What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339661 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 5339661?

Disposal Of Goods (As Agreed: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339661?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14105771-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339661 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 5339661?

Disposal Of Goods (As Agreed: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339661?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14105771-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339661 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339661 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Disposal of goods (as agreed	$150.00	Disposal of goods (as agreed
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$150.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339661 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Disposal of goods (as agreed	$150.00	Disposal of goods (as agreed
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$150.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $150.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,450.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by the tenants and the landlord.
Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants. The landlord, [The landlord/s] attended, along with [The landlord/s partner], and [The landlord’s representative].
This tenancy began on 13 January 2024 and ended on 7 July 2025. The rent is $981.50 per week and a bond of $3,600.00 was paid.
The tenants have applied for a return of their bond, and compensation for leaks, moisture/mould and draughts. They also claim exemplary damages for the landlord's failure to maintain the premises, and for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). This is application number 5339661.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, payment from the bond, and compensation for cleaning, gardening, and damage to the floor and carport. This is application number 5393322.
The parties attended a case conference on 13 November 2025, following which it was agreed that the landlord may dispose of two coffee tables left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenants agreed to compensate the landlord $150.00, which was to be deducted from any amount owing to the tenants or payable to the landlord, once the parties claims had been determined. Therefore, in accordance with the agreement reached by the parties, $150.00 is awarded to the landlord above.
In this order I will consider and determine the balance of the parties’ claims. General legal principles
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 1 (DC) TT233/02 necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732, they are different from compensation, and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Tenants’ application: 5339661
The tenants state that ultimately, they just wanted their bond back, but the landlord raised issues with them after the final inspection. They note that it has been a year since they moved out.
In response, the landlord points out that he was unable to do a proper inspection and only one of the tenants turned up for it. Repair and maintenance: water leaks and mould
The tenants state there were altogether three leaks at the property. There was a gap in the window and water came through the gap on 19 April 2025. There were two further leaks in the upstairs bedroom and the downstairs area, both occurring on 4 June 2025. This leak was reported to the landlord on 5 June 2025. The landlord came and had a look at it, there was no follow up, and the leaking continued. There was mould in the bedroom.
The tenants state they wanted acknowledgment for the problems that had arisen, and the impact on their living condition, health, and finances. They moved out because of the leaks and gaps. They were living in a cold house with mould. The mould was found in the areas where the leaks occurred.
In response, the landlord states that he had advised the tenants that he would get the windows replaced. The window had dropped by 5 millimetres. This is a house built in 1959. It had been his home for many years, and he believed it was a warm house. The problems occurred in the middle of winter. On 5 June 2025, there was a significant amount of rain. Following the tenants reporting of the leaks, he immediately responded. Chem Dry was on site, and it took 4 to 5 days for it to be fully dried out. A plumber was on site on 7 June 2025. On 9 June 2025 the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord states that he had offered compensation of $150.00 to the tenants but they did not respond. He acknowledged that the noise of the dryers would have been disruptive. He considered he was being reasonable. He questioned the claims of respiratory issues. In response to the tenants’ evidence, the landlord states there was no mould, except behind the bed and curtains, in the room which was at the back of the house.
In his written submissions, the landlord noted that he had already reached a financial settlement with the tenants for the roof leak and window, having agreed to waiver $560.86 in rent arrears. He replaced the entire roof and window within days of the tenants moving out.
The tenants, in their final reply, submit that the house was not warm, and the window was not replaced while they were there. However, they acknowledge the work involved. The respiratory issues were not fabricated. They did not feel $150.00 was enough compensation, since their flatmate was paying $350.00 a week. Legal framework and analysis
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 2 The landlord is also required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 3 The Court noted that the tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 4 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts 2 Section 45(1)(b) 3 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 4 Section 40(1)(d) made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 5
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the landlord has investigated the water leak issues as they arose in a timely way, and that, in the circumstances, the timing of the repairs was reasonable. I note the landlord's evidence about the remediation measures taken to address dampness resulting from the leak. Investigations indicated that the window needed to be replaced. I accept that in view of the tenants giving notice to end the tenancy, it was reasonable to carry out the work to replace the windows and roof after the tenancy had ended, particularly in view of the likely disruption to the tenants. Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the landlord has been in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises.
However, despite the landlord's best efforts, the tenants were affected by the water leaks. The correspondence between the parties indicates a settlement was reached in terms of the amount of compensation. The tenants proposed a waiver of the final rent payment of $560.86 in compensation for the disruption. I refer to the tenants’ email of 4 July 2025. The landlord agreed to this proposal on 5 July 2025. Therefore, I find the landlord has already compensated the tenants for the effect of the water leaks, and therefore, no further compensation is payable.
I have considered whether the tenants ought to be separately compensated for the effect of mould. However, the evidence shows the areas of mould within the property were limited. The tenants have already been compensated for the overall effect of the leaks. Where a property has an inherent problem causing mould, then the landlord will have a responsibility to remedy the fault. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show an inherent problem with mould at the premises. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust. 6 Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
The tenants have also claimed exemplary damages for the repair and maintenance issues. As a breach on the part of the landlord has not been established, exemplary damages cannot be awarded. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim the premises does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards. 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085 6 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011
The landlord states that while it was accepted that the tenants were inconvenienced by the noise from the Chem Dry machine, in terms of the HHS, the premises complied. Legal framework
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) sets out the minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. The standards are detailed in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, which came into force on 1 July 2019.
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 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 heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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.
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.
In terms of insulation, the landlord has obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 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 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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. Analysis
In this case, the evidence shows there is a Certificate of Compliance completed by Oncore on 20 May 2022, certifying that the home is fully compliant with the HHS in terms of heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. This certificate indicates that the main living room has an approved heating device, being a heat pump, and a top-up wall heater, reaching the required heating rating of 7.7 kilowatts. The ceiling insulation was found to be in excellent condition, and the accessible subfloor had insulation that met the required standard.
In terms of the ventilation standard, all bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were found to be compliant. All rooms had a window or door that was at least 5% of the floor area and can open to the outside and remain in a fixed open position. At the time of the inspection, draught stopping had been completed and no noticeable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors and doors were found. Furthermore, all drainage was found to be in good working order, draining stormwater, surface water and groundwater to an appropriate outfall. The property also had an enclosed subfloor and a ground moisture barrier.
Therefore, at the start of the tenancy, it is likely that the premises complied with the HHS. While there was a need for repairs resulting from water leaks, this occurred during the tenancy, and was addressed by the landlord within a reasonable timeframe. It must be noted that there is a difference between compliance with the HHS and meeting maintenance and repair obligations. Therefore, on the whole, I am satisfied that the premises complied with the HHS. In the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenants, this claim is dismissed.
As noted by the Tribunal in Tenants v Client First Limited [2026] NZTT 5357563, the intention of the HHS is to improve rental housing quality. But it does not guarantee that rental housing will be free of all problems that may impact on the health of the occupants. Landlord’s application: 5393322 Rent arrears
In the application, the landlord claimed $420.64 in rent arrears, being rent due to the end of the tenancy on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary, which was confirmed to be correct.
The tenants do not dispute the rent summary, but state that the landlord waived the remainer of the rent. The landlord agrees, stating that there was agreement that the rent waiver was fair compensation. The landlord therefore withdraws the claim for rent arrears. The tenants acknowledge that this rent waiver was in recognition of the inconvenience from the water leaks.
Accordingly, the claim for rent arrears is withdrawn. Cleaning and gardening
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $450.00 and gardening costs of $632.50. These claims are considered below. Legal framework
Under the RTA, 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 RTA.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 7 . This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 8 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean 9 , spotless 10 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 11 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 12 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 13
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, such as inspection reports and photographs. Cleaning
The tenants state they left the premises in a clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, and no issues were raised by the landlord at the final inspection on 9 July 2025. The landlord states only one of the tenants attended on this day, and it was a cursory inspection, not a complete inspection.
In this case, the landlord relies on a cleaning invoice, but there are no photographs to support the claim that the tenants have not complied with their obligation to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This invoice is dated one month after the tenancy ended, indicating cleaning was not undertaken immediately after the tenancy ended. The fact that [Property management company], a property management company, stated the property was not in a fit state to rent out does not establish that the tenants are liable for the cleaning costs. As case law has established above, a landlord may need to do some additional cleaning before renting out the premises to new tenants. 7 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 8 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 9 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 10 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 11 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 12 Richards v Scally (above) 13 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523.
Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive evidence to establish the claim for cleaning costs, it is dismissed. Gardening
As noted above, Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA requires tenants to leave the premises, including the garden and grounds, in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” at the end of the tenancy. This responsibility does not extend to undertaking major landscaping, tree trimming, or tasks that go beyond ordinary garden maintenance, unless specifically agreed in the tenancy agreement. Factors that can be taken into account include the condition of the garden at the start of the tenancy, with some allowance for seasonal growth. So, in terms of the garden, the tenant’s responsibility generally means they should ensure the lawn is mowed, the garden is weeded, the grounds are tidy, and any rubbish is removed from the garden.
In this case, under the tenancy agreement, the tenants were responsible for “maintaining the grounds, including regular lawn mowing and weeding.” Later, the parties agreed that the landlord would arrange for the lawn to be mowed, and rent was increased to include this cost (as shown in the rent summary). The landlord states there was a history of requests being made to the tenants to tidy the garden. The landlord was concerned that, at the end of the tenancy, some noxious weeds had not been removed. The tenants, on the other hand, state they kept the garden tidy, and, at the end of the tenancy, with the assistance of family, cleared up the garden and left it in a good condition.
Having considered the evidence overall, I find that the landlord has not established that the tenants failed to comply with this obligation at the end of the tenancy. In making this finding, I note the landlord’s photographs show that, while the garden was tidy at the start of the tenancy, it was not pristine, noting there are some weeds growing between the paved brick area. Similarly, at the end of the tenancy, some weeds were left in the garden by the tenants. The photos also show growth in the vegetation, but the tenants will not be responsible for trimming trees and hedges, and much of this growth can be regarded as seasonal.
In terms of the gardening invoice, this does not detail the work undertaken, and is dated one month after the end of the tenancy. So, it is unclear whether the garden maintenance was work that comes within the landlord’s or tenant’s responsibilities. Since a month has passed from the end of the tenancy, additional weeds are likely to appear in the garden. The tenants will not be responsible for removing weeds or vegetation that appears after the tenancy has ended. If, as the landlord states, the required gardening work related to the presence of some noxious weeds shown in one photograph, it is unclear how such work would account for the total gardening invoice of $632.50.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the tenants will not be responsible for the gardening costs incurred by the landlord, and this claim is dismissed. Damage to floor and carport
The landlord claims $1,150.00 for floor repairs and $1,127.00 to repair damage to the carport. In the landlord’s written submissions, the amount claimed for the carport repairs was revised to $500.00. These claims are considered below. Legal framework
Where compensation for damage is being claimed, 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 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Floor damage
The landlord states a section of the wooden floor, in the lounge/dining area, was scratched, likely caused by furniture being dragged across it. The landlord relies on photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, and a quotation for the work. The insurance excess is $2,500.00. The work has not been completed, and the premises has been re-tenanted.
The tenants state the floor was scratched at the start of the tenancy, and refer to photographs they took at the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, this damage would not prevent tenants moving in.
In this case, while noting the landlord’s views, I find the claim has not been established, to the required standard and therefore, it is dismissed. The landlord has not provided photographic evidence of the condition of the floor at the start of the tenancy and so, has not established that the damage occurred during this tenancy. There is also the tenant’s evidence indicating some marks on the floor at the start of the tenancy. Carport damage
The landlord states that, during an inspection on 1 September 2024, he noted damage to the base of the carport. He raised it with the tenants at the time. No quotation has been provided. The amount claimed is his own estimate of the cost of repairs.
In response, the tenants state that on 1 September 2024, one of the tenants, which was present during the inspection, informed the landlord that they denied causing this damage. This issue was only raised with them at the time they moved out. They do not know how this damage occurred.
In this case, I find the landlord has not established, with sufficient evidence, that the damage to the carport occurred during this tenancy. There is no photographic evidence showing the condition of the carport before the tenancy began. The landlord’s evidence is limited to the photograph showing the damage at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have denied responsibility. The amount claimed by the landlord is not supported by a quotation, and is an estimate. The estimated amount to repair the damage has also changed from $1,127.00 (in the application) to $500.00.
For the above reasons, as the landlord has not established this claim to the required standard, it is dismissed. Other issues
The landlord notes other issues that have arisen during the tenancy, including the tenants’ communication style, frequent failure to pay rent on time, failure to maintain the lawn and garden, the cleanliness of the premises during the tenancy, and parking of vehicles in the driveway. While noting the landlord’s concerns, some of these issues were not part of the landlord’s application, and therefore, cannot be considered. Based on the evidence currently before me, it has not been established that the remaining issues amount to a breach that would justify an award of compensation. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. Each party has had some success with their claims. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339661 — Tenancy dispute

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339661 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.