Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5328957 — Property damage at 69 Velino Place, Ohoka, RD 2, Ohoka 7692
Decided 2 Jan 2026 · Published 2 Jan 2026 · Application 5328957
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,350.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning and Exterior Tidy Up$3,190.00 Repairs: Painting$1,700.00 Lock/key replacement: Garage Door Remotes$310.50 Repairs: Leadlight Window$586.50 Repairs: Tree Removal$2,300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,070.00 Bond$2,720.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,350.00
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (6441846-006) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.
- The tenant claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for several alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Issues
- The Tribunal must determine these issues: a. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for the tenant failing to comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? b. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for damage to the premises? c. Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation? d. Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages? Relevant Law
- Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
- Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
- 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return garage door remotes.
- The landlord provided photographs and invoices for the amounts claimed. The amount awarded includes cleaning of $850, a skip bin hire of $405 and Greenedge Exterior Clean of $1,890.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a leadlight panel in the entry door was broken, paint damage to walls where tenant applied incorrect paint, broken tap, oven needed replacing and Olive trees destroyed.
- The claims for a tap and oven replacement were not proved. In particular the landlord did not incur the cost of replacing an oven before selling the property.
- The leadlight window was broken and there is wall/paint damage that is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have not awarded the full amount claimed for paint damage, having regard to the photographs and age of the paintwork at the premises.
- The premises are in a rural setting, surrounded by an Olive grove. It was a condition of the tenancy that the tenants would keep the Olive Trees tidy by annual pruning.
- The tenants engaged a contractor to prune some of the trees. They were not pruned, they were cut back to little more than a stump. They could not be reestablished and had to be removed.
- Pruning and tree maintenance is generally regarded as a landlord responsibility. Section 11 RTA provides that any part of a tenancy agreement that contradicts the Act is not valid and cannot be enforced, unless the Act specifically allows it, or the Tribunal is satisfied that the clause should be permitted.
- If the tenants had done nothing to the trees and the landlord claimed pruning costs, I would have had to determine whether the clause requiring them to prune the trees was enforceable. The landlord explained why the agreement was structured with the tenant pruning the trees and paying less rent than if the landlord had maintained the trees. The tenants did not dispute that that they were responsible for pruning.
- I do not have to decide whether the clause was enforceable, because the tenants did instruct a contractor to prune the trees. In doing so the trees were damaged to the extent they had to be removed. The tenants have not disproved liability for that damage; the contractor was acting on their instructions, they paid the bill, did not challenge the work done, and did not check the contractor’s expertise to do the work. The landlord provided photographs and evidence of the cost to remove the trees. I have not allowed the additional landlord time and chipper hire costs, as those costs were not proved to the required civil standard. Tenant Claims for Compensation
- The tenants alleged that the premises were sub-standard from the start of the tenancy. They also said that the fire did not work for two years, that the bathroom ceiling was damp, that there were electrical issues, and a range of other maintenance was required.
- The alleged issues are not well documented. The tenants say that they were raised with the various property managers throughout the tenancy and never dealt with. The first record of issues being raised are in March 2025, after the landlord became upset about the tree pruning. The tenancy ended in April 2025.
- The landlord’s evidence shows that they attended to all issues as they arose and were drawn to their attention. They acted promptly. The invoices also detail the repairs done. The landlord provided a spreadsheet of maintenance work and invoices.
- The Tribunal is cautious when assessing claims such as this one where no applications were made by the tenants during the tenancy, where the application was made in response to the landlord’s application, and where some of the accusations levelled against the landlord are so starkly at odds with the objective evidence.
- The tenants also claim that the landlord, through one of its property managers interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises. They say that they were so distressed by the property manager that their children had nightmares. The claims were vague. There is no contemporaneous or corroborative evidence from the tenants regarding these alleged breaches.
- If the tenants felt that they were made to feel at fault, or that the property manager was hostile, those are subjective feelings. Perhaps there was a personality clash, or unrealistic expectations. Whatever it was, the tenants have not proved a claim for breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord.
- The tenants have not established any breach of the landlord’s obligations under s45 or s38 RTA. The application for compensation of $10,000 is dismissed. Tenant Claim for Exemplary Damages
- For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, tenants must prove that the landlord has committed an unlawful act (as defined in the RTA). Established breaches of s38 (quiet enjoyment) or s45 (repair and maintenance) may give rise to an award of exemplary damages. Tenants must show that the landlord turned their mind to the alleged unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it.
- These tenants did not establish any breach of the landlord’s obligations, so the claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed.
- As the landlord was successful with its claims, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.