What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336926 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 5336926?

Compensation: Breach of the HHS mois…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity - fron…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity - wash…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Electricity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $634.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet: $748.74 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336926?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398162-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336926 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 5336926?

Compensation: Breach of the HHS mois…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity - fron…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity - wash…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Electricity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $634.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet: $748.74 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336926?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398162-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336926 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336926 — net $162.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$634.00		Rent arrears
Repairs: Replace toilet	$748.74		Repairs: Replace toilet
Repairs: Damage to the wallpaper and walls	$100.00		covering. Taking into account betterment the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay $100.00 compensation for damage to the wallpaper.
Repairs: Replacement of carpet	$100.00		covering. Taking into account betterment the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay $100.00 compensation for damage to the wallpaper.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Breach of the HHS moisture ingress		$500.00	Breach of the HHS moisture ingress
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$500.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Use of electricity		$150.00	Use of electricity
Compensation: Loss of amenity - washing line		$120.00	Loss of amenity - washing line
Compensation: Loss of amenity - front section		$150.00	Loss of amenity - front section
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,610.74	$1,448.00
Net award	$162.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$162.74

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336926 — net $162.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$634.00		Rent arrears
Repairs: Replace toilet	$748.74		Repairs: Replace toilet
Repairs: Damage to the wallpaper and walls	$100.00		covering. Taking into account betterment the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay $100.00 compensation for damage to the wallpaper.
Repairs: Replacement of carpet	$100.00		covering. Taking into account betterment the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay $100.00 compensation for damage to the wallpaper.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Breach of the HHS moisture ingress		$500.00	Breach of the HHS moisture ingress
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$500.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Use of electricity		$150.00	Use of electricity
Compensation: Loss of amenity - washing line		$120.00	Loss of amenity - washing line
Compensation: Loss of amenity - front section		$150.00	Loss of amenity - front section
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,610.74	$1,448.00
Net award	$162.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$162.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ and tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $162.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $162.74 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,757.26 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlords and the tenant.
The claims will be discussed more fully below. However, the Tribunal notes the tenancy commenced on 4 June 2022 and ended on 16 September 2025. Landlord’s claims
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims as: a. Rent arrears b. Compensation for lock changes c. Compensation for careless damage of the toilet. d. Compensation for damage to the wallpaper. e. Compensation for replacement of the carpet and underlay. f. Compensation for three weeks lost rent.
The landlords’ claim for exemplary damages for failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy and for damage to the property which exceeded fair wear and tear have been struck out. Scheduled 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 lists the unlawful acts which for which exemplary damages may be awarded; and these breaches are not particularised as unlawful acts. Tenant’s claims
At the hearing, the tenant’s claims were confirmed as: a. Compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for: i. Insulations. ii. Moisture ingress and drainage. b. Compensation for failure to maintain the property, specifically: i. Toilet plumbing. ii. Leaking kitchen and bathroom taps. iii. Insulation. iv. Water tightness. c. Compensation loss of amenity of the front and back yards and use of the washing line. d. Compensation and exemplary damages for unauthorised entry into the garage. e. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment relating to building noise. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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 unlikely, 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. Tenant’s claims

Did the landlord breach their obligations under the HHS for insulation?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant has not made a claim for exemplary damages and only seeks compensation for this breach.
The tenant told the Tribunal she did not believe there was “decent insulation in the property” and listed the following faults: a. The house was cold and damp requiring the use of dehumidifier. b. The HHS report attached to the tenancy agreement provided scant information. c. The HHS report attached to the tenancy agreement records that the underfloor insulation is polystyrene yet the HHS report dated 22 October 2025 records that it is polyester. d. The HHS report attached to the tenancy agreement records that the property was free from draughts but the chimney in the lounge was blocked with a piece of cardboard. e. A previous tenant advised her of a historic leak in the property and she was not told if the insulation had been damaged or repaired. f. The new HHS report dated 22 October 2025 records the property lacked a ground vapour barrier.
The landlord disputes the property fails to comply with the HHS for insulations stating the following: a. The previous owner installed ceiling and underfloor insulation in the property and provided a quote from Smart Energy Solutions (in the name of the previous owner) as evidence of this. b. The HHS section of the tenancy agreement was completed with reference to their pre-purchase builder inspection report. That report recorded the underfloor insulation as polystyrene. They said that their builder didn’t record the R-value or depth of the insulation in the ceiling but they were informed it was sufficient to discharge their obligations under the Act. c. The HHS report dated 22 October 2025 (completed after the tenancy ended) records the property complies with the HHS insulation standard. This report also contains photographs showing underfloor and ceiling insulation in place. The ceiling insulation shows evidence of dust proving it has not been recently installed. Analysis and decision
For the Tribunal to make an award for compensation for breach of HHS insulation standard the tenant must prove the property either did not have insulation or that the insulation did not comply with the standard.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved the property failed to comply with the HHS insulation standard. The tenant has not shown that the property lacked insulation, or that it was had been damaged or moved, or that the insulation failed to meet the HHS standard by providing their own evidence as to the R-value or insulation thickness.
The Tribunal accepts the landlords evidence that the property complies with the HHS insulation standard. That is because the landlord provided the Tribunal with a quote addressed to the previous owner from Smart Energy Solutions for Mammoth R2.9 ceiling insulation and Mammoth R1.5 underfloor insulation to be installed in the property. The new HHS report dated 22 October 2025 has photographs of the ceiling and underfloor insulation which records the insulation meets the HHS insulation standard. The report also contains photograph of the ceiling and underfloor insulation which has a Mammoth brand ceiling blanket insulation card stapled to the rafters above it. The ceiling insulation photograph shows the insulation covered in dust, indicating that it has not recently been installed.
On that basis the tenants claim for compensation for breach of the HHS insulation standard is dismissed.
The tenant did not indicate prior to the commencement of proceedings that they were making a claim for compensation under the HHS for draught stopping, and no finding or award is made by the Tribunal in respect of this.

Has the landlord complied with the obligations under the HHS for moisture ingress?

[The tenant/s]claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant has not made a claim for exemplary damages but seeks compensation for breach of this standard.
The tenant states the landlord failed to maintain the gutters and provided drone footage showing: a. A small about of debris and a couple of small grass in the bottom of some of the gutters. b. A gutter not connected to a down pipe. The tenant said that as a result of this the gutter not being connected to the downpipe the water overflowed onto the deck causing the area to rot. In addition, the disconnected downpipe caused the window frame in bedroom three to rot and the room became damp, forcing them to sleep in the lounge.
The tenant previously raised the issue of the property not having a ground vapour barrier as identified in the HHS report dated 22 October 2025.
The landlord disputes there was an issue with moisture ingress or drainage at the property and stated that at no time were they made aware of the guttering not being connected to the downpipe. The landlord said that the HHS report they commissioned at the end of the tenancy identified three issues with the gutters: a. The rear gutter was dripping and the joint required sealing. b. The gutter above the front door held water as the fall sloped away from the down pipe; and c. A small amount of vegetation was identified and annual maintenance was recommended.
The landlord said the deck outside bedroom three was not rotten but damaged by the tenants dog and the repairs to the area did not require any timber to be replace. The landlord provided a redacted copy of their pre-purchase property inspection report which recorded the moisture readings for the premises were all within the dry range. The landlord said that the windowsill be bedroom three was not rotten but dirty, as recorded in routine inspection reports, and the room was not damp. They claim the tenant used the bedroom to store their 3D printer and choose to sleep in the lounge to better accommodate her twins following their birth. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. The evidence shows that in one area the gutter was not connected to the downpipe and the property did not have a ground vapour barrier.
The tenant said that she was affected by the compliance failures by having a cold and damp house. No evidence was provided showing an increase to her power bills. The Tribunal notes that the property was properly insulated. Taking all matters into consideration I find that there should be an award for compensation for breach of the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard and the amount of is $500.00 is ordered. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act by failing to maintain the toilet plumbing, the kitchen and bathroom plumbing, insulation, and watertightness of the property
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 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 of the Act.
The tenant did not make a claim for exemplary damages and only seeks compensation.
The tenant told the Tribunal there had been an issue with the toilet plumbing for the past two and a half years worsening in the last 14 months of the tenancy. The tenant said the properties toilet had been an ongoing issue and produced a copy of a text message conversation between herself and a former tenant. In that text message exchange, the former tenant alleges the toilet cistern had broken causing the water to run which the landlords had been slow to remedy.
The tenant told the Tribunal that when the toilet was flushed, water in the bowl would rise up and spill out flooding the flooring and hallway carpet. This eventually causing the hallway carpet to rot. The tenant said she was initially able to manage the issue by plunging the toilet to prevent the waste overflowing onto the floor. However, as the issue worsened, the tenant said she had to erect a baby gate to stop her children crawling over this area.
The tenant said that she first reported the issue to the landlords in May 2024 who promptly arranged for a plumber to undertake repairs which were done “to the best of his ability”. The tenant claimed that this issue was not resolved and that she repeatedly raised with the landlords during routine property inspections and via email towards the end of the tenancy.
[Witness], the tenant’s mother-in-law, told the Tribunal that she raised the issue of the toilet overflowing with the landlords during the routine property inspection on 4 June 2025. But they were slow to remedy the problem.
The tenant said that when a plumber eventually attended to effect a repair, she was left without a functioning toilet for three hours while the plumber sourced a new toilet suite.
The tenant complained that in addition to the toilet plumbing flooding the shower head and kitchen tap leaked. The tenant said the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend the property but correspondence between the parties indicated that a permanent fix could only be achieved by accessing the pipes behind the walls.
The tenant complained that a historic leak in bedroom three had damaged the insulation making the property cold. The Tribunal was also provided with correspondence between the parties where it was suggested that the hallway was leaking.
The landlord disputed there was a long-standing issue with the toilet. Under the previous tenancy they said the ballcock was replaced after the cistern kept running post flush. This repair resolved that issue.
The landlord said that in May 2024 the tenant notified them of an issue with the toilet and they immediately arranged for a plumber to attend. The toilet was plunged and the ballcock and value were replaced. Again, this appeared to resolve the issue, and they were not notified of any issue further with the toilet until 24 July 2025. They said their plumber attended the property and discovered a large plastic object had been flushed down the toilet blocking the waste pipes. The toilet suite had to be replaced after the plumber was unable to dislodge the plastic item.
The landlords strongly refuted the allegation the toilet had been overflowing for a significant period of the tenancy. The landlord said that had this been the case then the flooring and skirting boards would have shown signs of damage, which they were not.
The landlord acknowledged the hot tap in the kitchen was loose at the wall and could be difficult to turn off. However, this was repaired by their plumber in July 2024 along with the shower mixer which was replaced.
The landlord told the Tribunal the property was water tight and free from leaks. A historic leak in bedroom three was repaired during the previous tenancy and there was no evidence of a leak in the hallway. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord failed to maintain the property in accordance with section 45 of the Act because: a. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s evidence that the toilet was blocked and continued to overflow for at least the last 14 months of the tenancy. Given the sanitation issues associated with overflowing toilet, the Tribunal would have expected the tenant to serve the with a 14-day breach notice requiring the toilet to be repaired. This was not done. Nor was there any evidence to show the tenant had applied to the Tribunal for a work order requiring the landlord to remedy the blocked toilet. b. Had the toilet been overflowing for an extended period of time the Tribunal would have expected the toilet floor and skirting to show signs of water damage. The photographs did not show this. Similarly, the Tribunal would have expected the chipboard flooring in the hallway outside the toilet and bathroom to show signs of water damage. Again, the photographs do not show this. c. The tenant failed to provide corroborative evidence showing ongoing issues with the kitchen tap and shower plumbing following the May 2024 repair. d. The tenant failed to provided evidence to corroborate their claim that there was a leak in bedroom three. The Tribunal was provided with photographs showing historic water damage. There was no evidence proving a new leak or that the repair for the historic leak had failed. e. There was no corroborate evidence showing a leak in the hallway. The email to the landlord alleging the leak and corresponding photographs of the hallway do not show water damage. The Tribunal is satisfied that the ceiling is cracked but the could be attributed to the age of the paintwork or building movement. f. The tenant failed to provided evidence to corroborate their claim that the historic leak in bedroom three had damaged the insulation or the insulation had been moved or needed to be replaced.
The tenants claim for compensation is for failure to maintain the property is dismissed.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord’s builder (an agent of the landlord) entered the garage without their consent in order and ran a power cable out to the building site.
A landlord or their agent may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(1) and (2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The Tribunal heard from the tenant’s partner [tenant’s partner] that on 25 May 2025 he discovered the landlord’s builder had entered the garage and had run a power cord out to the building site for the purposes of changing their power tools. The tenant said that neither the landlord nor the builder had been given permission to access the garage, use it to store building materials or connect a power cord. The tenant seeks compensation for the electricity used by the builders and exemplary damages for unlawful entry.
The landlords told the Tribunal that they had informed [tenant’s partner] of their builders need to connect to the properties power during a meeting and had assumed the tenant would have realised this meant they would be running a power cord out to the site. The landlord said that they had offered to pay the tenant $100.00 per month compensation for power use, which was later put in writing, but an agreement had not been reached due to a break down in the parties relationship.
The landlord said that they had given the tenant’s brother $100.00 compensation for power usage shortly after the confrontation between [tenant’s partner] and their contractors at the end of May 2025. Analysis and decision
The tenant seeks compensation for electricity charges and exemplary damages for unlawful entry of the garage. The Tribunal finds that a breach of section 48 has occurred, that is because the landlord’s contractor has entered the garage without the tenants knowledge or consent and used the area to store building materials and run a power cable out to the building site.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The effect of using the garage to store valuable building material and connecting to the power supply is intentional. The effect of this has caused the tenant stress and conflict with the property owner and increased her power bill by an unknown amount. This is a serious breach as the landlords appear to have allowed the builders access to the garage based on a misunderstanding of what they were entitled to do at the property for the purposes of the build. There does not appear to have been any recognition by the landlords or the contractor of the tenants right to exclusive possession, it is in the public interest that parties who are landlords know and comply with the requirement of the Act.
On that basis the Tribunal awards $50.00 per month compensation for use of power (offset against the $100.00 given to the tenant at the end of May 2025) totalling $150.00, and $500.00 exemplary damages as there was no suggestion that this was an ongoing patten of behaviour.

Did the landlord breach the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises due to construction noise.
A tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or their agent, see section 38(1) of the Act. In addition a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises, see section 38(2) of the Act. Effectively this imposes a duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises and preserves the tenant’s right not to have the quality of their tenancy significantly or unreasonably impaired by the actions of the landlord or the landlord’s agent.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment is not defined in the Act but the Court in MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010 took it to means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Construction noise
The tenant told the Tribunal they had agreed to the landlord building a unit in the back yard of the property, which they knew would eventually be rented out to new tenants.
The tenant said that on 20 March 2025 a bobcat was used to clear the site with builders eventually starting construction work on 5 May 2025. The tenant said the construction work was not respectful to them or their young family with the constant noise impacting on their infant twins sleep schedule. The tenant said her partner had asked the builders to take breaks around their children’s nap times but this request was ignored.
The landlords said that the decision to build a unit on the back of the section was prompted by complaints from neighbours about the yard not being adequately maintained. The landlords said that they provided the tenant and her partner with ongoing information about the timeline for the build and their request for the builders to stop work between 11am and 2pm daily was unrealistic and could not reasonably be accommodated. Analysis and decision
The question as to whether a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy has been significantly impacted by the actions of the landlord will often arise in situations where a landlord undertakes remedial work or construction on a tenant’s property on a nearby property. Where tenants have prior knowledge that a renovation or construction is to be undertaken, reasonable expectations need to be considered in determining what amount to reasonable interference. Each case will be determined on the facts provide and require an objective assessment as to whether the intrusion impacting the quality of the tenancy is over and above that which a tenant could be reasonably expected to endure in the circumstances.
In Smith v Floris Auckland 1 , the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyments means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impairs by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.
In Lucas v Paterson 2 , the District Court held that where landlord were renovating the property, tenants were required to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance. The Court stated: 1 TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at [6] 2 [20025] DCR 76 “Were every landlord who embarked on renovations to be immediate jeopardy of quiet enjoyment breach, we would have an unworkable state of affairs. Proportionality must not be forgotten.” 3
The Court in Lucas considered the definitions of “peace, comfort and privacy” to be: “”Peace” in the use of the premises is freedom of the mind from annoyances, distraction, dissension, anxiety, insecurity or noise that might arise from unwarranted attendance, challenge or intrusion. “Comfort” in the use of the premises is a state of ease and satisfaction, and overlaps with “peace” to the extend that is also included freedom from anxiety. “Privacy” in the use of the premises is freedom from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life; the freedom to be left alone. It overlaps with “peace” to the extent that it includes freedom from unwarranted attendance or intrusion.”
The word “premises” include the right to quiet enjoyment in relation to all aspects of the tenancy premises including lawns and gardens.
The Tribunal finds the landlord or their agents have not interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy for the following reasons: a. The landlord sought permission of the tenant to build a unit at the rear of the property. b. The landlord kept the tenant fully informed of the progress of the build. c. The tenant was aware the build involved the construction of a residential unit that would eventually be rented out. d. The work that was carried out was during week days and there was no evidence presented by the tenant to suggest it started unusually early or went late into the evening. Nor was there any evidence provided that the build extended into the weekends. e. The tenant failed to provide any significant details about the construction noise beyond it affecting her infants sleep schedule between 11am and 2pm. On that basis the Tribunal must conclude the noise was consistent with noises associated with small build residential construction.
In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that the construction noise did not result in interference and intrusion over and above that which a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure in the circumstances and the claim is dismissed. 3 Ibid at [36] Compensation for loss of amenity
The tenant seeks compensation for loss of the use of the back section and from late March 2025 until the end of the tenancy. The tenant estimated the affected area was approximately 60 square meters which they were unable to access as it was a building site.
The tenant seeks compensation for loss of the use of an undercover washing line that was removed prior to the commencement of the build. The tenant said she was without the use of a washing line for four months before a new line was installed in the carport. This meant she had to dry the families laundry using a clothes dryer which increased their power bills.
The tenant seeks compensation for loss of use of the front section due to the landlord’s builders storing roofing iron in the area. Photographs were provided showing areas of dead lawn that had been covered by the roofing iron (which was moved at the end of the tenancy so the lawns could be mowed).
The landlord’s argued they should not be liable to pay the tenants compensation for loss of amenity for the use of the back section for the following reasons: a. The tenant’s partner informed them they did not use the back section. b. The tenant had willingly consented to a unit being built on the rear of the section. c. The build removed an obligation on the tenant to maintain the rear section in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, something they struggled to do which had resulted in complaints from the neighbours. d. The rent had not been increased and was below market rent for similar properties in the area to reflect the loss of amenity.
The landlords acknowledged the clothes line was removed but states they were unaware the tenant routinely used it. The landlords position was that the $100.00 per month compensation they offered the tenant for the use of power by the builders was also sufficient to cover the increase power costs incurred by the tenant in running a dryer.
The landlord said that were unaware their builders had been using the front section to store roofing iron. Had they been made aware of these issues they would have had the materials removed and stored elsewhere on site. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds: a. The tenant consented to the landlord taking possession of the rear section and the resulting loss of amenity. No compensation is payable for the loss of amenity as it was offset by landlord’s decision not to increase the rent. b. The removal of the washing line resulted in a loss of amenity and breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment. c. The tenant was unable to use the front section of the section due to building material being stored there resulting in a loss of amenity in breach of their right to quiet enjoyment.
No firms dates were provided for when the washing line was removed or a replacement line installed or when the building iron was placed on the front of the section.
The Tribunal heard the ground works for the build stated-on 20 March 2025 and a new washing line was installed in June 2025. The Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to award 12 weeks compensation for the loss amenity for the removal of the washing line and at the rate of $10.00 per week from 20 March 2025 to 12 June 2025, being $120.00. The Tribunal heard that the builders started working on site in May with building materials being stored in the carport before the roofing iron was placed on the front section. The Tribunal therefore determines that it is appropriate to award compensation for loss of use of this area from 2 June 2025 to the end of the tenancy at the rate of $10.00, being $150.00. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $634.00.
The landlord said an additional sum of money can be credited to the tenants rent account to offset the rent arrears which reflects the compensation owed for loss of amenity relating to the clothes line and increased electricity costs associated with their build at the back of the property.
The tenant accepted they did not pay rent for the last few weeks of the tenancy but said the compensation owed to them is greater than their rent arrears.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal orders $634.00 in rent arrears.

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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation of $479.55 after paying a contractor to change the locks on the ranch slider and main door following the end of the tenancy. A receipt in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlords said the tenant was provided with a set of keys to the property and a garage door remote. At the end of the tenancy, only one key and garage door remote was returned. The landlord provided a receipt from June 2022 which shows the ranch slider door lock was replaced. The landlord said the locksmith provided the tenant with a key to this lock.
The tenant disputes failing to return all keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that she only ever provided with one key for the property which opened the ranch slider and a garage door remote. The tenant said she did not have a spare key cut for the property. Analysis and decision
The landlord seeks compensation for changing the locks claiming the tenant failed to return all keys at the end of the tenancy. This is disputed by the tenant.
The tenancy agreement is silent on the number of keys (and to which door they relate) were provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement only records that one garage door remote was provided.
The July 2022 ranch slider lock change invoice does not record how many sets of keys were provided or to whom they were given.
To order compensation the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed to return all keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant has failed to return all of the keys. That is because the landlord has failed to evidence the number of keys provided to the to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy or following the ranch slider lock change . On that basis the landlord’s claim for compensation for the lock change is dismissed.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Landlord’s evidence
The landlords provided the following evidence which they proves a deterioration of the property, exceeding fair wear and tear, over the course of the tenancy: a. A pre-tenancy inspection report which identified the following pre-existing defects: i. Lounge: a hole in the ceiling, a hole in the door of the lounge and a broken widow latch ii. Bedroom one: three holes in the wardrobe, a pink carpet stain and damage to the corner of the carpet. iii. Bedroom three: damage to the ceiling. b. A breach notice dated 31 August 2022 identifying the following issues and requiring the tenants to remedy the defects before a reinspection. Supporting photographs dated 30 August 2022 were also provided. The evidence shows: i. A large amount of rubbish in the garage. ii. Damage to the walls throughout the property caused by felt drawings and ripped wallpaper. c. Photographs dated 27 September 2023 showing the following: i. Additional tears to the wallpaper in the toilet. ii. Additional teams to the wallpaper in the lounge. iii. Stains on the carpet iv. Scratches and tearing of the wallpaper in a bedroom. d. A breach notice to the tenant dated 16 February 2024 (with attached photographs) identifying the following issues and requiring the breaches to be remedied before the next inspection on 7 March 2024 : i. Cats living in the property causing a cat urine odour. ii. Lawn edges and garden bed required line trimming and weeding. iii. Removal of dog faeces from the section and paths. iv. Remove broken timber pallet from the front of the section. v. Clean all drawings from the windows and walls. vi. Refix curtains that have been partially pulled down. vii. Remove kitchen waste stain to the exterior and cobwebs. viii. Remove rubbish from the section. ix. Red stains on the dining room carpet. x. Yellow stains on the living room carpet. e. Photographs dated 7 March 2024 showing: i. Scribble marks on a kitchen cupboard. ii. Cat excrement on the living room carpet. f. Photographs dated 4 June 2025 showing: i. Hallway: scribbles on the walls and toilet paper stuck to the ceiling. ii. Bedroom two: scribble marks and damage to the wallpaper. iii. Bedroom three: brown marks on the door. iv. Laundry: dirty windowsills. v. Bedroom: white marks on the wardrobe door along with scribble marks on the walls and a dirty window sill. vi. Dining room: coloured paint splatters on the carpet, mildew on the ceiling and scribble marks on the walls. vii. Toilet: additional rips to the wallpaper and scribbles on the walls. viii. Exterior cladding: food and black staining outside the kitchen window. g. A 14-day breach notice breach notice dated 28 July 2025, with supporting photographs, identifying the following issues with the property and requiring the defects to be remedied by 13 August 2025: i. Drawings on the walls to be removed. ii. Oven, kitchen, and bathroom requires a deep clean and sanitisation. iii. Toilet paper stuck to the ceiling in the toilet and needs to be removed. iv. Large hole in the front yard needs to be filled in. v. Dog excrement needs to be removed. vi. Additional areas of torn wallpaper were identified. h. A 14-Day breach notice dated 18 August 2025 requiring the tenant to pay $748.73 after a contractor removed and replaced the toilet due to an object was flushed blocking the system. Photographs of the plastic object lodged in the pipe were provided. i. End of tenancy photographs dated 22 September 2025 which show: i. Toilet: torn wallpaper. ii. Dining room carpet: large areas of yellow staining and staining to the underlay. iii. Lounge: multiple areas of carpet staining and staining to the underlay, torn wallpaper iv. Bedroom three: brown and red stains on the carpet.

Did the tenant cause damage to the toilet?

The landlord seeks compensation of $748.74 after paying a contractor to replace a blocked toilet. An invoice for the plumbing work undertaken was provided. The landlord itemised the costs on the plumbers invoice as follows: a. Cost to landlord to service vanity taps - $138.60 b. Cost to tenant for careless damage to the toilet - $748.73
The Tribunal has already dismissed the tenant’s claim for claim for failure to maintain the toilet plumbing. The Tribunal did not accept the tenant’s evidence that the toilet had been blocked for two and a half years before being replaced. Analysis and decision
The landlord seeks compensation for a blocked toilet they say was caused by the tenants children flushing large plastic object blocking the wastepipe.
The Tribunal was provided with a photograph showing a large plastic object lodged in the toilet wastepipe. The Tribunal heard this object could not be removed without removing the toilet suite.
Section 40 of the Act states that a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises.
For an award for compensation to be made the Tribunal must be satisfied that the blockage was caused by the tenant’s actions in misusing the toilet and not through fair wear and tear.
In this case, having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the toilet blockage was caused during the tenancy after a large plastic object was flushed, blocking the wastepipe. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s evidence that the toilet had been blocked for the duration of the tenancy and that the issue was pre-existing. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant cause damage the wallpaper?

The landlords seek compensation for replacing damaged wallpaper totalling $1,367.90 and provided a breakdown of their labour and materials costs for the work completed. The landlord said they choose to undertake the work after receiving a quote (provided) to skim and paint the interior walls totalling $6,267.50.
The landlord said the wallpaper, while dated, was provided in a good condition. At the end of the tenancy the wallpaper was ripped in torn in multiple rooms and defaced with children’s scribbles and drawings. The landlords relied on the evidence outlined above in paragraph [110] above to prove the damage caused and argued that it was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant disputed the amount claimed by the landlord and challenged their liability for the remedial work.
The tenant challenged the validity of the pre-tenancy inspection report dated 2 June 2022 saying that it related to the condition of the property during the occupancy of the previous tenant and did not reflect the condition of the property when she moved in.
The tenant said that the landlord’s failure to undertake maintenance at the property contributed to the deterioration of the walls. In particular the tenant said: a. The wallpaper was peeling because of dampness which was exacerbated by the lack of a ground vapour barrier and ventilation in the bathroom; and b. The wallpaper was old and in poor condition as evidence by the photographs they provided; and c. The landlord’s failure to repair the toilet, which resulted in the hallway being flooded with sewage, further contributed to the degradation of the wallpaper.
The tenant accepted removing some of the wallpaper in an effort to minimise ongoing damage to the walls and acknowledged her children were responsible for the scribble marks. However, claimed she had been told not to be too concerned about this because the landlord intended to renovate the property. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for damage to the wallpaper and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This is because the Tribunal has been able to properly compare and contrast the photographs showing the condition of the property throughout the duration of the tenancy. These photographs show a clear deterioration of the condition of the wallpaper caused by rips and scribble marks.
The Tribunal does not accept the tenants evidence that she was told “not to worry” about the scribble marks on the wallpaper. The landlord’s evidence shows that this damage was consistently identified during routine property inspections with the tenant being asked to remove it. On at least one occasion the tenant was issued with a 14-day breach notice requiring the damage to be remedied.
In ordering compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord acknowledges the wallpaper in the property ranged in age from the late 1970s in the toilet to the 1980s for the rest of the house. The average depreciable lifespan for wallpaper in a property is six to twelve years. The Tribunal finds the wallpaper was at the end of its depreciable lifespan, however, it still has utility as a wall covering. Taking into account betterment the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay $100.00 compensation for damage to the wallpaper.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet and underlay?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $5,300.00 for damage to the carpet in the living room, dining room and a bedroom three following the end of the tenancy. A quote for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord relies on the evidence outlined in paragraph [110] to prove that the carpet was extensively stained during the tenancy with a lingering cat urine odour. The landlord claimed the cat urine smell was masked through the use of a large fan during the tenancy but, when it was removed the smell returned. The landlord said that the carpet needed to be replaced after odour neutralising treatment failed.
The tenant disputes the amount claimed saying the carpet was in poor condition due to its age and further degraded due to the lack of a ground vapour barrier, and historic leaks in the lounge and bedroom three. The tenant said the odour was due to the landlord’s failure to repair the toilet and could not be attributed to the cats as they had been rehomed prior to March 2024.
The tenant said the dining room carpet was professionally cleaned four days prior to the end of the tenancy and their contactors refused to guarantee their work due to the age and poor condition of the carpet.
The tenant also challenged the validity of the landlord’s quote for repairs. Photographs were provided showing the property after it was refurbished. The landlord’s claim was for carpet and underlay but the dining room floor had been replaced with a hard flooring product. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant damaged the carpet and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the photographs showing the condition of property at various points throughout the tenancy. The photographs show the carpet became progressively more stained with pink, brown, blue, and yellow marks and by pet excrement. A breach notice to remedy the issue served. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the tenants explanation that the lack of a ground vapour barrier and over flowing toilet were responsible for the carpet smell and stains.
The landlord acknowledged the carpet was between 30 and 40 years old. The Tribunal considers carpet in a residential property generally has a life expectancy of around 10 years. Therefore the carpet was at the end of its depreciable life span but had utility as a floor covering. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal awards the landlord $100.00 compensation for damage to the carpet.

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for lost rent?

The landlord seeks compensation for three weeks lost rent totalling $1,560.00.
The landlord states that given the poor condition of the property following the end of the tenancy they were required to undertake a renovation to bring it up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlords said that had this work not been required then they could have immediate relet the property.
The tenant disputes liability for three weeks lost rent stating the property was in need of refurbishment which the landlord had indicated they would be undertaking. Analysis and decision
The landlord is seeking compensation for lost rent they say was caused by having to remedy damaged caused by the tenant.
The Tribunal can make an order for damages for lost rent if a party can prove that they have suffered a loss of rental income as a result of the other parties breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act.
It is expected that at the end of every tenancy the landlord may have to carry out some cleaning and maintenance work which means that the premises cannot be immediately re-let.
While the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant caused damage to the property and that damage is more than fair wear and tear, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant should be liable for lost rent. In addition to the damage caused by the tenant the property was showing signs of wear and tear consistent with its age and the refurbished undertaken exceeded remediating the damage caused by the tenants.
Accordingly I find the landlord’s claim for three weeks’ loss of rental income is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s]has been substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The respondent/s] has been substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

At a glance

Award balance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under the HHS for insulation?

Has the landlord complied with the obligations under the HHS for moisture ingress?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Did the landlord breach the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

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?

Did the tenant cause damage to the toilet?

Did the tenant cause damage the wallpaper?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet and underlay?

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under the HHS for insulation?

Has the landlord complied with the obligations under the HHS for moisture ingress?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Did the landlord breach the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

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?

Did the tenant cause damage to the toilet?

Did the tenant cause damage the wallpaper?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpet and underlay?

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions