evidence from an insulation professional, [The witness] from [Insulation company], convincingly explained the issue as being caused by condensation. This is a 1980’s brick house and wall insulation was not required when it was built. His assessment is that cold air inside the cavity of the uninsulated south-facing exterior walls of the two bedrooms caused condensation to form on the inside of the walls when the rooms were heated during winter.
In addition, his inspection revealed that the ceiling insulation did not extend completely to the outer edges of the ceiling space. This caused the same problem along the edges of the bedroom ceilings where there was no insulation. Cold air in the roof cavity hit the warmth of the ceiling when the room was heated, and moisture and mould formed.
[The witness] explained that insulation installers sometimes do not install insulation right to the edge in a roof cavity because of a building requirement to ensure a clearance space between the top of insulation and the underside of the roof underlay. The purpose of this clearance is to avoid moisture that may form on the roof underlay from wicking into the insulation below.
The remedial work recommended and completed at the premises was to install wall insulation in the exterior walls of the two bedrooms and to install thinner, tapered insulation into the gaps on the low edges of the roof. In essence, ensuring the insulation fully covered the ceiling.
This solution is outlined in a Tenancy Services guide, “Healthy Homes Standards Insulation” which says that a thinner ceiling insulation product may be required, and is allowed, in exactly this situation. I have copied the paragraph below: 10 9 Tribunal decisions include Christopher Powell v Sue Golding [2022] NZTT 4316209, Tenant v Hutching Limited [2022] 4275513, 4278591 10 “Healthy Homes Standards Insulation”, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), July 2025 at page 11.
My decisions are that:- a. The landlord took prompt and appropriate action to inspect and remedy the dampness and mould. The tenants notified the landlord of the issue on 29 June 2025, the expert inspection took place on 3 July 2025, a quote for work requiring a building consent was provided on 9 July and accepted by the owner on 14 July 2025, and the work was completed on 12 August 2025. It was six weeks from the date the issue was raised until full remediation. I am satisfied the landlord treated the issue with appropriate urgency. It was remedied speedily especially for work requiring a building consent. b. The landlord has breached the healthy homes standards by failing to comply with the ceiling insulation standard which requires that the ceiling be fully covered by insulation. 11 An email from the insulation expert to the landlord confirms his oral evidence in the hearing and says, “the existing ceiling insulation does not extend fully to the top plate of the walls”. I accept that the reason for the failure to comply is probably that the previous installer was allowing for a clearance required from the top of the insulation to the underside of the roof. However, thinner insulation should have been installed in the low areas of the roof instead of leaving a gap with no insulation at all. The exemption 12 where a clearance is required around an item in the roof does not apply because, as the remedial work and the Tenancy Services guide prove, a thinner product can be installed. c. There is no breach of the healthy homes insulation standard relating to the lack of exterior wall insulation because this is not legally required. d. The landlord has breached the requirement that premises be free from dampness. 13 The photos, videos, and evidence from the insulation expert, all show dripping moisture inside the two bedrooms. As with mould, some dampness occurs in many homes from time to time and for 11 See footnote 6. 12 In regulation 13(2)(b) Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 13 See footnote 7. different reasons related to normal weather and living. Visible condensation on single-glazed windows, and at times in bathrooms or laundries, is acceptable and normal if it is short-lived and dries out once ventilation occurs. However, bedrooms should not have water dripping from ceilings and walls, as occurred here.
Compliance with the healthy homes standards and other applicable legislation operate as a form of “strict liability” for landlords. 14 This means that failure to comply is a breach whether or not that breach is intentional.
The landlord has breached its obligations to comply with the healthy homes standards and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which is an enactment applying to building health and safety; section 45(1)(bb) and (c) RTA. This is an unlawful act; s45(1A) RTA.

Does the law allow the tenants to give notice to end the fixed term tenancy?

On the morning of 9 July 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord advising they had decided to provide four weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy with the end date being 5 August 2025.
As set out earlier in this decision, a tenant has a right to give notice to terminate a fixed term tenancy only in certain limited circumstances.
The only one of those circumstances that may apply in this case is where the premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. 15
The right to give notice only applies if the premises are wholly or totally destroyed or uninhabitable.
A different process applies if premises are partially destroyed or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. The Tribunal may make an order to terminate a tenancy if this applies and there has been no breach by either party; s59(4) RTA. I discuss this below.
My decision is that the premises were not destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be wholly uninhabitable. Section 59(1) and 59A do not apply.
This is because two of the bedrooms were affected by moisture and mould, but the tenants agree that the rest of the house was not. The occupants who had been using the affected bedrooms moved out of them once the moisture and mould was discovered and the extended family lived in and used other 14 Strict liabliity is a legal standard holding a party responsible for their actions regardless of their intent, negligence or fault. 15 Section 50(1)(a) RTA and see footnote 1. The destruction or damage may come about where there is no breach by either party (for example, by natural disaster such as earthquake or flood, or other failing of the building such as weathertightness issues) or be caused by a breach by one of the parties. non-affected parts of the house which included the third bedroom, lounge, kitchen and bathroom.
This means the tenants did not have the right to give notice to terminate the tenancy. Their notice was invalid. 16 Can the Tribunal terminate or reduce the term of the tenancy because the premises are partly uninhabitable or due to the landlord’s breach?
The tenants did not have the legal right to give notice to terminate the tenancy however they have applied to the Tribunal to make an order to reduce or end the fixed term of the tenancy. 17
They made their application on 28 August 2025 on the grounds that two rooms were uninhabitable due to severe dampness, dripping water and black mould. They said they could not wait for repairs to be completed as this would risk the family’s health and, in particular, the health of [Tenant 1] and her unborn twins (she was eight months pregnant).
The Tribunal may make an order to terminate a fixed term tenancy in specific circumstances (see the section above on the law that applies to ending a fixed term tenancy).
My decisions are:- a. The extent of the moisture and mould in the two bedrooms meant the premises were partly uninhabitable during the time the tenants lived there. The tenant’s videos and photos showed moisture running down the walls and dripping from the ceiling even after the tenants stopped using those rooms. If premises are partly uninhabitable because of something that is not due to a breach by either party, and the Tribunal is satisfied it would be unreasonable to require the premises to be reinstated or for the tenancy to continue at a reduced rent, then an order terminating the tenancy can be made; s59(4) RTA. That does not apply here because the uninhabitability was caused by a breach by the landlord. b. The proper process when a tenant considers a landlord has breached their obligations and this can be remedied in some way, is to give the landlord what is often called a “14-day notice” or “notice of breach”; see section 56 RTA. The notice does not have to be in any set format or use special words. It must specify the nature of the breach and require the 16 Confirmed in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand” by Stewart Benson, 2018 Thomson Reuters New Zealand Ltd at 7.18. 17 The District Court has held that an order to reduce the term of a tenancy can be made retrospectively, that is, after the tenancy has ended. See above Benson at 3.3.1. other party to remedy it within a reasonable period. That period must be at least 14 days. The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy, if the tenant has made an application for that, if the landlord has not remedied the breach within that reasonable period and it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This does not apply in this case because although I consider the tenants’ email on 29 June 2025 notified the landlord clearly of the nature of the breach, the tenants did not specify or allow a reasonable period within which the landlord was required to remedy the breach. The tenants notified the landlord they intended to terminate the tenancy only 9 days after first notifying the landlord of the wet and mouldy rooms. They stuck with this decision and moved out on 5 August 2025. The remedial work was completed 7 days’ later.
It might seem wrong that I cannot order the termination of the tenancy (under s56 RTA) even though the landlord has breached a compliance obligation. This is because the tenants did not allow the landlord a reasonable opportunity (of at least 14 days) to remedy the breach that was capable of being remedied. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances causing severe hardship greater than any hardship to the landlord?
In rare circumstances, the Tribunal may reduce or terminate a fixed term tenancy where satisfied there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances and that they would suffer severe hardship if the tenancy was not reduced. This severe hardship must be greater than any hardship to the other party if the tenancy term is reduced; s66 RTA.
Even if the circumstances are proven, the Tribunal may still award compensation to the other party for any loss caused by the reduction of the term. This reflects a concern that a fixed term contract should not be ended early without very good cause.
The tenants’ effectively say they should be released from their contractual obligations because the moisture and mould issues in the two bedrooms were too severe a risk to [Tenant 1]’s pregnancy for the tenancy to continue. It was explained in the hearing that the pregnancy was medically complicated (due to difficulty conceiving and being a pregnancy of twins).
I accept that the fact of a medically complicated pregnancy together with the discovery of mould and moisture serious enough to make part of the premises uninhabitable was unforeseen. These factors combined were an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.
The tenants submit that the severe hardship they would have suffered if required to remain in the tenancy was the unacceptable risk to [Tenant 1]’s health, and the health of her unborn babies. I accept this is severe hardship in this case. I do note there was no independent medical evidence provided to verify the vulnerability or special features of the pregnancy or the medical advice the tenants referred to in their email giving notice to the landlord. That evidence would have helped and may have affected the way the landlord understood things at the time. However, the landlord did not challenge the fact or extent of the medical situation, and I accept the oral evidence given by [Tenant 2] to this effect.
Neither the landlord nor the tenants supplied any documented evidence of their relative financial situations or of how the payment of rent for the period when the premises were vacant between tenancies would affect them. I assume the tenants would suffer the hardship of having to pay two rents for that period and the landlord would suffer from not receiving any rent.
I am satisfied the severe hardship the tenants would suffer outweighs any hardship the landlord would suffer. This is primarily because there is no evidence of the landlord’s hardship.
The absence of financial evidence is relevant not only to the balancing of hardship between the landlord and tenant but also to consideration of whether any compensation should be paid by the tenants to the landlord for the early ending of the tenancy. Put simply, there is no evidence the landlord needs the money.
It is also relevant to consider the steps taken by both parties to mitigate or reduce their loss in the situation they found themselves in. This is a legal requirement; s49 RTA. The principle is that even if you think the other person has breached their legal responsibilities, you cannot sit waiting and do nothing. You must still try to minimise your loss as best you reasonably can.
I said above that tenants must ordinarily give a landlord notice of a reasonable period within which it must remedy a breach. In this case, however, the circumstances were not ordinary. The medical situation for mother and babies, and time pressure as the birth due date became more imminent, mean I agree that the tenants acted reasonably. They:- a. made the reasons for their decision clear in their email of 10 July 2025 18 ; and b. gave the landlord 27 days’ notice of their intended vacate date and paid full rent during this time. 18 The tenant said, that after consultations with hospital staff and “external professionals”, “... I cannot, in good conscience, compromise the wellbeing of my family – especially my pregnant wife- due to the landlord’s and your team’s unwillingness to provide and safe and healthy living environment.”
I am satisfied the landlord took prompt remedial action and communicated this appropriately to the tenants. 19 It was reasonable for the landlord to emphasise the binding nature of the fixed term contract, and it was correct in saying the tenants could not legally give notice to terminate the tenancy.
However, it was not reasonable mitigation for the landlord to delay advertising or taking other steps to find new tenants simply because the tenants would not agree to be liable for expenses and for rent while the premises were empty.
I do not accept that this is a valid reason to delay. The tenants made it clear on 10 July 2025 that their decision to vacate was final and that they would vacate on 5 August 2025. The landlord acknowledges it did not advertise the premises for rent until 6 August 2025.
It took only 4 weeks for a new tenancy to be secured. If the landlord had advertised earlier, the time between tenancies and rent loss may well have been almost nil.
I also note that the remedial work was done on the insulation during the first week after the tenants moved out. It is not reasonable the tenants to pay compensation for rent while this was happening.
For the above reasons, I reduce the tenancy to end on 5 August 2025 and do not award compensation to the landlord. If the landlord did breach the law or tenancy agreement, must the landlord pay compensation to the tenants?
I have determined the landlord breached the insulation regulations and the requirement the premises be free from dampness.
The tenants have applied for compensation which may be payable where a breach has caused loss or detriment. They gave evidence that they decided not to use the two bedrooms after discovering the mould and moisture. Sleeping arrangements were reorganised with the result that the tenants and their daughter slept in the lounge. 20
This is a clear loss of use of part of the premises. I reduce the rent payable from 29 June 2025 until 5 August 2025 which is 5 weeks and 3 days. The rent 19 They sent various emails acknowledging the tenants’ concerns, undertaking to “fast track” a remedy and explaining the process involved. The tenants were upset at what they saw as a lack of communication and urgency from the landlord. I do not think this is justified but I understand the wait, while worrying about the health concerns, must have been interminable. 20 The tenants are a couple, they initially slept in a bedroom not affected by the mould, their 9 year old daughter slept in one of the affected rooms, and a couple and their 2-year old child slept in the other affected bedroom. was $600.00 per week. Two out of three bedrooms being uninhabitable is significant. I assess the value of these as $100.00 per room per week.
This equates to $1,085.71. I award this amount to the tenants.
The tenants say they also suffered significant stress at a time when [Tenant 1] was very pregnant. [Tenant 2] said he runs his own business so lost about 5 days income during the move. There was no information to allow me to assess the amount of this loss, so I do not do so.
I accept the circumstances caused considerable stress brought about through no fault of the tenants. Moving bedrooms and reduced living space, additional cleaning, trying to negotiate early termination, and then unexpectedly and quickly moving house (especially when pregnant) are all very stressful. I award general damages of $600.00 to recognise this.
I note here that I am satisfied the landlord’s breaches were not intentional or even negligent.
This is because the landlord relied on the expertise of the insulation professionals who had originally installed the ceiling insulation and on a healthy homes compliance report from an independent company. That report went as far as “certifying” 21 the premises met the requirements of the healthy homes standards as of 3 August 2021 but does not specifically address the requirement that insulation must fully cover the ceiling. It seems probable that the certifiers failed to check this aspect of the regulations (there is no mention of it and the relevant photos do not extend to the edges of the ceiling).
The landlord had previously upgraded ventilation and installed a ground moisture barrier in order to comply with the healthy homes standards. This is not a landlord trying to avoid its obligations or turning a blind eye to them.
There was discussion in the hearing as to whether a landlord should proactively and regularly inspect and check the performance of insulation and other healthy homes standards features.
The healthy homes standards and smoke alarms rules are ongoing requirements:- a. The smoke alarm requirements “must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy”; regulation 5(2) Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. b. All things installed or provided in order to comply with the healthy homes standards must be “maintained in good working order” or “if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time”; 21 Although certification is not required or provided for by the RTA or Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. regulation 6(2)(d) Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
In practice, I suggest this means that landlords should establish regular and reasonable inspection routines. This might consist of testing smoke alarms and ventilation fans at every inspection and perhaps inspecting insulation between tenancies or at regular intervals to ensure it has not degraded or moved.

Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning and weeding?

The landlord claims compensation for the costs of cleaning ($186.88) and weeding and lawn mowing ($184.00).
A tenant must leave premises reasonably clean 22 which includes mowing and weeding of garden beds (if this is contracted as their obligation).
The tenants object to these claims as say they cleaned, mowed and weeded before they moved out. The landlord’s photos were taken about a month later, on 8 September 2025, before the next tenants moved in. The tenants took photos when they vacated.
After reviewing the photos from both parties, my decision is that the close-up photos from the landlord show a few areas as not completely clean (the bathroom vanity grouting, the inside of a few kitchen cupboards). I reject the assertion the tenants should have cleaned the inside of the rangehood and rusty hinges.
There were no wide-range photos to show whether the premises were reasonably clean and tidy overall. I take from this that they were. In this context, I consider the few missed areas to be reasonably clean and the claim unjustified. It is dismissed.
The claim for mowing and weeding is also dismissed. The tenants proved they mowed the lawn when they left. I have reduced the term of the tenancy to this date, so they are not liable for maintaining the gardens after that date. Has the landlord proved the claim for damage to the paint on the kitchen windowsill?
The landlord claims the paint on a section of the kitchen windowsill was damaged during this tenancy and the tenants are liable. It seeks $146.62 for repainting. 22 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
Photographs from the start and end of the tenancy show there was a deterioration of the paint during the tenancy. In fact, it had completely worn off in the section concerned. The tenants say the paint was flaking at the start and any further damage is due to normal wear.
My decision is that the tenants must contribute 50% towards the complete resurfacing of the windowsill. They did not prove the damage was not careless and the wear is considerable in that one place. It seems probable it was due to some act or omission (perhaps leaving moisture on the windowsill).
The 50% reduction recognises the paint was starting to wear at the start of the tenancy so some of the cost should be covered by the landlord as part of normal maintenance.
I award $73.31 to the landlord. Filing fees, suppression, bond
The tenants have been substantially successful, so I award them the filing fee and suppress their names. 23
The landlord has not been substantially successful so there is no presumption in favour of suppression. In the main, the landlord and its agents acted in good faith and in accordance with what they understood the law to be. I see no compelling reason for suppression especially as the agent and the owner are companies, so the privacy of natural persons is protected to some extent. 24
Both parties were in a difficult situation and their actions and communication were reasonable and respectful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323920 — Property damage at 38 Edinburgh Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323920 — Property damage at 38 Edinburgh Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law that applies to ending a fixed term tenancy?

What are the issues to be decided?

Does the law allow the tenants to give notice to end the fixed term tenancy?

Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning and weeding?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law that applies to ending a fixed term tenancy?

What are the issues to be decided?

Does the law allow the tenants to give notice to end the fixed term tenancy?

Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning and weeding?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions