What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336888 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,057.14 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5336888?

Cleaning: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $482.14 awarded to landlord; Chipped Hob (Accepted: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336888?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12856813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336888 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,057.14 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5336888?

Cleaning: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $482.14 awarded to landlord; Chipped Hob (Accepted: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336888?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12856813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Barn Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336888 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336888 — net $2,057.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 July 2025	$482.14		Rent arrears to 14 July 2025
Cleaning	$275.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Chipped hob (accepted	$650.00		Repairs: Chipped hob (accepted
Repairs: walls	$1,150.00		Repairs: walls
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,557.14	$500.00
Net award	$2,057.14
Bond	$5,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,057.14

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,057.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,400.00 (6539780-016) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,057.14 [The tenant/s]: $3,342.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment.
I firstly address the landlord’s claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
While the landlord had not realised the rent was in arrears prior to the tenant filing her claim at the Tribunal, this oversight does not bar the landlord’s claim that was subsequently filed. The landlord’s claim has been filed well within time and the statute of limitations has yet to set in.
The amounts ordered for rent arrears are proved.

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.
Having considered the landlord’s photographs and after hearing from both parties, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I have however, moderated the landlord’s claim to take into account the requirement that the premises is brought up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition only, rather than to a professional standard which the landlord’s cleaning appear to be geared towards.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the kitchen hob and walls. The tenant accepts liability for damage to the kitchen hob.
As for the walls, I consider some of the damage claimed by the landlord to be beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There is insufficient evidence that the damage to the garage floor was caused during the tenancy. There was no pre-tenancy photos or inspection report. The onus remained on the landlord to show that the alleged damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord failed to discharge the applicable burden of proof in this instance.
I do not consider the stains to the kitchen bench and the driveway to be beyond fair wear or tear.
Only the amounts awarded are proved.
I now consider the tenant’s claims. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the early months of the tenancy?
The tenant claims compensation in the form of a reduction in the rent paid due to the landlord breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment for approximately 12 weeks from 2 September to 14 November 2024. The rationale for compensation is that the property was not completed, and the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of premises by failing to adequately notify the tenant of tradespeople coming to the property on numerous occasions.
The compensation sought is for half rent x 8 weeks which the tenant believes to be a fair and reasonable sum to be returned given the breaches that occurred.
When the tenant moved into the newly built property, several things were not completed, including blinds, curtains, wardrobes in 4 rooms, broken vanity drawer, damaged bathroom sink, plastering touch up required and painting of exterior (all entrance doors), landscaping, and fencing.
From 2-6 September, the builder installed the fence with no prior notice given.
On 6 September, wardrobes were installed with notice given by the landlord.
On 16 September, less than 24 hours’ notice had been given by the landlord for the builder’s attempt at installation of blinds.
On 19 September, blinds installer and builders turned up with only 2 hours’ notice.
On 11 October, there was short notice from the landlord about landscaping work being carried out on the property. The landscaper had blocked the tenant’s driveway, causing inconvenience.
On 14 October, at 8pm, topsoil workers were on the property without prior notice, seeking permission to put topsoil.
The tenant asked the landlord for more notice about when people were coming to the property. The landlord agreed.
On 17 October, the tenant followed up with the landlord about people entering the property as landscaping people were at the door wanting access to the driveway/property.
On 17 October, the landlord admitted to “dropping the ball” on property management and asked if the tenancy should be managed by an agency.
From 14 to 25 October, plasterers worked on the exterior of the house without prior notice, blocking access to the front and back door of the house. The tenant complained of intense smell in the house.
On 1-2 November, landscaping workers blocked the driveway, with no prior notice and no notice of the duration of the work and disruption to the tenant.
On 14 November, builders turned up at house without prior notice being given.
The text communication between the tenant and the landlord supports the above incidences of breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I accept the tenant’s claim that the landlord (or her agents, builders and tradespeople) have interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises at the above times.
I consider general damages of $500.00 to be an appropriate award to be handed in favour of the tenants for the landlord’s encroachments. The tenant had ultimately allowed the work to be carried out, but the impact on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is not insignificant and duly documented.
Having regard to section 38(2) and 38(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 however, I do not consider that the landlord has breached their obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment. I do not consider that the landlord has committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I do not consider that the landlord had intentionally ignored the tenant or harassed her and other occupants of the premises. Hence, the landlord did not commit any unlawful act.
Rather, the landlord’s admission of having to deal with a “snag list” due to imperfect delivery of the premises by the developer of the new built meant that the tenant could not enjoy the premises without interruption from builders and contractors finishing up work.
I do not consider 50% rebate of rent sought by the tenant to be an appropriate measure of general damages.
Having regard to the nature and extent of the breach, I consider an award of $500.00 justified.
Only the orders set out in the table above are proved.
I order the bond to be split as set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336888 — net $2,057.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 July 2025	$482.14		Rent arrears to 14 July 2025
Cleaning	$275.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Chipped hob (accepted	$650.00		Repairs: Chipped hob (accepted
Repairs: walls	$1,150.00		Repairs: walls
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,557.14	$500.00
Net award	$2,057.14
Bond	$5,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,057.14

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,057.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,400.00 (6539780-016) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,057.14 [The tenant/s]: $3,342.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment.
I firstly address the landlord’s claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
While the landlord had not realised the rent was in arrears prior to the tenant filing her claim at the Tribunal, this oversight does not bar the landlord’s claim that was subsequently filed. The landlord’s claim has been filed well within time and the statute of limitations has yet to set in.
The amounts ordered for rent arrears are proved.

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.
Having considered the landlord’s photographs and after hearing from both parties, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I have however, moderated the landlord’s claim to take into account the requirement that the premises is brought up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition only, rather than to a professional standard which the landlord’s cleaning appear to be geared towards.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the kitchen hob and walls. The tenant accepts liability for damage to the kitchen hob.
As for the walls, I consider some of the damage claimed by the landlord to be beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There is insufficient evidence that the damage to the garage floor was caused during the tenancy. There was no pre-tenancy photos or inspection report. The onus remained on the landlord to show that the alleged damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord failed to discharge the applicable burden of proof in this instance.
I do not consider the stains to the kitchen bench and the driveway to be beyond fair wear or tear.
Only the amounts awarded are proved.
I now consider the tenant’s claims. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the early months of the tenancy?
The tenant claims compensation in the form of a reduction in the rent paid due to the landlord breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment for approximately 12 weeks from 2 September to 14 November 2024. The rationale for compensation is that the property was not completed, and the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of premises by failing to adequately notify the tenant of tradespeople coming to the property on numerous occasions.
The compensation sought is for half rent x 8 weeks which the tenant believes to be a fair and reasonable sum to be returned given the breaches that occurred.
When the tenant moved into the newly built property, several things were not completed, including blinds, curtains, wardrobes in 4 rooms, broken vanity drawer, damaged bathroom sink, plastering touch up required and painting of exterior (all entrance doors), landscaping, and fencing.
From 2-6 September, the builder installed the fence with no prior notice given.
On 6 September, wardrobes were installed with notice given by the landlord.
On 16 September, less than 24 hours’ notice had been given by the landlord for the builder’s attempt at installation of blinds.
On 19 September, blinds installer and builders turned up with only 2 hours’ notice.
On 11 October, there was short notice from the landlord about landscaping work being carried out on the property. The landscaper had blocked the tenant’s driveway, causing inconvenience.
On 14 October, at 8pm, topsoil workers were on the property without prior notice, seeking permission to put topsoil.
The tenant asked the landlord for more notice about when people were coming to the property. The landlord agreed.
On 17 October, the tenant followed up with the landlord about people entering the property as landscaping people were at the door wanting access to the driveway/property.
On 17 October, the landlord admitted to “dropping the ball” on property management and asked if the tenancy should be managed by an agency.
From 14 to 25 October, plasterers worked on the exterior of the house without prior notice, blocking access to the front and back door of the house. The tenant complained of intense smell in the house.
On 1-2 November, landscaping workers blocked the driveway, with no prior notice and no notice of the duration of the work and disruption to the tenant.
On 14 November, builders turned up at house without prior notice being given.
The text communication between the tenant and the landlord supports the above incidences of breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I accept the tenant’s claim that the landlord (or her agents, builders and tradespeople) have interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises at the above times.
I consider general damages of $500.00 to be an appropriate award to be handed in favour of the tenants for the landlord’s encroachments. The tenant had ultimately allowed the work to be carried out, but the impact on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is not insignificant and duly documented.
Having regard to section 38(2) and 38(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 however, I do not consider that the landlord has breached their obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment. I do not consider that the landlord has committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I do not consider that the landlord had intentionally ignored the tenant or harassed her and other occupants of the premises. Hence, the landlord did not commit any unlawful act.
Rather, the landlord’s admission of having to deal with a “snag list” due to imperfect delivery of the premises by the developer of the new built meant that the tenant could not enjoy the premises without interruption from builders and contractors finishing up work.
I do not consider 50% rebate of rent sought by the tenant to be an appropriate measure of general damages.
Having regard to the nature and extent of the breach, I consider an award of $500.00 justified.
Only the orders set out in the table above are proved.
I order the bond to be split as set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336888 — Property damage at 43 Barn Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336888 — Property damage at 43 Barn Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions