What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341888 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 5341888?

Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341888?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341888 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 5341888?

Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341888?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341888 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341888 — net $1,150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs (carpet	$400.00	Repairs (carpet
Repairs (flooring under carpet	$250.00	Repairs (flooring under carpet
Repairs (vinyl flooring	$500.00	Repairs (vinyl flooring
Net award	$1,150.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,150.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341888 — net $1,150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs (carpet	$400.00	Repairs (carpet
Repairs (flooring under carpet	$250.00	Repairs (flooring under carpet
Repairs (vinyl flooring	$500.00	Repairs (vinyl flooring
Net award	$1,150.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,150.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Maria Sole Pintos must pay [The landlord/s] $1,150.00 immediately from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,150.00 Maria Sole Pintos: $1,450.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 9 December 2021 and ended on 9 July 2025.
The tenant has applied for a rent refund (related to a claim for overpaid rent), refund of the bond and exemplary damages for healthy homes breaches (HHS).
The landlord has made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 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 necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. Exemplary damages
The tenant has sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. The tenant’s claims
The tenant originally claimed for a bond refund, a rent refund and exemplary damages for healthy homes breaches. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, [1986] NZLR 732. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. Rent refund
The tenant says that on 18 June 2025 they advised that they would vacate the property on 4 July 2025, and that the landlord requested payment until 9 July 2025 (being three weeks).
At the end of the tenancy the landlord claimed that there was an additional two days rent owed (as payments had been calculated from Tuesday to Monday). Despite the tenant disputing this, the landlord insisted one more rent was owed, and the tenant paid an additional $100.00 to resolve the matter.
At the hearing, the tenant advised that this was no longer an issue, and the focus was the bond refund and the exemplary damages.
Accordingly, I have not considered this claim further, however, I note for completeness that I would not have had sufficient evidence to award the claimed amount. Healthy homes and maintenance breaches
Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS requirements in several different respects. The tenant says that there was a general lack of maintenance and a failure to comply with healthy homes obligations, in particular: a. Heating – there was no adequate heating available in the main living area until 2 July 2022 when a heat pump was finally installed (prior to this there was only an inoperable pellet stove/fire). b. Insulation – the floor and roof were not insulated, contributing to cold indoor temperatures and dampness. c. Draughts – there were unsealed gaps around windows and the front door allowed moisture ingress. d. Bedroom heating – radiators were reported as non-functional in May 2023 and were never repaired. e. Bathroom mould – was reported in May 2023, and the landlord failed to investigate or resolve the underlying cause of the dampness. f. Carpet moisture and pests – in January 2025 worms emerged from the carpet due to moisture, and the landlord failed to investigate. g. No Healthy Homes Compliance Statement was ever provided.
For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, 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.
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 tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching 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 RTA.
The tenancy agreement provided included a healthy home statement regarding the compliance standard of the property.
The tenant submitted that she had contacted the previous property manager to advise about issues with heating, however, the landlord advised that he was not aware of any issues with the pellet stove/fire at the property, and that a new heat pump was installed in 2023 after he became aware of issues. He says that as far as he was aware, there were no maintenance issues, and he endeavoured to always try and ensure that things were fixed as and when required.
However, more crucially, I do not have any report or third-party document that states that the property did not comply at the appropriate or claimed times, and no other evidence to prove non-compliance. Accordingly, I cannot be sure enough that there were HHS breaches during the tenancy.
Therefore, this claim has not met the required standard and must be dismissed. The landlord’s claims
The landlord claims for damages to the property at the end of the tenancy.
In particular, the landlord claims for: a. Replacement carpets. b. Repairs to the particle board flooring. c. Kitchen vinyl flooring. d. Underfloor insulation. e. Fire and pipe repairs.
The works were covered by insurance, and so although the total repairs carried out by the landlord (and the loss of rent while repairs were done) were more than $11,000.00, the landlord only claims the insurance excess of $2,500.00. This is calculated on the basis on five separate events for each of the itemised claims above, and it is therefore appropriate to allocate $500.00 to each of these items. The law on liability for damage(s) 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 4 Carpet damage and particleboard flooring damage
The landlord says that there were stains on the carpet, and that he was advised by Harrisons that it was most likely to be caused by urine.
As a result of the carpet having been wool carpet, it was unable to be repaired/cleaned and instead required replacement in several rooms throughout the property.
The carpet was estimated to be about five years old, although the tenant submitted that it appeared to be older than that. The tenant says that there was staining prior to the tenancy and that any additional staining was fair wear and tear, and she also disputes any pet urine staining. The tenant also says that there were barely any inspections and a lack of maintenance during the tenancy.
I have reviewed the photographs from before and after the tenancy.
It is clear from the ingoing inspection photographs that there was some staining to the carpet prior to the tenancy. However, the email from the agent noted urine staining and smell during a routine inspection and so it is more likely than not that some additional staining did occur during the tenancy. In my view, at least some of this would be more than fair wear and tear. On that basis I consider a contribution of $400.00 to the insurance excess is appropriate.
I also consider a contribution to the damage to the flooring underneath the carpet to be appropriate, and a further $250.00 is awarded for this. I have not awarded the full allocated amount, as I do not have photographs of the flooring under the carpet prior to the tenancy, and therefore cannot be certain that all the damage was caused during this tenancy, especially given my comments above about pre- existing staining to the carpet. 4 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Kitchen vinyl floor/cork board damage
The landlord says that vinyl flooring was laid over cork board without permission. The landlord says that due to the glue used to lay the vinyl flooring, there was damage caused to the corkboard.
The tenant does not dispute that this occurred but says that the cork board flooring was not in a great condition at the commencement of the property.
The cork board was likely the same age as the house, however, the landlord stated that it was in good condition.
I find that it was more likely than not that this damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy, was intentional and therefore the tenant should contribute to the repair.
I have awarded $500.00 towards the insurance excess for this damage. Underfloor insulation damage
A trap door opens to under the house, and at the end of the tenancy, the landlord discovered that the insulation had been pulled down and was no longer effective. Photographs have been provided. The landlord says that this was installed at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted that this was caused by the tenant’s dog, however, I do not have sufficient evidence that that is the case. Although that is a possibility, there are several other causes that may have resulted in this, even if the trap door had been left closed.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Fire and pipe repairs
There is an amount of $250.00 described as a contribution to fire and pipe repairs, that the landlord says related to gutter pipes that had a hole in them and had to be replaced.
There is inadequate evidence provided to show that this was caused by the tenant, and so I have not awarded anything in respect of this.
This claim is dismissed. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet staining (and particle flooring damage under the carpet) and corkboard/vinyl floor damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenant did not seek name suppression, however the landlord did and as they have had some success this is granted. See section 95A of the RTA. I have not awarded the application fee to either party and consider that these costs should lie where they fall. R Harvey-Lane 22 January 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341888 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341888 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions