What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338145 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5338145?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $87.67 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $144.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338145?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338145?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12851930-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338145 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5338145?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $87.67 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $144.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338145?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338145?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12851930-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338145 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338145 — net $81.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$144.24		Water rates
Light bulbs	$87.67		Light bulbs
Exemplary damages		$150.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$231.91	$150.00
Net award	$81.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$81.91

Order

Suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $81.91 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant filed a cross application and has applied for a refund of the bond, and multiple claims for exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 July 2025. The landlord is seeking an additional day of rent because some rubbish was not picked up until the following day. This part of the claim is dismissed because the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises.
The landlord is seeking water invoices totalling $1,030.25 from 2022 to 2025. They say they did not on-charge because of a leak at the premises which was fixed in or around March 2025. They say this was not taken into account by the Tribunal at a previous hearing, so they now seek reimbursement.
As discussed with the parties, landlords should advise tenants for charges for which the tenant is liable as they accrue due, or a reasonable time thereafter, rather than allowing them to accumulate. 1 A tenant should be in a position whereby they can budget for their day-to-day or monthly expenses. It is not reasonable to expect the tenant to pay for the entirety of water invoices that were not presented from 2022 until the end of the tenancy in July 2025.
It is open to the Tribunal to decline to order payment of some or all of the water bills. On that basis, I am satisfied the tenant should pay the last 2 invoices which became due after the leak was repaired. I award $144.24 after deduction of the fixed charges.
The tenant agreed to pay these bills in any event.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace light bulbs.
I find that 12 lightbulbs had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy. I award $87.67 as claimed.
The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that 3 rose plants were missing from the garden at the end of the tenancy

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 1 Woollams v Simpson, DC Auckland CIV-20005-004-1583, 16 March 2006. liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
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.
The landlord is seeking $54.98 for a replacement cat door they say was damaged during this tenancy. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence of the state of the cat door at the start of this tenancy in 2019. I agree with the tenant that any issues are likely fair wear and tear rather than damage.
This part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
The landlord did not carry out an in-going test for methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord commissioned composite testing and on 25 July 2025, Hill Labs reported a level of 0.44ug/100cm.
The landlord purchased the property from the previous owner (mother) in 2019 and there were no previous tenants. The landlord relies on a statement from her mother which states that no methamphetamine activity ever occurred during her occupation between 2000 and 2019.
The tenant says she was living at the premises with her sister and 2 kids and there was no use of methamphetamine by anyone during this tenancy.
While I acknowledge the landlord’s concerns that traces of methamphetamine were found at the end of the tenancy, I do not find sufficient evidence that the tenants used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. There was no in-going test and no evidence of any drug use or related behaviours during this tenancy.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Cross application

Did the landlord fail to keep proper records?

A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant did not provide any evidence in support of this part of her claim therefore it is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 RTA.
Harassment generally means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 2
The tenant says she was harassed by the landlord after the last Tribunal hearing. She says that the landlord sent emails and messages about a builder coming to the premises, but did not provide the correct notice. The tenant says that the landlord turned up outside unannounced and waited for the builder to finish. The tenant says that on the final day of the tenancy, she saw the landlord driving past and everything was very stressful. The tenant says the email exchanges after the tenancy ended were also harassment.
Firstly, I do not find the email exchange contains anything more than the usual back and forth about possible bond deductions. This came after the end of the tenancy in any event. 2 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant agreed that the builder could come with short notice. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they parked up outside to give the builder the key and there was no intention to harass the tenant.
The landlord lives nearby to the premises therefore a drive-by on the final day cannot constitute any breach.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant healthy homes requirements.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the builder came to finish some work on the moisture barrier and windows, but she admits she does not have any evidence to prove that there has been any breach by the landlord.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide the Healthy Homes Assessment when requested?

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlord failed to prove the assessment as requested.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Weighing all of the above factors, and the fact that the landlord ultimately notified the tenant about work to be done and final compliance, I award $150.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide the methamphetamine report?

Under section 48(4)(c) RTA, a landlord must notify the tenant of the results and provide a copy of the results of methamphetamine testing under subsection (3B).
However, I find that subsection (3B) contemplates an ongoing tenancy. Section 48 sets out the landlord’s rights of entry during the tenancy and in particular, subsection (3B) refers to the landlord entering for the purpose of testing for contaminants. There is no obligation on a landlord to provide test results for testing after the tenancy has ended.
Accordingly, this part of the tenant’s claim must be dismissed.
I note for the record that the tenant received the test results as part of the landlord’s claim to the Tribunal in any event. Name suppression
The landlord expressed concerns about the premises being associated with methamphetamine.
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
Neither party have been wholly or substantially successful, but they have both been partly successful.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA)
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, on balance I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, both the landlord and tenant considerations outweigh other considerations. If the landlord is to be granted suppression, then the tenant must be granted the same consideration. I order suppression for both parties which means that their details will not be published. Filing fee
As both parties have been partly successful, I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338145 — net $81.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$144.24		Water rates
Light bulbs	$87.67		Light bulbs
Exemplary damages		$150.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$231.91	$150.00
Net award	$81.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$81.91

Order

Suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $81.91 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant filed a cross application and has applied for a refund of the bond, and multiple claims for exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 July 2025. The landlord is seeking an additional day of rent because some rubbish was not picked up until the following day. This part of the claim is dismissed because the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises.
The landlord is seeking water invoices totalling $1,030.25 from 2022 to 2025. They say they did not on-charge because of a leak at the premises which was fixed in or around March 2025. They say this was not taken into account by the Tribunal at a previous hearing, so they now seek reimbursement.
As discussed with the parties, landlords should advise tenants for charges for which the tenant is liable as they accrue due, or a reasonable time thereafter, rather than allowing them to accumulate. 1 A tenant should be in a position whereby they can budget for their day-to-day or monthly expenses. It is not reasonable to expect the tenant to pay for the entirety of water invoices that were not presented from 2022 until the end of the tenancy in July 2025.
It is open to the Tribunal to decline to order payment of some or all of the water bills. On that basis, I am satisfied the tenant should pay the last 2 invoices which became due after the leak was repaired. I award $144.24 after deduction of the fixed charges.
The tenant agreed to pay these bills in any event.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace light bulbs.
I find that 12 lightbulbs had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy. I award $87.67 as claimed.
The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that 3 rose plants were missing from the garden at the end of the tenancy

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 1 Woollams v Simpson, DC Auckland CIV-20005-004-1583, 16 March 2006. liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
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.
The landlord is seeking $54.98 for a replacement cat door they say was damaged during this tenancy. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence of the state of the cat door at the start of this tenancy in 2019. I agree with the tenant that any issues are likely fair wear and tear rather than damage.
This part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
The landlord did not carry out an in-going test for methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord commissioned composite testing and on 25 July 2025, Hill Labs reported a level of 0.44ug/100cm.
The landlord purchased the property from the previous owner (mother) in 2019 and there were no previous tenants. The landlord relies on a statement from her mother which states that no methamphetamine activity ever occurred during her occupation between 2000 and 2019.
The tenant says she was living at the premises with her sister and 2 kids and there was no use of methamphetamine by anyone during this tenancy.
While I acknowledge the landlord’s concerns that traces of methamphetamine were found at the end of the tenancy, I do not find sufficient evidence that the tenants used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. There was no in-going test and no evidence of any drug use or related behaviours during this tenancy.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Cross application

Did the landlord fail to keep proper records?

A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant did not provide any evidence in support of this part of her claim therefore it is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 RTA.
Harassment generally means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 2
The tenant says she was harassed by the landlord after the last Tribunal hearing. She says that the landlord sent emails and messages about a builder coming to the premises, but did not provide the correct notice. The tenant says that the landlord turned up outside unannounced and waited for the builder to finish. The tenant says that on the final day of the tenancy, she saw the landlord driving past and everything was very stressful. The tenant says the email exchanges after the tenancy ended were also harassment.
Firstly, I do not find the email exchange contains anything more than the usual back and forth about possible bond deductions. This came after the end of the tenancy in any event. 2 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant agreed that the builder could come with short notice. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they parked up outside to give the builder the key and there was no intention to harass the tenant.
The landlord lives nearby to the premises therefore a drive-by on the final day cannot constitute any breach.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant healthy homes requirements.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the builder came to finish some work on the moisture barrier and windows, but she admits she does not have any evidence to prove that there has been any breach by the landlord.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide the Healthy Homes Assessment when requested?

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlord failed to prove the assessment as requested.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Weighing all of the above factors, and the fact that the landlord ultimately notified the tenant about work to be done and final compliance, I award $150.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide the methamphetamine report?

Under section 48(4)(c) RTA, a landlord must notify the tenant of the results and provide a copy of the results of methamphetamine testing under subsection (3B).
However, I find that subsection (3B) contemplates an ongoing tenancy. Section 48 sets out the landlord’s rights of entry during the tenancy and in particular, subsection (3B) refers to the landlord entering for the purpose of testing for contaminants. There is no obligation on a landlord to provide test results for testing after the tenancy has ended.
Accordingly, this part of the tenant’s claim must be dismissed.
I note for the record that the tenant received the test results as part of the landlord’s claim to the Tribunal in any event. Name suppression
The landlord expressed concerns about the premises being associated with methamphetamine.
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
Neither party have been wholly or substantially successful, but they have both been partly successful.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA)
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, on balance I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, both the landlord and tenant considerations outweigh other considerations. If the landlord is to be granted suppression, then the tenant must be granted the same consideration. I order suppression for both parties which means that their details will not be published. Filing fee
As both parties have been partly successful, I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338145 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338145 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

Did the landlord fail to keep proper records?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide the Healthy Homes Assessment when requested?

Did the landlord fail to provide the methamphetamine report?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

Did the landlord fail to keep proper records?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide the Healthy Homes Assessment when requested?

Did the landlord fail to provide the methamphetamine report?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions