What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329973 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 5329973?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $287.14 awarded to landlord; Cabinet Door: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bedroom Door: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $129.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329973?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13294508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329973 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 5329973?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $287.14 awarded to landlord; Cabinet Door: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bedroom Door: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $129.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329973?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13294508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329973 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329973 — net $2,054.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to	$287.14	Rent arrears to
Exit cleaning	$350.00	Exit cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Cabinet door	$180.00	Repairs: Cabinet door
Lock/key replacement: Living room door lock	$100.00	Lock/key replacement: Living room door lock
Repairs: Master bedroom door	$600.00	Repairs: Master bedroom door
Repairs: Walls and doors, paint touch up	$280.00	Repairs: Walls and doors, paint touch up
Rubbish removal: Sofa disposal	$129.00	Rubbish removal: Sofa disposal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,054.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,054.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,054.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,054.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $345.86 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 January 2026.
The tenancy was from 27 May 2022 until 4 August 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant made an application to the Tribunal seeking for refund of the bond and compensation for the premises not meeting Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, and compensation for exit cleaning, rubbish disposal, repairing the cabinet door, replacement of the faucet, repairing the living room sliding door, replacement of the living room curtains, replacement of the living room door lock, replacement of the master bedroom door and lock, repair of the walls and doors, replacement of broken window glass, disposal of sofa, replacement of the carpet, and exemplary damages for having a dog without the landlord’s permission.
I deal with the tenant’s claims first. Tenant’s application
The tenant had asked for an HHS report before she moved out and an entry condition report to rebut the landlord’s damage and compensation claims towards the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the premises was not insulated, and the premises only had a heat pump installed after asking for a whole year for some warmth. The tenant claimed that there was draught coming through the windows and doors that caused her son to be sick all the time leading for both to be in hospital most of the time.
The landlord is not required to provide the tenant with a copy of the entry condition report. Therefore, I make nothing of that.
In relation to the HHS claim, the landlord provided an HHS report prepared by Yoke Insulation Ltd that assessed the premises as being compliant with HHS.
The tenant had a more recent HHS report prepared by Habitat for Humanity from 12 February 2025. That report noted that the ground moisture barrier did not meet HHS, and that there was a draught issue with the ranch slider in the living room.
However, the tenant never provided the landlord with this HHS report or notify the landlord that there were areas that were no longer compliant with the HHS. The landlord was never told to attend to the HHS non-compliance issues.
The landlord cannot be faulted for not fixing something they were not told about. I find that the landlord was justified on relying on the pre-existing HHS report. 5329973, 53320253
The tenant said that she told one of the former property managers about the draught issue with the ranch slider. However, the tenant never followed up with this issue in writing at any stage.
Under section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the tenant is under a duty to take all reasonable steps to limit any damage or loss arising out from the landlord’s breach. This means the tenant must tell the landlord if the landlord is in breach of HHS or the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises.
Although I accept that the ranch slider had draught issues, I do not find that the tenant has taken all reasonable steps to bring this to the landlord’s attention. I do not find that this claim warrants any compensation.
Therefore, the tenant’s application is dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
I now turn to the landlord’s cross-application.
The tenant did not dispute the rent arrears of $287.14. This is granted.
The tenant accepted that the premises was not left entirely reasonably clean and tidy. However, the tenant disputed the cleaning costs of $500.00.
Having seen the photos, I find $350.00 to be more reasonable. I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord.
I grant the landlord’s application for rubbish removal of $100.00. There were items left in the kitchen cupboard and rubbish outside.
The tenant did not dispute causing damage to the cabinet door. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $180.00.
The tenant disputed causing damage to the faucet, living room sliding door, living room curtains and breaking the window glass. The entry inspection report noted that the issues with the faucet had been pre-existing. I accept that the living room sliding door had issues and caused rust and mould for the living room curtains. The tenant had already told the landlord about the window crack and the need to replace the bathroom window. I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused the damage for these.
The tenant accepted the need for the living room door lock to be replaced as well as the master bedroom door and lock. The landlord has proven damage to the walls and doors was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not dispute liability for those.
I grant the landlord $100.00 to replace the living room door lock, $600.00 for the bedroom door and lock and $280.00 for the walls and doors. 5329973, 53320254
I also grant the landlord’s claim for sofa disposal. The landlord had been invoiced $520.00 but a simple call to Junk 2 Go at the hearing revealed the cost of disposal for a single sofa to be $129.00. I find $520.00 to be unreasonably high. I grant the landlord the market rate of $129.00.
The landlord claimed $4,000.00 for carpet replacement. The landlord claimed that the handyman had found dog faeces underneath the sofa when it was removed and that the smell was too much that it had to be replaced.
The tenant accepted that there was some smell due to the dog and said that she had cleaned it. However, she disputed the need for the carpet to be replaced.
The landlord did not have any evidence regarding the dog faeces by way of photos or statement from the handyman confirming the situation. The only evidence was the one line in the exit inspection report stating that “the property had a strong dog odour, and the carpet was dirty and needed to be replaced.”
I do not grant the landlord’s claim for carpet replacement.
Regarding the claim for exemplary damages, keeping a pet without the landlord’s permission is not an unlawful act that is covered under exemplary damages under schedule 1A RTA. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Finally, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee as the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim.
The amount ordered against the tenant is to be deducted from the bond held at the Bond Centre. The remaining amount will be returned to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329973 — net $2,054.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to	$287.14	Rent arrears to
Exit cleaning	$350.00	Exit cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Cabinet door	$180.00	Repairs: Cabinet door
Lock/key replacement: Living room door lock	$100.00	Lock/key replacement: Living room door lock
Repairs: Master bedroom door	$600.00	Repairs: Master bedroom door
Repairs: Walls and doors, paint touch up	$280.00	Repairs: Walls and doors, paint touch up
Rubbish removal: Sofa disposal	$129.00	Rubbish removal: Sofa disposal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,054.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,054.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,054.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,054.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $345.86 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 January 2026.
The tenancy was from 27 May 2022 until 4 August 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant made an application to the Tribunal seeking for refund of the bond and compensation for the premises not meeting Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, and compensation for exit cleaning, rubbish disposal, repairing the cabinet door, replacement of the faucet, repairing the living room sliding door, replacement of the living room curtains, replacement of the living room door lock, replacement of the master bedroom door and lock, repair of the walls and doors, replacement of broken window glass, disposal of sofa, replacement of the carpet, and exemplary damages for having a dog without the landlord’s permission.
I deal with the tenant’s claims first. Tenant’s application
The tenant had asked for an HHS report before she moved out and an entry condition report to rebut the landlord’s damage and compensation claims towards the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the premises was not insulated, and the premises only had a heat pump installed after asking for a whole year for some warmth. The tenant claimed that there was draught coming through the windows and doors that caused her son to be sick all the time leading for both to be in hospital most of the time.
The landlord is not required to provide the tenant with a copy of the entry condition report. Therefore, I make nothing of that.
In relation to the HHS claim, the landlord provided an HHS report prepared by Yoke Insulation Ltd that assessed the premises as being compliant with HHS.
The tenant had a more recent HHS report prepared by Habitat for Humanity from 12 February 2025. That report noted that the ground moisture barrier did not meet HHS, and that there was a draught issue with the ranch slider in the living room.
However, the tenant never provided the landlord with this HHS report or notify the landlord that there were areas that were no longer compliant with the HHS. The landlord was never told to attend to the HHS non-compliance issues.
The landlord cannot be faulted for not fixing something they were not told about. I find that the landlord was justified on relying on the pre-existing HHS report. 5329973, 53320253
The tenant said that she told one of the former property managers about the draught issue with the ranch slider. However, the tenant never followed up with this issue in writing at any stage.
Under section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the tenant is under a duty to take all reasonable steps to limit any damage or loss arising out from the landlord’s breach. This means the tenant must tell the landlord if the landlord is in breach of HHS or the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises.
Although I accept that the ranch slider had draught issues, I do not find that the tenant has taken all reasonable steps to bring this to the landlord’s attention. I do not find that this claim warrants any compensation.
Therefore, the tenant’s application is dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
I now turn to the landlord’s cross-application.
The tenant did not dispute the rent arrears of $287.14. This is granted.
The tenant accepted that the premises was not left entirely reasonably clean and tidy. However, the tenant disputed the cleaning costs of $500.00.
Having seen the photos, I find $350.00 to be more reasonable. I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord.
I grant the landlord’s application for rubbish removal of $100.00. There were items left in the kitchen cupboard and rubbish outside.
The tenant did not dispute causing damage to the cabinet door. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $180.00.
The tenant disputed causing damage to the faucet, living room sliding door, living room curtains and breaking the window glass. The entry inspection report noted that the issues with the faucet had been pre-existing. I accept that the living room sliding door had issues and caused rust and mould for the living room curtains. The tenant had already told the landlord about the window crack and the need to replace the bathroom window. I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused the damage for these.
The tenant accepted the need for the living room door lock to be replaced as well as the master bedroom door and lock. The landlord has proven damage to the walls and doors was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not dispute liability for those.
I grant the landlord $100.00 to replace the living room door lock, $600.00 for the bedroom door and lock and $280.00 for the walls and doors. 5329973, 53320254
I also grant the landlord’s claim for sofa disposal. The landlord had been invoiced $520.00 but a simple call to Junk 2 Go at the hearing revealed the cost of disposal for a single sofa to be $129.00. I find $520.00 to be unreasonably high. I grant the landlord the market rate of $129.00.
The landlord claimed $4,000.00 for carpet replacement. The landlord claimed that the handyman had found dog faeces underneath the sofa when it was removed and that the smell was too much that it had to be replaced.
The tenant accepted that there was some smell due to the dog and said that she had cleaned it. However, she disputed the need for the carpet to be replaced.
The landlord did not have any evidence regarding the dog faeces by way of photos or statement from the handyman confirming the situation. The only evidence was the one line in the exit inspection report stating that “the property had a strong dog odour, and the carpet was dirty and needed to be replaced.”
I do not grant the landlord’s claim for carpet replacement.
Regarding the claim for exemplary damages, keeping a pet without the landlord’s permission is not an unlawful act that is covered under exemplary damages under schedule 1A RTA. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Finally, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee as the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim.
The amount ordered against the tenant is to be deducted from the bond held at the Bond Centre. The remaining amount will be returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329973 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329973 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions