What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337061 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] for compensation, exemplary damages,

How much money was awarded in case 5337061?

Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Deduction For Speaker: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $216.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $406.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337061?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12533354-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337061 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] for compensation, exemplary damages,

How much money was awarded in case 5337061?

Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Deduction For Speaker: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $216.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $406.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337061?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12533354-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337061 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

76 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337061 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337061 — net $3,150.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$3,000.00		Cleaning
Skip hire	$406.18		Skip hire
Lock/key replacement	$216.00		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Deduction for speaker		$500.00	Deduction for speaker
Total award	$3,650.18	$500.00
Net award	$3,150.18
Bond	$4,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,150.18

Claims and awards for application 5337061 — net $3,150.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Skip hire

Amount: $406.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Skip hire

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $216.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Deduction for speaker

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Deduction for speaker

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The application by [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the full bond and the filing fee amounting to $71,744.00 is dismissed.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Cutlers Limited $3,150.18 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (3828184-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Cutlers Limited: $3,150.18 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,169.82

Reasons

T Perkins representing the tenants and the landlord both attended the hearing, the former by telephone.
On 31/3/2025 the tenants sought a refund of their bond and compensation and exemplary damages of $36,570.00 for the state of the premises, unlawful entry, disposal of goods and breach of healthy homes standards.
In response, the landlord applied for compensation of $3,122.18, partial refund of the bond refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy was for a twelve month fixed term from 1/1/2023 and renewed on 26/3/2024 to end on 31/12/2024 at a rent of $1,080.00 per week.
Cutlers Limited took over as landlords on 1/6/2024.
On 10/9/2025 Adjudicator Young held a case conference.
One of the directions in the Case Conference Order was that T Perkins as representative was to file a signed written authority from each tenant confirming he had authority to represent them with Tenancy Services no later than 30 September 2025.
At the time of the hearing no written authority had been received and T Perkins advised the Tribunal this was being delivered by one of the tenants today, with a USB containing videos.
I stood the matter down for half an hour to allow T Perkins to contact the tenant who was supposed to be delivering the consent and USB.
Although unable to contact the tenant, T Perkins was able to email the consent and the videos, the latter which the Tribunal was unable to access.
However, and despite consent not being in an appropriate form and with what can only be described as unreadable signatures, the landlord agreed to T Perkins representing the tenants so that the hearing could proceed without further delays.
Although the Tribunal was unable to access the videos both T Perkins and the landlord agreed they had seen them, and I allowed each of them to give evidence about what they contained. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case particularly for the tenants because of the amount of compensation claimed, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both the landlord and tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If either fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Landlord’s claim

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $3,122.18 as follows: a. $3,000.00 for cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet cleaning and repair of two damaged doors, b. $406.18 skip hire, c. $216.00 replacement lock and keys.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, routine property inspection reports, with photographs dated 30/9/ and 20/11/2024 respectively, texts messages and emails between the parties and a statutory declaration from a 2025 tenant mentioning, among other matters the state of the carpets.
On the other hand, T Perkins submitted that two of the tenants were in Dunedin for a week from 16 December to undertake cleaning and remove belongings.
I am satisfied by the evidence provided by the landlord that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish or return all the keys.
The inspection report of 20/11/2024 supports that the premises were unclean and untidy with significant rubbish both inside and out.
Further, and although one tenant took leave from work to be in Dunedin during graduation week the tenants provided no evidence to suggest they attended the premises to attempt any cleaning.
The amounts claimed by the landlord are reasonable, especially considering the discount of $956.00 deducted from the property services invoice.
An award has been made from the bond for the amount claimed.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord claimed compensation for repair of two doors, which the tenants had agreed to repair. The amount claimed is included in the property services invoice.
In response the tenants submitted that according to their investigations a second hand door could have been sourced and repaired for $200.00.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied, and the tenants did not dispute that damage was caused during the tenancy to two doors.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The amount awarded is proved and an order made for refund of part of the bond. Tenants’ claim Did the landlord dispose of the tenants’ goods?
T Perkins submitted that the landlord disposed of significant possessions belonging to the tenants without consent.
While the tenants agreed they had arranged to sell some of the chattels to the incoming 2025 tenants and advised the landlord of this, T Perkins suggested this did not include all their possessions.
The tenants claimed compensation of $9,947.00 for replacement of significant possessions.
In response, the landlord provided text conversations with the tenants confirming that their chattels were being sold to the incoming tenants.
However, because the tenants changed their minds about selling a speaker and this could not be found at the end of the tenancy the landlord deducted $500.00 from the amount of compensation claimed.
Section 33 provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of goods as security for payment or any other reason arising from the tenancy.
Seizing or disposing of goods is an unlawful act and can lead to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.
However, section 33 does not apply to goods disposed of under sections 62 to 62C which set out the requirements for disposal of goods left on premises on termination of the tenancy.
Based on the text messages between the parties I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that they believed the tenants had sold the goods and removed all their other possessions by November 2025.
Moreover, I consider the evidence of the tenants about the value of the goods unreasonable taking into account T Perkin’s statement that most of the chattels had been donated to the tenants and he did not know the age or condition of them.
The claim for $9,947.00 fails.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

T Perkins submitted that from the beginning of the tenancy the tenants were unable to have full use and enjoyment of the property because of previous tenants’ possessions and rubbish.
In addition, T Perkins suggested there were other significant issues, including no functioning oven for six weeks, mould throughout, nonfunctioning heat pump, inadequate ventilation, poor drainage, missing door locks and rodents.
For these issues the tenants sought compensation by way of rent reduction of $39,650.00.
In response, the landlord submitted that they inspected the premises five days after taking over management of the premises and there were no issues.
However, following the issue of a 14 day notice to the landlord on 6/6, the landlord arranged maintenance issues such as unblocking of showers, fixing broken windows and removing a vine growing through a kitchen window.
The landlord suggested he believed due to the lack of response to his email of 14/6 that the tenants were satisfied with the maintenance undertaken.
Although agreeing that the vine growing through the kitchen window was a breach of healthy homes standards the landlord suggested that the premises complied when they took over management.
In support of their position the landlord provided a healthy homes assessment report dated 29/3/2023.
During this period and subsequently the landlord submitted that rent arrears were an issue culminating in a mediated agreement on 10/10/2024.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In addition, section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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 heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
As the tenancy began on 1/1/2023 the compliance date for these premises would have been 29 April 2024.
I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the tenants that the landlord breached their obligations about the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy or healthy homes compliance.
There is simply no objective evidence to support what the state of the premises was at the beginning of the tenancy.
While the tenants provided videos, which unfortunately the Tribunal was unable to view, T Perkins was unable to describe in any detail what each video showed.
Nor was T Perkins able to be certain what date the videos were taken during the two year tenancy.
The only evidence about the state of the premises comes from the landlord who acknowledged there were some issues which needed attending to in June 2024 and these were rectified within a reasonable timeframe.
I find there was not breach of section 45 or 45(1)(bb) and the claim for compensation of $39,650.00 fails.

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice and undertook repairs which improved the property.
The tenants sought compensation of $9,000.00 for distress from the landlord trying to “put one across them” in endeavouring to recover the costs of improvements.
The landlord disputed that the tradespeople had entered the premises without consent or notice before the tenancy ended but after the tenants had vacated.
In support of their position the landlord provided text messages warning the tenants about work commencing in November and confirmation from the tenants they had moved out.
The landlord did not dispute that some improvements had been made to the premises, such as repairs and painting of walls and replacement of flooring.
However, the landlord disagreed that the tenants had been invoiced for these and provided a further invoice from the property services tradesperson with the details of the extra costs involved.
A landlord 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord or their agents entered the premises without consent or notice to undertake work, nor that the improvements were charged to the tenants.
While the tenancy did not end until 31/12/2024, there is no evidence to support that the tenants objected to the landlord having the work undertaken.
The claim for compensation of $9,000.00 fails. Other Issues
T Perkins provided significant submissions on the issue of the landlord including GST in the invoices from contractors and suggested that the landlord was “double dipping”.
The tenants claimed compensation of $9,000.00 due to the landlord’s “treatment of GST” and suggested they would undertake a “class action and media release” and involve the IRD.
In response the landlord confirmed that they did not claim back the GST but that any invoices were paid from the respective client rental accounts.
I struggled to understand what, if any relevance, the tenants’ submissions about GST had to the matters in dispute.
In my experience it is usual for landlords to claim GST included in a tradesperson’s invoice.
The claim for compensation of $9,000.00 fails.
As Cutlers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
No filing fee is available to the tenants because their claim was unsuccessful.
For the same reason suppression is not granted to the tenants.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337061 — net $3,150.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$3,000.00		Cleaning
Skip hire	$406.18		Skip hire
Lock/key replacement	$216.00		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Deduction for speaker		$500.00	Deduction for speaker
Total award	$3,650.18	$500.00
Net award	$3,150.18
Bond	$4,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,150.18

Claims and awards for application 5337061 — net $3,150.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Skip hire

Amount: $406.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Skip hire

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $216.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Deduction for speaker

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Deduction for speaker

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The application by [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the full bond and the filing fee amounting to $71,744.00 is dismissed.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Cutlers Limited $3,150.18 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (3828184-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Cutlers Limited: $3,150.18 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,169.82

Reasons

T Perkins representing the tenants and the landlord both attended the hearing, the former by telephone.
On 31/3/2025 the tenants sought a refund of their bond and compensation and exemplary damages of $36,570.00 for the state of the premises, unlawful entry, disposal of goods and breach of healthy homes standards.
In response, the landlord applied for compensation of $3,122.18, partial refund of the bond refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy was for a twelve month fixed term from 1/1/2023 and renewed on 26/3/2024 to end on 31/12/2024 at a rent of $1,080.00 per week.
Cutlers Limited took over as landlords on 1/6/2024.
On 10/9/2025 Adjudicator Young held a case conference.
One of the directions in the Case Conference Order was that T Perkins as representative was to file a signed written authority from each tenant confirming he had authority to represent them with Tenancy Services no later than 30 September 2025.
At the time of the hearing no written authority had been received and T Perkins advised the Tribunal this was being delivered by one of the tenants today, with a USB containing videos.
I stood the matter down for half an hour to allow T Perkins to contact the tenant who was supposed to be delivering the consent and USB.
Although unable to contact the tenant, T Perkins was able to email the consent and the videos, the latter which the Tribunal was unable to access.
However, and despite consent not being in an appropriate form and with what can only be described as unreadable signatures, the landlord agreed to T Perkins representing the tenants so that the hearing could proceed without further delays.
Although the Tribunal was unable to access the videos both T Perkins and the landlord agreed they had seen them, and I allowed each of them to give evidence about what they contained. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case particularly for the tenants because of the amount of compensation claimed, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both the landlord and tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If either fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Landlord’s claim

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $3,122.18 as follows: a. $3,000.00 for cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet cleaning and repair of two damaged doors, b. $406.18 skip hire, c. $216.00 replacement lock and keys.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, routine property inspection reports, with photographs dated 30/9/ and 20/11/2024 respectively, texts messages and emails between the parties and a statutory declaration from a 2025 tenant mentioning, among other matters the state of the carpets.
On the other hand, T Perkins submitted that two of the tenants were in Dunedin for a week from 16 December to undertake cleaning and remove belongings.
I am satisfied by the evidence provided by the landlord that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish or return all the keys.
The inspection report of 20/11/2024 supports that the premises were unclean and untidy with significant rubbish both inside and out.
Further, and although one tenant took leave from work to be in Dunedin during graduation week the tenants provided no evidence to suggest they attended the premises to attempt any cleaning.
The amounts claimed by the landlord are reasonable, especially considering the discount of $956.00 deducted from the property services invoice.
An award has been made from the bond for the amount claimed.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord claimed compensation for repair of two doors, which the tenants had agreed to repair. The amount claimed is included in the property services invoice.
In response the tenants submitted that according to their investigations a second hand door could have been sourced and repaired for $200.00.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied, and the tenants did not dispute that damage was caused during the tenancy to two doors.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The amount awarded is proved and an order made for refund of part of the bond. Tenants’ claim Did the landlord dispose of the tenants’ goods?
T Perkins submitted that the landlord disposed of significant possessions belonging to the tenants without consent.
While the tenants agreed they had arranged to sell some of the chattels to the incoming 2025 tenants and advised the landlord of this, T Perkins suggested this did not include all their possessions.
The tenants claimed compensation of $9,947.00 for replacement of significant possessions.
In response, the landlord provided text conversations with the tenants confirming that their chattels were being sold to the incoming tenants.
However, because the tenants changed their minds about selling a speaker and this could not be found at the end of the tenancy the landlord deducted $500.00 from the amount of compensation claimed.
Section 33 provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of goods as security for payment or any other reason arising from the tenancy.
Seizing or disposing of goods is an unlawful act and can lead to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.
However, section 33 does not apply to goods disposed of under sections 62 to 62C which set out the requirements for disposal of goods left on premises on termination of the tenancy.
Based on the text messages between the parties I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that they believed the tenants had sold the goods and removed all their other possessions by November 2025.
Moreover, I consider the evidence of the tenants about the value of the goods unreasonable taking into account T Perkin’s statement that most of the chattels had been donated to the tenants and he did not know the age or condition of them.
The claim for $9,947.00 fails.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

T Perkins submitted that from the beginning of the tenancy the tenants were unable to have full use and enjoyment of the property because of previous tenants’ possessions and rubbish.
In addition, T Perkins suggested there were other significant issues, including no functioning oven for six weeks, mould throughout, nonfunctioning heat pump, inadequate ventilation, poor drainage, missing door locks and rodents.
For these issues the tenants sought compensation by way of rent reduction of $39,650.00.
In response, the landlord submitted that they inspected the premises five days after taking over management of the premises and there were no issues.
However, following the issue of a 14 day notice to the landlord on 6/6, the landlord arranged maintenance issues such as unblocking of showers, fixing broken windows and removing a vine growing through a kitchen window.
The landlord suggested he believed due to the lack of response to his email of 14/6 that the tenants were satisfied with the maintenance undertaken.
Although agreeing that the vine growing through the kitchen window was a breach of healthy homes standards the landlord suggested that the premises complied when they took over management.
In support of their position the landlord provided a healthy homes assessment report dated 29/3/2023.
During this period and subsequently the landlord submitted that rent arrears were an issue culminating in a mediated agreement on 10/10/2024.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In addition, section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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 heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
As the tenancy began on 1/1/2023 the compliance date for these premises would have been 29 April 2024.
I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the tenants that the landlord breached their obligations about the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy or healthy homes compliance.
There is simply no objective evidence to support what the state of the premises was at the beginning of the tenancy.
While the tenants provided videos, which unfortunately the Tribunal was unable to view, T Perkins was unable to describe in any detail what each video showed.
Nor was T Perkins able to be certain what date the videos were taken during the two year tenancy.
The only evidence about the state of the premises comes from the landlord who acknowledged there were some issues which needed attending to in June 2024 and these were rectified within a reasonable timeframe.
I find there was not breach of section 45 or 45(1)(bb) and the claim for compensation of $39,650.00 fails.

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice and undertook repairs which improved the property.
The tenants sought compensation of $9,000.00 for distress from the landlord trying to “put one across them” in endeavouring to recover the costs of improvements.
The landlord disputed that the tradespeople had entered the premises without consent or notice before the tenancy ended but after the tenants had vacated.
In support of their position the landlord provided text messages warning the tenants about work commencing in November and confirmation from the tenants they had moved out.
The landlord did not dispute that some improvements had been made to the premises, such as repairs and painting of walls and replacement of flooring.
However, the landlord disagreed that the tenants had been invoiced for these and provided a further invoice from the property services tradesperson with the details of the extra costs involved.
A landlord 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord or their agents entered the premises without consent or notice to undertake work, nor that the improvements were charged to the tenants.
While the tenancy did not end until 31/12/2024, there is no evidence to support that the tenants objected to the landlord having the work undertaken.
The claim for compensation of $9,000.00 fails. Other Issues
T Perkins provided significant submissions on the issue of the landlord including GST in the invoices from contractors and suggested that the landlord was “double dipping”.
The tenants claimed compensation of $9,000.00 due to the landlord’s “treatment of GST” and suggested they would undertake a “class action and media release” and involve the IRD.
In response the landlord confirmed that they did not claim back the GST but that any invoices were paid from the respective client rental accounts.
I struggled to understand what, if any relevance, the tenants’ submissions about GST had to the matters in dispute.
In my experience it is usual for landlords to claim GST included in a tradesperson’s invoice.
The claim for compensation of $9,000.00 fails.
As Cutlers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
No filing fee is available to the tenants because their claim was unsuccessful.
For the same reason suppression is not granted to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337061 — Cleanliness at 76 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337061 — Cleanliness at 76 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions