What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332101 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 5332101?

Break Lease Fee: $785.20 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $642.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332101?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13643374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332101 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 5332101?

Break Lease Fee: $785.20 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $642.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332101?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13643374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 15 Robson Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332101 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332101 — net $1,456.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease fee	$785.20	Break lease fee
Loss of rent	$642.86	Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,456.06
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,456.06

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332101 — net $1,456.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease fee	$785.20	Break lease fee
Loss of rent	$642.86	Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,456.06
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,456.06

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,456.06 immediately as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,456.06 [The tenant/s]: $343.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for outstanding rent charges and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The landlord also seeks compensation for a break lease fee.
The tenant cross applied claiming a breach of landlord obligations in respect of bond lodgement, Healthy Homes Standards and failing to provide premises in a reasonably clean condition. The tenant also seeks to be released from his obligations under the fixed term agreement. Background
The premises consist of a downstairs flat with 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom and separate lounge.
The parties entered into a fixed term agreement. The fixed term was for 12 months from 18 August 2025 to 18 August 2026.
The tenancy was due to start on 18 August 2025. The tenant inspected the premises on 15 August 2025 and discovered mould on the bathroom and bedroom ceiling. The tenant advised the landlord that he would not be moving in due to the condition of the premises.
There has been communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Has the tenant breached his obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

• Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation?

On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition?

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

• Has the landlord breached their obligation in respect of the bond? Statutory provisions

Section 19(1) RTA sets out an obligation on a landlord to lodge the bond within a prescribed timeframe.
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 and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Landlord claims Break lease fee
The landlord claims the amount of $785.20 which includes a TradeMe relisting fee. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that a new tenancy started on 4 September 2026.
The landlord provided a copy of the new tenancy agreement confirming the new tenant’s details with a tenancy start date of 4 September 2025.
I sighted the new agreement during the hearing and confirmed with the tenant that this was correct.
The landlord also provided an itemised account of expenses in support of the amount claimed.
The tenant says that the amount claimed to relist the premises is unrealistic
The landlord provided an itemised invoice listing the expenses incurred by the landlord as a result of the breach. The RTA provides as follows in respect of break lease fees: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
Having sighted the itemised expense claim filed by the landlord I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt pursuant to the fixed term agreement signed by the tenant on 4 August 2025.
The claim is established. Rent arrears

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims loss of rent of $642.86 for the period 18 August 2025 to 3 September 2025. The landlord confirms that a new tenancy started on 4 September 2025 as per the sighted tenancy agreement. The landlord advises that the tenant paid one week rent in advance ($450.00) which has been deducted off the amount claimed of $1092.86 leaving the amount of $642.86.
By signing the tenancy agreement, the tenant was agreeing to move into the premises on specified start date. The landlord is therefore entitled to seek compensation for loss of rent for the period claimed.
The landlord provided a rent ledger confirming the amount claimed for outstanding rent. Having sighted the landlord’s evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amount claimed.
The claim for rent arrears is proven Tenant claims Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must • provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that when he inspected the property on Friday 15 August 2025, there was black mould on the bathroom and bedroom ceiling.
The tenant brought this to the attention of the landlord on the same day. The tenant says that the clause in the tenancy agreement relating to moisture ingress and drainage assessment on 16 April 2025 suggests that there was a problem with moisture and drainage on 16 April 2025.
The landlord says that the owner attended over the weekend and cleaned. The landlord also produced a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 3 December 2021. The report confirmed that the premises fully complied with HHS. The landlord says it was light mould on the ceiling. The tenant says it was not a little. Analysis
The tenant alleges that the presence of mould on the bathroom ceiling constituted a breach of Healthy Homes Standards. I do not accept that submission on the evidence before me. The tenant has also not produced any independent evidence confirming the premises fail to comply with the HHS.
The Healthy Homes Standards impose obligations on landlords in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
The presence of a limited amount of surface mould, without evidence of underlying moisture ingress, inadequate ventilation or non-compliance with any specific Healthy Homes requirement, is insufficient to establish a breach of these standards. There is also no evidence to support the allegation that a clause relating to moisture ingress and drainage suggests that there was a problem with moisture and drainage in April 2025.
The evidence indicates that once notified of the issue the landlord promptly attended the premises and undertook cleaning of the affected area.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim in relation to an alleged breach of the HHS has not been established.

Should the tenant be released from the fixed term tenancy?

The tenant says that he should be released from the fixed term tenancy as he had not taken possession of the property.
The tenant notified the landlord on Saturday 16 August 2025 that he would not be going ahead with the tenancy. The tenant says that he did not go ahead with the tenancy as he would also be operating a food preparation business from the address. The tenant was concerned that the main reason for the mould was not going to be sorted. Analysis
The tenant seeks to be released from the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the premises were not reasonably clean at the pre-tenancy inspection conducted approximately two days prior to the tenancy commencement date of 18 August 2025.
The concerns raised related primarily to mould on the bathroom and bedroom ceiling.
Having carefully considered the tenant’s evidence I am not satisfied that the condition of the premises amounted to a substantial breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA so as to justify repudiation of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
The evidence indicates that upon notification of the concerns the landlord promptly attended the premises and undertook a thorough clean.
In the circumstances, the tenant ought reasonably to have allowed the landlord an opportunity to remedy the issues identified before refusing to take possession of the premises.
The tenancy agreement had already been executed by both parties. I find that the issues complained of were capable of remedy within a reasonable timeframe.
Accordingly, the tenant’s request to terminate or be released from the fixed term agreement is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe. The tenant confirmed that he paid a bond of $1800.00 on 4 August 2025.
The bond was money was sent by the property manager on 16 September and received by the bond centre on 19 September 2025.
The landlord says that there was initial confusion in the office when they saw that the tenant had not moved into the property. On 16 September 2025 the property manager’s accountant could see that there was bond money still sitting in their account. The money was then paid straight away to the bond centre.
The tenant stated during the hearing that he is not claiming exemplary damages. Analysis
The landlord accepts that the bond was not lodged within the required timeframe.
Accordingly, although I find that the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe I accept their explanation as to why this was not done. The Tribunal is satisfied that the bond was not lodged within the statutory period and that this constitutes a breach of the Act.
However, the Tribunal declines to award exemplary damages.
I am not persuaded that the actions of the landlord in this regard were intentional, but rather an oversight due to the tenant’s refusal to move into the premises.
The Tribunal has taken into account the circumstances at the commencement of the tenancy, including the confusion arising from the tenant’s refusal to take possession of the premises in accordance with the fixed-term tenancy agreement.
The evidence does not establish that the landlord deliberately or intentionally failed to lodge the bond, nor that the conduct was wilful or in reckless disregard of the landlord’s obligations under the Act. Rather, the failure appears to have been a technical breach arising from oversight during a difficult commencement to the tenancy.
In those circumstances the Tribunal does not consider an award of exemplary damages to be justified.

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for storage fees?

The tenant claims a storage fee of $185.53. The tenant provided an invoice from Kennards Self Storage. The tenant placed his belongings into storage on 22 September 2025 until 14 October 2025.
The landlord maintains that the property was ready to move in to on 18 August 2025. Analysis
The tenant claims reimbursement of a storage fee following the end of his tenancy. The tenant has not provided any evidence which confirms that the actions of the landlord caused him loss in this regard. The tenant made a unilateral decision to not continue with the tenancy as agreed. Because of this the landlord should not be held liable for any storage costs which the tenant may have incurred after the tenancy ended.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of a storage fee is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.
The tenant also applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details. He has had a degree of success with one of his claims in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is therefore allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332101 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 15 Robson Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332101 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 15 Robson Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenant be released from the fixed term tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for storage fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenant be released from the fixed term tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for storage fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions