What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341873 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 5341873?

Cleaning: $192.62 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Clearing Out Garage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Electricity To Shed: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Curtains: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $175.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,190.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341873?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13605489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341873 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 5341873?

Cleaning: $192.62 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Clearing Out Garage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Electricity To Shed: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Curtains: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $175.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,190.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341873?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13605489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341873 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341873 — net $1,675.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$192.62		45. On 16 November 2021 [Tenant 1] sent a text containing [Tenant 2]’s view that the water level on both tanks had risen since they checked them the previous F…
Curtains	$80.00		Curtains
Replacement garage remote control	$175.50		Replacement garage remote control
Clearing out garage	$80.00		Clearing out garage
Rubbish removal front paddock	$320.00		Rubbish removal front paddock
Damage to tree	$800.00		Damage to tree
Damage to tiles	$287.50		Damage to tiles
Damage to basin	$200.00		Damage to basin
Damage to bedroom door	$100.00		Damage to bedroom door
Lawn repair	$2,190.00		Lawn repair
Cleaning gutters		$2,000.00	45. On 16 November 2021 [Tenant 1] sent a text containing [Tenant 2]’s view that the water level on both tanks had risen since they checked them the previous F…
Compensation: electricity to shed		$100.00	electricity to shed
Exemplary damages		$650.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$4,425.62	$2,750.00
Net award	$1,675.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,675.62

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341873 — net $1,675.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$192.62		45. On 16 November 2021 [Tenant 1] sent a text containing [Tenant 2]’s view that the water level on both tanks had risen since they checked them the previous F…
Curtains	$80.00		Curtains
Replacement garage remote control	$175.50		Replacement garage remote control
Clearing out garage	$80.00		Clearing out garage
Rubbish removal front paddock	$320.00		Rubbish removal front paddock
Damage to tree	$800.00		Damage to tree
Damage to tiles	$287.50		Damage to tiles
Damage to basin	$200.00		Damage to basin
Damage to bedroom door	$100.00		Damage to bedroom door
Lawn repair	$2,190.00		Lawn repair
Cleaning gutters		$2,000.00	45. On 16 November 2021 [Tenant 1] sent a text containing [Tenant 2]’s view that the water level on both tanks had risen since they checked them the previous F…
Compensation: electricity to shed		$100.00	electricity to shed
Exemplary damages		$650.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$4,425.62	$2,750.00
Net award	$1,675.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,675.62

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
Based on the calculations below, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. $1,124.38 to [The tenant/s] immediately; and b. $1,625.62 to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted in person at the [Event location suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal.
Before the hearing, the tenant, [Tenant 1] had been granted leave to attend the hearing via telephone because of illness. This was on the basis that all evidence had been filed and that [Tenant 2] would be present at the hearing. Both the landlords [The landlord/s] and [Tenant 2] duly presented at the hearing.
When the Tribunal rang [Tenant 1], there were difficulties with audio. Although we initially could hear her, she then disappeared from the audio, but she could hear us.
[Tenant 2] then rang [Tenant 1] and she joined via his phone.
After the morning adjournment, the Tribunal was advised had been ongoing issues with connectivity, but the Tribunal was not aware of that. [Tenant 1] had participated from time to time during the first part of the hearing. [Tenant 1] was asked what was the last thing that she had heard. She said that it did not matter.
In the afternoon, there were problems with [Tenant 1] being able to hear the proceedings and so she was called again using the court phone. Again it transpired that she had difficult hearing and so she had joined via [Tenant 2]’s phone. When asked what the last thing was that she had heard, she indicated that she was content to proceed. Before the hearing ended, she was given a further opportunity to respond to matters. Overview
The disputes between the parties concern a tenancy agreement that started on 21 January 2021 and ended on 6 July 2025, following notice being given.
On 15 July 2025 the landlords sent the tenants a letter listing claims for a number of items which they estimated to cost $20,000 but said they would settle for receiving the bond.
The tenants replied that they were going to proceed to the Tribunal.
On or about 6 September 2025, the landlord applied for $17,428.24 in compensation for damage caused during the tenancy. This covered: a. lawns b. windows c. carpet d. fencing e. water tank f. septic tank
The tenants cross-applied seeking a refund of bond and compensation of $10,000 for: a. lack of potable water, leading to purchase of water and water filters b. lack of water in water tank, and switch to bore water, causing damage to clothes c. failure to maintain guttering d. ventilation e. overflow of septic tank f. faults with electrical wiring.
The tenants also sought exemplary damages for: a. threats and blackmail against the bond b. excluding [Tenant 2] on the tenancy agreement and final inspection and communications c. retaliatory notice d. breach of quiet enjoyment.
The onus of proof is on each party to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must provide evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the fact they are asserting is more likely than not to be true. The Tribunal then applies the law to the established facts.
In the present case there were several assertions that were denied by the other party. Therefore, in weighing the evidence, it can be difficult to make a finding that one version of events is more likely than another.
The parties attended a case conference in December 2025. The adjudicator recorded that the parties had been advised of the need to provide certain evidence to prove their claims, including: a. pre- and post- tenancy photographs showing the condition of the premises in respect of claims for cleaning and damages. b. witness statements from independent qualified experts as appropriate and that the parties had been warned that any witness should be called to attend the hearing to give evidence.
Although some email correspondence from third parties was provided, neither party called any witnesses.
Neither party provided any photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The entry inspection report contains no photographs, and the landlords did not undertake routine inspections.
Both parties filed several invoices, screenshots of conversations and photographs. However, when asked during the hearing to explain what happened and when, neither party was able to present a clear chronological narrative of events. As pointed out to the parties at the hearing, this makes it very difficult to make determinations. It is not the role of the adjudicator to make the case for them.
Where possible I have tried to look at corroborative evidence such as the dates on the invoices.
In several instances neither applicant 1 has not discharged the burden proof; I have not been able to make a finding one way or the other.

Should either party be compensated in relation to the water tank and water supply?

The premises are a rural property with a rainwater tank for water supply and a septic tank. During the tenancy there were some issues with both.
The tenants said that within the first month of living there, there was an issue with the quality of water. It was brown. [Tenant 2] said that in the bottom of the tank there was about ½ a metre of rotten leaves. They notified the landlord who had a look at it and said that he had a plumber friend who could clean it out. The tenant said that he would do it and so the equipment was provided for him to clean out sludge at the bottom of the tank.
[Tenant 2] disputes that it was he who asked the plumber for the equipment, but there is no dispute that a pump was provided. [Tenant 2] says that the pump provided by the plumber was insufficient. [Tenant 2] said he spent approximately 30 hours trying to clean out the water tanks. He said that the design of the pump system meant that the water had to be pumped out of the tanks on to the ground.
The bottom of the tank was planted about 1 metre into the ground. When the water was pumped out, the tanks rose up and snapped the connecting pipes and fittings. This meant that a plumber then had to come and fix it. [Tenant 2] said that the plumber also told the tenant that he had been instructed to disconnect water from one building because it was too much hassle to clean the gutters on that shed. The tenants say that this accounted for 30% of the water and that explains why they kept running out of water. They said that they were 1 The tenant is the applicant in their claims and the landlord is the applicant in theirs. in no position to raise this with the landlord because of the toxic environment that had been created and they did not want to risk their tenancy.
The tenants said that while the water issue was being addressed, the house had to switch to bore water, which they could not drink. They also could not use it for laundry because it discoloured their clothes. This was for about four weeks in November/December 2021. The tanks were refilled.
The tenants also say that they told the landlords that they were running out of water.
The tenants provided a statement of account for the purchase of water from Big Blue from 1 March 2024 to 7 October 2025. They also sought 12 tank refills at $365 each, totalling $4,380.
The tenants say that the filter system that was installed was insufficient, and so they purchased water filters. They claim one filter per month for 48 months at a cost of $50.00 each. They provided a quote from Zip plumbing for the cost of a water filter.
The tenants also claimed time and travel for purchasing and replacing the water filters at $100 an hour. They claim $9,600 plus GST.
[Tenant 2] said that it took him a couple of years to notice that the tank was possibly leaning, He said in a drought year, everything was brown except around the water tank where the dirt was sodden and the grass was long. He said that he told the landlord.
The tenants say that between 2024 and 2025 they had to purchase water because the single filter was not sufficient to clean it to a drinkable standard. The water was coming out brown in the bath. The colour of the water and the water filters was the reason they bought water. They disagree that it is ironsand that can be seen in the filters. They provided photos showing a discoloured shower tray and walls.
The tenants also said that there was a continuing degradation of the gutters, affecting the water. [Tenant 1] said she texted and was told it was their responsibility. They did not want to risk losing their tenancy and so did not push back. She said they cleaned the gutters every three months.
The landlords say that there was no issue with water until two years into the tenancy. They say that the tenant said that he wanted to clean the guttering on the big shed and so the tenant hired a cherry picker, which the landlord paid for. Branches from trees on the premises and on the neighbouring property were growing onto the roof.
The landlords say that the tenants decided to clean the water tanks. The landlord said that the tenant was not asked to do this, but the tenant had said he knew what he was doing. The landlord approached a friend who provided equipment. He said that when pumping water out of tanks, it should be directed some distance from the tank. Any water should not be emptied close to the tank, and this is what caused the tank to rise out of the ground.
The landlords dispute that there was silt or sludge 2 in the tank; if there had been, it would have been evident on the lawn once the pumping was completed. He said that the professional plumbers said that was we needed was to chlorinate the water and pump it out with for any build-up of algae. The professionals cleaned the water and charged $1100 plus GST. The landlords provided water at $580 plus GST.
The landlord accepts that the water running off the large shed was disconnected because it was so difficult getting up to clean the gutters.
The landlords say that the tenants’ decision to use bore water in the house was not good for the plumbing because the bore water has a high iron contact.
Because the connections to the water tank broke when the tenant emptied it, the landlords then got Plumbing Solutions to fix the tank connections. Two filters were put in. They seek reimbursement of $1,689.66.
[The landlord/s] said that two filters were put in and there was plenty of water off the house. When he visited, he saw that the hose had been left on. After the tenants moved out, they found a number of used filters (photos provided), showing that bore water was being pumped through. They live on a farm and replace the filter once a year.
The landlords say that if the tenants had not put bore water into the house, they would have been able to drink the water. It was their choice to purchase water.
The landlords say that after the tenants moved out there were tennis balls blocking the down pipe and this would have caused a problem with water flow. They believe the tenants but the tennis balls down there. The tenants deny doing that. Supporting evidence of communication regarding water tank and septic tank
The parties provided a series of screenshots of conversations and invoices. They show the following:
There was a text from the landlords on 26 January 2021 regarding a plumber attending. The parties agree that it did not relate to the water tanks.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord sent a text to say that the plumber would most likely be able to look at “those two things” the following week. On 18 June 2021, 2 The tenants say it was not silt; it was leaf matter. [The landlord/s] sent a text asking if all was ok with the handbasin and shower now. [Tenant 1] replied that all was in working order.
On 16 November 2021 [Tenant 1] sent a text containing [Tenant 2]’s view that the water level on both tanks had risen since they checked them the previous Friday and so it was unlikely to be an issue with the water catchment, other than the gutters being blocked up and in need of cleaning. The text records that the water quality is fairly poor and that the sludge at the bottom of the tanks has built up. [Tenant 2] wanted to clean the tanks out himself, but the opening of the tank was too narrow to climb into.
On 17 November 2021, [The landlord/s] texted that they would visit on Sunday afternoon and they had an idea on how to clean out the tanks and they would start on the gutterings as well.
On 23 February 2022, [The landlord/s] sent a text to [Tenant 1] that a plumber would be at the house at 10am the next day to discuss the tank issue.
On 24 February 2022, [The landlord/s] texted that the plumber had said that he would work with the tank cleaning guys and “sort out next week”.
On 16 March 2022, [The landlord/s] texted saying that a tradesman from Clean Water Solutions was coming to look at the tanks shortly.
On 21 March 2022, [The landlord/s] texted that she has been chasing up the plumber and he was expecting to get to the premises that week. He was waiting on the tank cleaning man. She said that once a day had been sorted, she would let the tenants know as their water was likely to be out of action for most of the day.
The landlord provided a copy of an invoice dated 25 March 2022 for cleaning out two tanks and delivering water: $1,932.00.
The landlords submitted an invoice dated 12 December 2022 from Plumbing Solutions for $4,594.48. They say that part of this was for the repair of the water tank connections in March 2022.
On 7 July 2023, [Tenant 1] sent a text to the landlord noting that they had no water in the water tanks but noticed that there was water on the ground between the two sheds. She said, “I’m just hoping there isn’t a leak somewhere”. The landlord replied that they were in [City], but would get a plumber to check.
On 8 July 2023 from [The landlord/s] replied that the plumber said that there was bore water going into the tanks as a temporary measure and he would be back “on Monday” to replace the kitchen tap and would return with someone to sort out the wet area which he thought was related to the septic tank. 3 3 She also said that she would get an electrician as soon as possible regarding the lights.
This was followed up by a text on 12 July 2023 saying that someone was coming to dig some holes and try to fix the drainage problem. [The landlord/s] said that the plumber thought that a new soak pit for the septic tank might be required. She said they were trying to sort the problem urgently and apologised for any inconvenience.
On 13 July 2023, [The landlord/s] sent a text saying, “The good news is the new soak pit has worked according to our tradesman.”
On 25 January 2025 Andre from Clean Water Solutions emailed [Tenant 2] saying that after delivering water on 21 January 2025, he noticed both tanks were dirty, with a build up of sediment. He said he had last cleaned the tanks on 25 March 2022 and suggested that they were overdue for a cleanout. He also noticed no water flowing into the second tank which indicates a possible blockage or problem with the pipe work. He also noticed the ground by the tanks was damp. Discussion
The tenant was adamant that he did not ask for a pump to pump out the water tanks. I do not need to make a finding about who asked for such a pump.
Much time was spent at the hearing talking about bore water being put through the house. The tenants say that because the landlord put bore water into the house, they could not drink it and it made their clothes brown and had to buy water.
The landlords deny putting bore water through the house apart from the occasion referred to in communication above. They say that the tenants chose to do this so that they would not have to buy water.
Neither party has provided any other evidence to support their claim and so I cannot determine this.
Based on the text communications and invoices, I am satisfied that in November 2021, about 10 months into the tenancy, [Tenant 1] notified the landlord that the water tank levels were low, the gutters were blocked, the water quality was poor and there was sludge in the bottom of the tanks.
The invoices provided by the landlord show that in March 2022 the landlord paid to have the water tanks cleaned out and filled with clean water.
Therefore, I find that the tenants first raised the issue of water quality in November 2021. There is no dispute that the landlord agreed that the tenant could try to clean the tanks out. I find that this happened in late 2021/early 2022.
It may be that the tenant did not have the expertise to do so. In any event, there is no dispute that the tank rose up and connections to the water tanks were broken. It is possible that this was due to the tenant’s lack of competence or expertise.
The landlord disputes that there was any build-up in the tank. If there had been, it would have been on the lawn after the tenant emptied the tanks. He says that the tanks could have been cleaned with chlorine tablets. That raises the question of why the landlord did not do this.
Because the tanks needed to be filled in order to weight them down, the landlord paid $670 for water. At the hearing, [The landlord/s] said that he was happy not to pursue reimbursement for that.
I find that the landlord was made aware that the tenants believed there was an issue with the water quality/cleanliness of the water tank in November 2021. When the tenant raised issues about the tank, the onus was on the landlord to look at the tank and decide whether it needed attention. By arranging a pump and agreeing to the tenant attempting to clean the tank, I infer that the landlord accepted there was an issue with the water.
The landlord could have attended to the issue himself or arranged for it to be done by a competent professional. This was not a case of the tenant undertaking work without the landlord’s knowledge. The landlord agreed to the tenant working on the tanks. In these circumstances, I do not find that the tenant should compensate the landlord for any cost associated with the plumbing. In any event, I have been unable to find an invoice for plumbing work undertaken in March 2022 in relation to this.
I also find that it was reasonable that the landlord filled the tanks and ensured that there was clean water for the tenants once the clean and repair had been undertaken.
I therefore make no order in favour of the landlord regarding the issues with the water tank at the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages of $7,200 for a failure to meet the “landlords’ fundamental obligations of providing clean drinking/bathing/washing water to the tenant’s house”.
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the landlord’s fundamental obligations. Section 45(1)(ca) says that if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
Failure to comply with section 45(1)(ca) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of a maximum of $7,200 may be ordered.
There is no dispute that a rainwater tank was provided. The tenant says that it was not adequate but has provided no evidence of the volume of the water tank, photographs or records the times when it was low, or more importantly independent evidence from a suitably qualified person that the means for collection and storage of water was inadequate.
Accordingly, the tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that the means of collection and storage of water were adequate.
The tenants say that they could not drink the water because it was brown. They say that [the landlord’s friend] told them not to drink the water.
In the absence of any independent testing of the water or water filters, I am unable to determine whether the tenant needed to purchase multiple water filters or whether the filters were blackened because of iron sand or because of other issues with the water quality. The copies of text communications do not show any examples of the tenant telling the landlord that they did not believe they could drink the water or they had any concerns about the water quality.
The landlords provided evidence that they filled the tanks in March and again in December 2022.
The texts reveal that in July 2023 when the tenant raised an issue regarding low water in the tank and a possible leak, the landlords arranged for a plumber to attend.
Section 49 provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
I find that the tenants have not taken all reasonable steps to limit their loss.
There is no evidence of ongoing complaints about the quality of the water, or independent evidence that the quality of water was inadequate.
The tenants have not established that the landlord failed to respond to any issues raised about the water.
I am therefore unable to determine whether the tenant needed to purchase water because of a failure by the landlord to comply with their responsibilities.
The tenants’ claims for water filters, water bought and time spent are all dismissed.

Should either party be compensated for issues with the septic tank?

The tenants say that from the beginning of the tenancy, there were problems with sewage all over the grass when it rained. They spoke to the landlord in early 2021. They say that it went on for two years.
There is no dispute that the tenants were told not put tampons or wet wipes in the system.
The landlords agree that after the tenants moved in, the water table was high, leading to a smell of sewage and so the septic tank was cleaned on 27 January 2021.
This is confirmed in a text of that date where the landlord says that JBs septic tank cleaners would be at the tenants’ place shortly to clean out the tank. [The landlord/s] says, “Can you please advise over the next couple of days if this sorts out the issue by the shed. If it doesn’t I will get the plumber back”.
There is no evidence in the texts provided of any further complaint about sewage or smell.
As outlined above, the tenant sent a text on 7 July 2023, noting that they had no water in the water tanks and saying there was water on the ground between the two sheds.
[The landlord/s] said that they organised Plumbing Solutions were called, but in fact there was a blockage. The lack of water in the tank and the water on the ground were not related.
It transpired that Plumbing Solutions’ equipment did not reach far enough and so it was then recommended that the septic tank be cleaned. That was organised, but still did not fix the problem and so James Owen was called in to provide a new soak pit. They provided a letter from him confirming that he found the existing soak pit completely full and blocked and no longer functioning. It was therefore replaced.
The problem was still not fixed and so the landlord contracted A1 Drain Unblockers who discovered tampons. The landlord provided a letter dated 19 December 2025 from Phillip Mercer of A1 Drain Unblockers which confirms that in August 2023, in which he says that he machined from the shed right to the septic [tank] to unblock and clear sewage backfill in line. He cleared a bad sewage overflow. He said that there is a problem with effluent line off the back of the tank. He had found the drain completely blocked with sanitary items.
The landlord seeks payment of the following invoices from mid-2023: a. JB’s Environmental for emptying the septic tank and pumping out the Stormwater Sumps due to tampons blocking the drain: $1,920.56 b. James Owen invoice for installing a new soak pit due to tampons blocking the drain: $7,290.6 c. A1 Drain unblocker for clearing drains blocked by tampons: $368.00
The landlords say that normally the septic tank would be cleaned every five to six years.
[The landlord/s] said that [Tenant 1] had acknowledged to her that other visitors had used tampons. [Tenant 1] denied that she said that. She said that the only family members who visited were her grandparents.
The tenants say that in January 2021 the septic tank was cleaned. [Tenant 2] was present. He says the pipe that runs to the sceptic tank was not cleaned.
The tenants say that no tampons or wipes were put down the toilet. The tenants say that the pipe was blocked from the start, and that the job was not done properly at the start. They deny that any visitors would have used tampons. They say that they lived with the sewerage until 2023, that they told the landlords about it, but the landlords did nothing.
The landlord agrees that when the septic tank is blocked, they do not clean out the pipes. The landlord used to visit the property about once a fortnight and did not smell or see sewage. If they had been told about it, they would have dealt with it.
The tenants seek $7,200 exemplary damages for “failure to meet landlords’ fundamental obligations of providing a clean and sanitary environment for tenants for over 2 years”.
Under section 45 the landlord is obliged to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I find it unlikely that for two years the tenant told the landlord that there was sewage on the lawn but the landlord failed to take action. There is no corroborating evidence that the tenants told the landlords for two years that there was sewage.
I find it more likely that on being told that there was water on the lawn, the landlords took appropriate action.
It follows that I do not find that the landlord breached any responsibility in relation to having the septic tank examined and any issues fixed.
The next question is whether the tenants are responsible for any of the repairs or maintenance in relation to the septic tank.
There is no dispute that the pipes that go to the septic tank are not usually cleaned when the septic tank is cleaned. In August it was discovered that they were blocked. The question is whether that blockage was more likely than not caused by the tenants’ actions.
The onus is on the landlord to prove that. Because those pipes were not cleaned at the start of the tenancy, it is possible that the blockage existed before the tenancy began. The landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the presence of tampons or should pay for any of the repairs taken out in mid-2023, including replacement of the soak pit.

Should the tenants be compensated for cleaning out the gutters?

The tenants say that the landlord told them to clean the gutters, which they did every three months approximately. The gutters on the big shed were cleaned once, but there were other sheds that had gutters cleaned.
The landlords say that the tenant offered to do that, and they agreed.
Gutter cleaning is usually the responsibility of the landlord as part of their maintenance obligations. They cannot insist that a tenant takes care of this. There is a letter dated 25 July 2023, in which [The landlord/s] said, “Please check the gutters regularly and clear out when necessary.” That is not a reasonable expectation.
[Tenant 2] claims $6,400 plus GST for cleaning the gutters every six months. [Tenant 1] says they were cleaned every three months. [Tenant 2] says they were high gutters and each clean took 2 people over 4 hours at $100 an hour.
I find that the tenant should be compensated for cleaning the gutters, but I do not find that $6,400 is reasonable. I find it unlikely that a professional gutter cleaner would charge $100 an hour or charge $800 for one gutter clean. I have decided that reasonable compensation is $500 per year, which comes to $2,000.

Should either party be compensated in relation to the yucca/cabbage tree?

The property has a drive which sweeps around a landscaped island with vegetation on it. At the start of the tenancy this included a large tree, which the landlords describe as a cabbage tree, but the tenants insist is a yucca tree. The species or sub-species is not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination. The photos show that it was a large specimen with about multiple trunks, all with more than 30cm diameter. It stood at about 3 metres high and its spread was about 2 metres.
The tenants say in about November 2024, the tree collapsed on to one of their vehicles. They had been given authority to remove trees as needed. They say the tree was rotten and so they chopped the tree down. They say it had become a hazard to their vehicles and they were trying to be good, responsible tenants.
The tenants did not contact the landlords because right from the start of the tenancy, they had been given authority to remove trees as needed.
The landlords say that at the start of the tenancy, there was a tree by the shed that they had given permission to be cut up and used as firewood. That was the only authority that was given to the tenants.
Some other trees fell down in a storm and the landlords arranged to have someone come and clear them. They agreed to the tenant keeping the wood for firewood.
The landlords do not accept that this tree was rotten.
The tenants provided photographs taken at the time the tree was being cut up. Parts of branches are on the ground.
The landlord says that all the parts of the cabbage tree look like they have been cut.
The landlord did not see the tree after the storm and based on the photographs provided, the tree does not look rotten at all.
The tenants seek $8,000 compensation for their time chopping it down.
The landlord seeks $300 for levelling the stump down. They also sought $1,000 for replacement because it was well established. However, they have not had it replaced. They are hoping it may regrow.
Section 45(d) says that the landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— i.the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and ii.the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so;
I find: a. The tenant was not authorised to cut the tree. b. There was no agreement that he would be paid for any time chopping any trees. c. It is possible that a branch had fallen in a storm, but based on the photographs provided by the tenant, I do not accept that all of the tree was rotten or that it required total removal. d. Even if it was rotten, the tenant had not made any attempt to notify the landlord of the state of the tree.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for compensation fails.
The next question is whether the landlord should be compensated for the tenant’s actions.
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.
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.
I find that the actions in chopping down the tree were intentional. The tenants are liable for the damage.
The difficulty is in assessing the amount that should be paid in compensation. The landlords seek $300 for the time taken to level the stump. I find that is reasonable and order $300 as claimed.
Compensation for the loss of a large tree is difficult to determine. The landlord has not had it replaced or provided a quote for replacing and established tree. Even if it regrows, it will be some years before it becomes the landscaping feature that it was. Therefore, even though it has not been replaced, I find that the landlord is entitled to some compensation for a change to the aesthetics of the property. I have decided that $500 is reasonable compensation.

Should the tenant be compensated for faulty electrical wiring?

The tenants seek compensation for replacement lightbulbs due to faulty wiring.
On 25 July 2022 they sent a text to the landlord regarding lack of power. The landlords responded that an electrician would attend in the morning.
An electrician told the landlords that the problem was that rats were chewing the wires and so they asked the tenants to use rat poison. They also installed LED lights in the lounge.
[Tenant 1] said that the electrician told her that the wiring was faulty and needed to be replaced. [Tenant 1] said that she paid for the lights, but no evidence of payment for LED lights was produced. She later said that she did not recall LED lights being installed.
When the landlords had a heatpump installed in 2024, another electrician told the landlord that rats were chewing wires.
The landlord asked the tenant to put rat bait down. They would have attended to it if the tenant had declined.
The tenants put rat bait down in the garage because the lights in the garage were not working.
The corroborative evidence that the tenants told the landlords about problems with the wiring is the text referred to above. There is no other evidence that the tenant complained about problems on an ongoing basis.
Neither party produced a statement from an electrician.
The tenants have not established that there was a fault with the wiring or that the landlords failed to address any maintenance issues or that the tenants sustained any loss. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants be compensated for a mould/dampness?

The tenants say that when they were moving out, they discovered a brown stain on the bed that had been up against the wall that adjoins the bathroom. They say that this was because there was mould all through the bathroom because of no extractor fans and there was a leak through the wall causing water to go on the carpet.
The tenants say had raised the issue of mould that was present on the curtains when they moved in and the landlord told them to purchase mould remover, which they did.
The landlords had claimed for cleaning mould but that was later withdrawn.
The landlord says that there was a water coming out by the bath, but that the bedroom the tenants refer to is on the other side of the bath.
There is no evidence that during the tenancy, the tenants raised any concerns with the landlords regarding a leak or dampness leading to an accumulation of mould.
The tenants have not established that the landlord breached any obligation. The claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants be compensated for lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom?

The tenants sought compensation for failure to provide an extractor fan in the bathroom.
Under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), the premises had to comply with all HHS by 1 July 2025.
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 tenants were told that an extractor fan was going to be installed in the bathroom, but then were told that the property was exempt.
The texts show that on 12 February 2021 landlords had arranged for an electrician, Scott, was to call to arrange a time to assess the kitchen and bathroom for extractor fans as required by the Healthy Homes law.
In fact, the landlord used Boe Tatham from 24-hour Electrical. He installed the heatpump, and said that because of the type of property, it was not feasible to put in extractor fans.
The landlord provided a copy of a letter from Boe Tatham dated 7 August 2025 which reads:
Based on this information, I am satisfied that property is exempt from the requirement for an extractor fan in either bathroom. I add that even if it was not exempt, because this tenancy began in January 2021, it had to comply no later than 1 July 2025. The tenancy ended 5 days later, on 6 July 2025.

Should the landlord pay compensation or exemplary damages for use of the shed?

During the tenancy, the landlord stored items in a shed on the property. The tenants have two complaints about this: a. the use of electricity b. breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants seek: a. $7,200 in exemplary damages for “knowingly allowing the tenants to be paying or the landlord’s industrial power supply”; b. $7,200 in exemplary damages for “knowingly allowing other third parties to access the property without asking or agreement from the tenants.”
The tenants provided no reference to relevant provisions in the RTA for these claims.
The shed in question was to the side of the house. Looking at the aerial photographs, it is 5 to 10 metres from the house. There is a separate driveway to the shed and it could be accessed without using the other driveway that sweeps in front of the house.
The landlords have a [Redacted] business and store items in the shed. It was agreed at the start of the tenancy, and recorded in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would have access to the shed on the property and the front paddock.
the tenants say that the power to the shed was covered in their power usage and they consider that their power bill was high because they paid a lot of money towards the landlord’s use of the shed.
The tenants also say that multiple different parties were using the shed continuously. They provided a photograph of a car outside the shed. This was taken in 2024. They said that this particular person used the shed multiple times a week for a long period.
The landlords say that there are two access ways. You can use the driveway directly to the shed without using the tenant’s driveway. They usually accessed the shed once a week in relation to their business. This was during the day and they did not need to use the lights.
The landlords let the tenants know that a friend was going to be using the shed.
On Easter Friday 2025 the landlords visited and left their car running while collecting items from the shed. [Tenant 2] came out yelling and saying they were only allowed there on a Sunday. [The landlord/s] told him to read his tenancy agreement. After that, the landlords texted each time they were coming.
On 18 April after this event, [Tenant 1] rang [The landlord/s] to apologise and they had a discussion about the tenancy.
The landlords say that the only power being used in the shed was the lights. There was no fridge, freezer or other appliance. The lights were not needed if accessing the shed during the day. There was one occasion when the lights were left on.
The texts show that on 20 May 2022, [Tenant 1] sent a text to [The landlord/s] letting her know that the lights had been left on for about a week now, and on 20 July 2023, [Tenant 1] messaged, letting [The landlord/s] know that the lights in the garage had been left on. She had not realised initially that the power for the shed was part of their power bill.
It should have been made clear to the tenants that the power for that shed was included in their power bill. No doubt the tenants would have informed the landlords sooner if they saw the light had been left on. Leaving the light on would not have had a significant minimal impact on the tenant’s power bills, but nonetheless, they should have been informed and should receive a small amount of compensation. I order $100.
The tenants have not established a legal basis for exemplary damages for this claim.
As for breach of quiet enjoyment, 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 means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants agreed at the start of the tenancy that the landlord could access their shed.
Section 48 provides that the landlord may not enter the premises without the tenant’s consent, unless notice has been given as set out in that act. Section 48(7) says that in that context “premises” does not include land or facilities. Therefore, even without the tenants’ express consent, the landlord is entitled to come on to the land.
Repeated visits in some circumstances may amount to harassment as defined above.
There is nothing in either the landlords’ or the tenants’ accounts that leads to a conclusion that the landlord harassed the tenants. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s use of the shed amounted to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment.
The tenants say that there were random people coming at all hours of the day. They said that a person was using the shed during 2023 and 2024. They say it was multiple times a week for a long period.
The landlords dispute this. They allowed a friend of theirs to use the shed when she had downsized her house. They let the tenants know that a lady would be coming to use the shed. This was the lady who left the light on.
The landlords said that a representative for their business accessed the shed occasionally, no more than once a month.
They dispute the tenant’s claim that they accessed the shed three times a day. They say that sometimes they did not access it for weeks at a time.
The tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s access to the shed amounts to harassment. The landlord was entitled to access the shed. It was recorded in the tenancy agreement and the landlord had a separate driveway. They have provided no detailed chronology of dates or events which lead me to the conclusion that the landlord’s access to the shed, either by themselves or authorised people amounted to harassment.
The claim is dismissed.

Was the notice given retaliatory?

On 20 April 2025, the landlords gave the tenants 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice.
The tenants say that they think the notice was given because of [Tenant 2] addressing the problem with them turning up.
[The landlord/s] says that on 18 April 2025 during the phone call, she told [Tenant 1] that they would be giving the tenants 90 days’ notice. They had been thinking of selling and were finding it stressful. Because of [Tenant 2]’s behaviour, they felt threatened and unsafe. In fact, they ended up selling a different rental property. The tenants from that other rental moved into this property and so they sold the other rental.
[Tenant 1] accepts that she phoned to apologise. She did not know exactly what it was about because she was dealing with the children. [Tenant 1] said that [The landlord/s] had said that she felt intimidated and was thinking of terminating the tenancy.
[Tenant 2] denies that his behaviour was intimidatory; he asked them why they had turned up. He had no knowledge of the content of the phone call on 18 April when he sent an email on 19 April, saying that the landlords were in breach of their tenancy agreement. He said that the parties had agreed that the landlord would be granted access to the shed, but not frequently, and primarily on Sundays and that the landlords would contact the tenants on any given Sunday that they chose to visit the shed, to ensure that the tenants could make provision for their privacy.
In the email, [Tenant 2] said that he considered the landlords had breached the agreement by coming to the shed on Friday 18 April when the tenants’ children were playing naked under the hose.
[Tenant 2] said in that email that they had multiple recordings of people arriving to access the shed and there had been dozens of visits from random people turning up unannounced. He also said that often the shed lights would be left on, their power bills were high, and that they believed it was because of the power to the shed, in which case they considered it was theft.
On 20 April 2025 the landlord sent a letter terminating the tenancy. It referred to a text message to [Tenant 2] on 5 August 2024 in which it was mentioned that they were considering selling the property and that this was also confirmed in the phone conversation on 18 April 2025. They gave 90 days’ notice with a termination date of 20 July 2025.
I find it likely that the termination notice was given in part because of the manner in which [Tenant 2] approached the landlord on Friday 18 April 2025. I accept that because of this, [The landlord/s] felt intimidated by [Tenant 2]. On 18 April she told [Tenant 1] that she was thinking of terminating the tenancy. However notice was not given until after [Tenant 2] had sent a detailed email on 19 April 2025
I find that although the landlord was considering terminating the tenancy before receiving the email on 19 April 2025, the landlord was motivated in part by that email.
Section 54(5) provides that the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory if the Tribunal is satisfied that, the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice.
I find that the email that was sent on 19 April 2025 was misguided. I do not agree that the tenant had a genuine grievance, but I do not find that it was vexatious or frivolous. Therefore, I do find that the notice was retaliatory.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account: a. the effect of the unlawful act; b. the interests of the other party; c. the public interest. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The effect of the act is that the tenant had to leave their home of four years.
A landlord is entitled to give 90 days’ notice. The landlord had been thinking about selling the premises and so the giving of notice in itself was not unreasonable.
I consider that it is reasonable that the landlord make a small payment of $650 in exemplary damages. This recognises that it was likely that the landlord would give notice at some stage in the next few months, but also that if the tenant had not sent the email on 19 April, the notice would probably not have been given on 20 April 2025.

Is the tenant responsible for cleaning or damage to the premises?

The landlords seek compensation for damage to the following items: a. garage remote b. carpet c. front lawn d. curtains e. tiles f. hand basin g. fence railing h. louvre window Garage remote
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that the tenants did not return one garage remote. The tenants thought that they had only received one remote, but it is recorded in the tenancy agreement that two remotes were provided.
The landlord provided an invoice for $175.50 for replacement of a garage remote. That amount is ordered. Cleaning of garage
The landlord provided photographs showing that the garage, including the toilet and pump room had not been cleaned out. They sought $80, being 2 hours for clearing up the garage and removing a large pile of used water filters.
The tenants say that they did not use the garage.
The tenants’ obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The photos show that they did not do so.
The amount of $80 is ordered. Curtains
The landlord claimed $80.00 for cleaning and rehanging the curtains.
The tenant said that she took them down to clean them and did not get round to rehanging them.
The photo shows a pile of curtains. It does not show if they were mouldy or needed cleaning. The landlord said that she wiped them and put them up.
In the absence of the photographs of the state of the curtains at the start or end of the tenancy, I am unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the curtains required cleaning. However, the tenant should not have left the curtains for the landlord to hang. I order $80.00 compensation for the landlord’s time in rehanging the curtains. Carpet
There was a clause in the tenancy agreement which said that the tenants had to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. Such a clause is not enforceable because it places an obligation on the tenant that exceeds the obligations contained in the Residential Tenancies Act, which says that at tenant must simply leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy (see sections 11 and 40).
However, if there are marks on the carpet, a tenant may need to ensure the carpet is cleaned in order to fulfil the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or they may need to organise removal of a stain that may be considered damage to the carpet.
The landlord found a brown stain in one bedroom. The carpet was a year old when the tenants moved in. They provided photographs showing the stains. They provide an invoice from Clearview for $385.25.
The tenants do not deny responsibility for the marks on the carpet. The tenants say that the carpets were cleaned at the end of the tenancy and that the landlords are partially responsible for some of the stains. They say this should be classed as fair wear and tear. They provided no evidence such as receipts or invoices for cleaning of the carpets.
Neither party provided photographs of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. This makes it difficult to assess the nature of the cleaning required as a result of the tenant’s actions during the tenancy.
I have decided that after a 4-year tenancy, it is more likely than not that the tenants were responsible for at least some of the marks. Any cleaning that they may have undertaken was no successful. I order the tenants to pay half the cost of carpet cleaning, which is $192.62. Cleaning up front paddock
The landlords sought $320 for their time cleaning up the front paddock. The provided photographs showing the remains of the cabbage tree, greenwaste and other non-organic material, such as beer cans.
[Tenant 2] said that there was a fire pit and that they could use it to burn rubbish. When trees fell down, they would put it out there and they also accumulated some rubbish out there. The photos show a burn pile from all of the landlord’s trees that fell over in storms and [Tenant 2] moved. He could not get them all into the fire pit using his ute. He did not have a tractor.
The landlord said that the rubbish was not in the burn pit. Plastic, cans, bottle tops, tennis balls, shoes, should not have been burned and should not have been in the paddock. He had to use a tractor to move all the branches and other debris into a pile.
[Tenant 2] said that he had removed rubbish and taken to the dump. He says that the landlord has picked up a few items from a two-acre property and put it together in a pile to make the tenants look bad.
I find that the photos show that the tenants did not remove all rubbish. Nor had the debris been placed in a pile for burning.
The photos show that the cabbage tree remains were strewn over the paddock. There is a pile of greenwaste next to a fence. There is also non-organic waste.
If the tenants were unable to deal with the green waste appropriately, they should have spoken to the landlord. There was no reason to leave non-organic waste anywhere around the property.
I order $320 for cleaning up the paddock. Smoke alarms
The landlord says that smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.
Usually when claims are made for smoke alarms, the landlord provides photographs of the smoke alarms in place at the start of the tenancy, and photos of the empty brackets or holes in the ceiling where they have been removed.
The tenants deny taking any smoke alarms. They say they purchased some because there weren’t enough. They say that they left them behind. [Tenant 2] said that he bought multiple smoke alarms during the premises. [Tenant 1] said that there was not one upstairs and so they purchased it.
The tenancy agreement, signed by both parties, records that there is at least one working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within 3 metres of the door, that there is a smoke alarm on each storey.
However, I am unable to determine whether they were missing at the end of the tenancy and so this claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. Tiles
The landlord claimed $575.00 compensation for damage to some outside tiles on the patio. There is tile on the base of the step and them some tiles around the external of the patio. They are cracked in multiple places and falling apart. One tile (photo 37) appears to show a point of impact in the middle with multiple cracks emanating.
The tenant says that the glue was starting to deteriorate, and the tiles were coming loose and breaking. [Tenant 2] had made some attempt to glue the tiles
Photo 41 shows damage to a tile. The tenant says that it was fair wear and tear.
The landlords have not provided photos of the tiles at the start of the tenancy. Where a tile has come off at the base of the step, it is difficult to determine the cause. It is possible that it is due to the age of the tiles. The landlord has not established that it was because of a careless or intentional act of the tenant.
However, at least one tile appears to have been broken by an event, and that is likely as the result of an action of the tenant or someone there with their consent.
I have decided that the tenant should contribute half of the cost of tile repair, which comes to $287.50. Railing
The landlords seek compensation of $158.60 for replacing fence railings which were missing.
The tenants say that the fence was damaged when a tree fell down in a storm and have provided a photo of a tree across the fence which they texted to the landlord.
The landlords say that it is a different part of the fence. They have provided an aerial photograph which shows missing railings.
I agree that the location of the railings is not consistent with a fallen tree. The tenants did not notify the landlord of damage to the railing or why it is now missing.
The landlord presumed that the railing had been removed because the tenants throwing rubbish over the fence.
The tenant said that the railings were always falling off and getting broken because of trees falling. [Tenant 2] said that the fence is old as the hills, and was falling apart.
I am unable to determine this claim. It is possible that the railing did fall off. The landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the missing rails were because of the careless or intentional act of the tenant. Hand basin
The landlords have provided photographs of a crack in the handbasin. It would cost $1400 to replace the vanity. The landlords seek $200 compensation instead.
[Tenant 2] said he did not notice a crack. [Tenant 1] said that she thought it was wear and tear. They did not intentionally damage it. It just happens over time.
The landlords say they have never had a vanity crack through wear and tear. They believe something heavy was dropped.
I agree that the damage to the basin is not consistent with wear and tear. It is two to three inches and consists of a few small cracks. I find it more likely that is because of a careless action on the part of the tenant or someone there with their consent.
The landlord’s claim of $200 instead of replacement cost is reasonable. That amount is ordered. Bedroom door
The landlord claimed $100 for damage to a bedroom door. They provided a photograph showing a dent/crack in the door. The landlord took it down, repainted and rehung it.
The tenants did not deny liability.
I order $100 for repair to the bedroom door. Windows in garage
The landlord seeks reimbursement $349.50 for repair of damage to louvre windows in the garage.
The tenant denies responsibility for this. They said that it occurred when the landlord was mowing the years two or three years previously. They say that a rock caused a hole which over time worsened. They thought that the landlord was aware of it. However, that is a different window.
They simply say that they do not know how damage to the louvre window occurred. The tenants did not deny that the damage occurred during their tenancy.
It is unclear exactly what damage occurred, when or how. There are entry inspection or exit inspection photographs. The landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the glass in the garage was caused by the tenants’ actions. This claim is dismissed. Repair lawn
The landlord seeks $2,190.00 for repair to the lawn. They provided an invoice for that amount.
They provided photos which show the lawn was churned up from vehicles. The landlords had previously asked the tenants not to park on the lawn.
The tenants say that they had drive over the lawn when they were packing up to move out. They could not use their driveway because the cattle stop was broken. They provided photographs of the cattle stop, showing that some of the bars on the grid had collapsed.
The tenants say that they had notified the landlord of the broken cattle stop. They say that the evidence to show that is on an old phone.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants notified the landlord of any difficulty with the cattle stop, but even if they had mentioned it at some time during the tenancy, the landlords had no reason to believe that the tenants could not use that driveway or would need to drive over the lawn at any time. I am not satisfied that the tenants needed to drive on the lawn in order to move out.
In some instances, repair to a lawn can happen easily with some grass seed and time, but I accept that in this instance landscaping was required. There are many deep gouges in the mud, which would make the lawn very uneven. I order $2,190 for the repair.
The landlord also sought two weeks loss of rent due to the damage to the front lawn. They said that the new tenants did not want to move in while the lawn was being fixed.
I am not persuaded that the damage to the lawn would make the premises unable to be rented. That claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages for threats or blackmail over the bond?

It is not unreasonable at the end of a tenancy for the parties to offer settlement of a case. The landlord asked for the bond to be released rather than going to the Tribunal. That is a common approach to dispute resolution. I do not find it was a threat or blackmail, and in any event there is no legal basis for an order for exemplary damages. Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages for excluding one tenant from the final inspection?
[Tenant 2] was entitled to be present at the final inspection, as a matter of fairness, but I do not find that there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act. No unlawful act has been committed and there is no basis for exemplary damages.
The tenants have not pointed to any loss as a result of [Tenant 2] not being present and so this claim is dismissed. Conclusion
Both parties have had some success. The bond is to be split as above.
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. There is an order for suppression of the names of both parties.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should either party be compensated in relation to the water tank and water supply?

Should either party be compensated for issues with the septic tank?

Should the tenants be compensated for cleaning out the gutters?

Should either party be compensated in relation to the yucca/cabbage tree?

Should the tenant be compensated for faulty electrical wiring?

Should the tenants be compensated for a mould/dampness?

Should the tenants be compensated for lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom?

Should the landlord pay compensation or exemplary damages for use of the shed?

Was the notice given retaliatory?

Is the tenant responsible for cleaning or damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages for threats or blackmail over the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should either party be compensated in relation to the water tank and water supply?

Should either party be compensated for issues with the septic tank?

Should the tenants be compensated for cleaning out the gutters?

Should either party be compensated in relation to the yucca/cabbage tree?

Should the tenant be compensated for faulty electrical wiring?

Should the tenants be compensated for a mould/dampness?

Should the tenants be compensated for lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom?

Should the landlord pay compensation or exemplary damages for use of the shed?

Was the notice given retaliatory?

Is the tenant responsible for cleaning or damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages for threats or blackmail over the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions