Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5342166 — Exemplary damages
Decided 28 May 2026 · Published 28 May 2026 · Application 5342166
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
- [The landlord/s] must pay Sharn Linoen Black $2,728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,550.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Sharn Linoen Black, immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the in-person hearing in [Event location suppressed].
- The tenant has applied for failure to maintain, breach of Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating, draught stopping and insulation, compensation and refund of the filing fee.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The parties agreed that the tenancy started on 17 June 2022 and ended on 1 October 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
- Any party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is the burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
- When the parties dispute an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Tenant’s claims
- Sharn Linoen Black claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problems might be”. 1
- There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
- A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 4
- There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 5
- Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards (“HHS”).
- Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires the landlord to comply with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to maintain
- The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the property, as follows: a. By providing a fireplace that did not work properly. b. By not providing any underfloor insulation.
- The tenant said the fireplace provided was an old wood burner, which, whilst used by the tenant, did not work correctly as the setting was always on ‘full’, so the heat could not be adjusted and that the glass on the fireplace door broke and the inside of the fireplace had fallen apart. The tenant provided a Healthy Homes Report (“HHR”), where the site visit was conducted on 6 September 2025 by the inspector and the report was provided to the tenant on 7 September 2025. The HHR dealt with the provision of heating at the property and included photographs of the outside and inside of the fireplace. The photographs showed a very old fireplace, with no sill, covering or insulation 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15] 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]-[11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016], NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. around the metal frame. The HHR inspector commented in the HHR that the inbuilt style wood burner was in extremely bad order, and he recommended it be replaced as soon as possible. He commented that it was a very old and damaged fire, which could even be a fire risk hazard in its current condition. His opinion was that the wood burner heater type would be compliant if it was deemed safe to use.
- The tenant said when the glass on the fireplace door broke and he told the landlord, that they asked him to replace the glass, which he did, even though he was not certified to do so. He said he spoke to the landlord about it just before a quote dated 21 December 2023 that he said he obtained on the landlord’s say so for insulation repair and replacement. He said he and the landlord discussed the issues with heating and insulation in a phone call before this quote had been obtained, and that they had asked him to get a quote for the insulation, which he had done so and forwarded to the landlord. The tenant said he told the landlord the house was damp, cold and had continuous mould. The tenant said his family went through significantly more firewood and power than a normal household with appropriate heating.
- The landlord said they did not recall the tenant speaking to them about heating issues, though there were a number of other issues that the landlord said they had addressed and said they had provided about $10,000.00 to the tenant for various repairs and replacement of items during the tenancy, in good faith as he was interested in purchasing the property. The landlord pointed out the tenant had not provided any written proof that he had spoken with them about the heating issues.
- The landlord acknowledged the fireplace was old but it worked, said it was not checked by them when they purchased the property, and they were out of money from paying for other things around the property. The landlord said the tenant appeared focused on other issues around the property, including the driveway, as he had expressed continuous interest in purchasing the property from them.
- The landlord said that in August 2025 they attempted to have a heat pump installed at the property, but the tenant did not accommodate easy access for this installation by the tradesperson. The landlord provided an email dated 30 August 2025 from the heat pump installer, confirming the difficulties in accessing the property to install a heat pump. The tenant indicated that, by that late stage in the tenancy, they had given up trying to ask the landlord to improve the heating and other issues and were preparing to leave. As the tenant and his partner both worked full time, he said it was difficult for them to be available to provide access for the heat pump to be installed, but he did not see why he had to accommodate this when nothing else had been repaired earlier, before he decided to leave.
- The tenant did not provide copies of any emails or texts showing he had notified the landlord of any heating issues, other than an email dated 20 August 2025, where he told the landlord he did not wish to purchase the property and referred to the landlord knowing about heating issues since he obtained a quote dated 21 December 2023 for insulation. The landlord acknowledged they received the tenant’s email of 20 August 2025 that mentioned heating and tried to get a heat pump installed right away, and provided an email dated 30 August 2025 from the heat pump installer about the difficulties accessing the property to install this, given the tenant’s unavailability and lack of response. As the landlord said they could not recall any such conversations with the tenant about heating issues before 20 August 2026, and as there was not evidence the landlord was aware the heating was not functioning properly before this, and the evidence shows the landlord was taking steps to get a heat pump installed shortly after the tenant’s email of 20 August 2025, the tenant must then provide additional supporting evidence of any such notifications about the heating issues earlier than 20 August 2025. As the tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence of such notifications to the landlord about heating issues earlier than 20 August 2025, and as it appears the landlord took steps to try to install a heat pump shortly after the email of 20 August 2025, I dismiss this claim. Failure to maintain - insulation
- The tenant said the landlord did not provide any underfloor insulation at the property and said the insulation in the ceiling did not come up to the end bedroom either.
- The tenant referred to the phone call he said he had with the landlord about the lack of underfloor insulation, where the landlord asked him to get a quote to have it repaired. The tenant provided a copy of the quote given to him dated 21 December 2023 for underfloor insulation and foil removal. This quote was addressed to the tenant.
- The tenant said he did not follow up with the landlord after he sent them this quote, as he did not want to seem pushy or potentially lose the tenancy, given the local housing challenges. The tenant said the underfloor insulation was not repaired before the tenancy ended.
- The landlord said they did not recall receiving the insulation quote from the tenant and the only time they recalled the issue of insulation arising was when the tenant decided not to purchase the property and stated talking about breaches of Healthy Homes Standards, towards the end of the tenancy, in the tenant’s email of 20 August 2025. The landlord said they did not recall the tenant bringing up any insulation issue until August 2025, indicating they believed the tenant had other priorities at the property for repair and replacement, when he wanted to buy it. The landlord said the tenant emailed them on 3 September 2025 giving 4 weeks’ notice they were moving out of the property, and said that, after this, they decided to sell the property.
- The tenant pointed to the tenancy agreement where the landlord had marked that there was underfloor insulation ‘in some areas’ but had left the box about underfloor insulation being provided generally at the property empty. The tenant said this was fraudulent on the landlord’s part, as there was no underfloor insulation. The tenant highlighted the HHR he provided where the inspector confirmed the foil insulation was in far too damaged a state or was completely missing to achieve any R value, and the underfloor needed to be insulated as soon as possible, as there was no existing insulation underfloor. The HHR showed photographs of the underfloor area at the property, showing no insulation in place.
- The tenant said he would not have obtained a quote for insulation, had the landlord not asked him to.
- In the discussion about Healthy Homes issues during the hearing, dealt with below, the landlord acknowledged they knew there was no underfloor insulation at the start of the tenancy. The landlord thought they likely ticked the box in the tenancy agreement saying there was underfloor insulation in some areas, thinking they would replace it shortly after the tenancy began.
- As the landlord acknowledged and confirmed they had been aware there was no underfloor insulation at the property at the start of the tenancy and only ticked the box about underfloor insulation being in some areas of the property in the tenancy agreement saying they likely intended to replace it soon after, but obviously did not, then the tenant does not have to show he brought the underfloor insulation issue to the landlord’s attention, as the landlord was already aware of this issue from the start of the tenancy.
- As the tenancy began on 17 June 2022 and the HHR that was done on 6 September 2025 showed no underfloor insulation had been replaced or installed at the property by then still, I find it more likely than not that the landlord failed to maintain the property by not providing underfloor insulation. This issue is dealt with further below, as a separate claim.
- I will deal with the issue of exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property in not providing or replacing underfloor insulation, below. Failure to insulate the property
- Sharn Linoen Black claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing 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 this obligation 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.
- As per the evidence outlined above in relation to the tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the underfloor insulation, the landlord acknowledged they knew at the start of the tenancy that there was no underfloor insulation and said they likely intended to replace it shortly after the tenancy started. However, the tenant’s HHR showed there was no underfloor insulation installed by the landlord as of the inspector’s visit on 6 September 2025. The HHR also commented that the underfloor insulation did not meet the minimum R value requirement for the [Event location suppressed] zone but said the ceiling was well-insulated with new insulation over old pink batts.
- Given the evidence of the lack of underfloor insulation, as outlined above, I find the landlord has breached the requirement to provide underfloor insulation and so has committed an unlawful act.
- I will deal with the issue of exemplary damages in relation to this claim below. Healthy Homes Standards - heating
- Sharn Linoen Black claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Sharn Linoen Black considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
- 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. An on-line calculator has been produced in order 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The tenant’s HHR in relation to heating said the main living room had a heater in it, that the heating source was fixed, that the heater had at least 1.5 kW capacity (though said it was in extremely bad order though and recommended replacement as soon as possible), that the heater had the correct capacity to heat the space (though the fire was old and damaged) and that the heater was of an acceptable type. The inspector said the heater would be compliant if deemed safe to use but did not explicitly state the heater was unsafe to use or was not compliant.
- The tenant’s evidence was that his family used the fireplace for the majority of the tenancy period, until the HHR was completed, when they decided it might be unsafe. The tenant said the burner did not work properly and they had to use a lot of firewood and more power than usual to heat the property. I note the lack of underfloor insulation at the property, dealt with above, which could also have contributed to this issue.
- Whilst the HHS inspector has noted concerns about the wood burner and recommended its replacement as soon as possible, the HHR noted the fireplace was compliant with the HHS heating standards. There was no explicit comment by the inspector in the HHR that the fireplace was likely not compliant with the HHS for heating, nor did the report indicated explicitly that the fireplace was deemed unsafe to use. In my view, the HHR falls short of saying the property did not meet the heating standard for Healthy Homes, and there was no other additional supporting evidence provided about the issue of whether the property met the HHS standard for heating, other than the tenant’s evidence as to the use of the wood burner not being effective, and so I dismiss this claim. Healthy Homes Standards – draught stopping
- Sharn Linoen Black claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Sharn Linoen Black considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
- 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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The tenant’s HHR in relation to draught stopping noted that the inspector could feel a noticeable draught, that there were some doors and windows that would require draught stopping or window and door maintenance, the old front and back doors, and the west bedroom on the front of the house, the hall and lounge windows being the worst, that there were gaps where the wall and ceiling or wall and floor joined, that there were draughts coming through doors, windows and floorboards, there were large gaps between the bottom of the door and the floor and there were broken latches that prevented doors or windows from closing tightly.
- The tenant said he could feel the wind coming through these gaps and that it made the property very cold. He pointed out the tenancy agreement had indicated the property was up to Healthy Homes Standards for draught stopping, which was not true.
- The landlord said it was a very old house, that all old houses have draughts, that they did not get the house checked for draughts when they purchased the property and that it was difficult to get any tradesperson to fix things in [Event location suppressed]. The landlord did not recall ticking yes to draught stopping compliance in the tenancy agreement. However, the tenancy agreement provided shows the landlord ticked yes to whether the property was compliant with draught stopping.
- The evidence as outlined above, particularly the HHR, shows the property was likely not compliant with the draught stopping standards in the Healthy Homes Standards. As such, I find the landlord has breached this requirement and has committed an unlawful act.
- I will deal with exemplary damages for this below. Exemplary Damages
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 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 has that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
- I have determined that the landlord has committed unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
- The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA and the following apply: a. Landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements - s 45 (1A) – maximum $7,200.00.
- I must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA, specifically: a. The intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
- Landlords are required to know the law and there is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the RTA.
- The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, 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. Exemplary damages – Failure to maintain, Healthy Homes Standards, Insulation regulations
- Here, the landlord allowed the situation to continue in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards for draught stopping being breached, insulation regulations being breached and failure to maintain regarding insulation, as ordered breached above, for the period of the tenancy. Therefore, I find the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
- I have dealt with the landlord’s intent above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the premises were very draughty and lacked any underfloor insulation. The tenant had to live in a very cold house, with a wood burner that was likely not ideal. I note here that the landlord had indicated in the tenancy agreement that the property was compliant with the draught stopping standard for Healthy Homes, and that there was some underfloor insulation in some of the property, both statements of which were untrue, given the HHR evidence. The tenant should have been able to rely on the landlord meeting their obligations under the RTA and associated regulations and rely on what was set out in the tenancy agreement. The public interest is served by landlords being penalised for providing premises that jeopardise tenants’ health and which do not meet basic standards of living for health and welfare.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages is $7,200.00. In this case I would ordinarily consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. However, I see as an aggravating factor that the landlord was untruthful in the tenancy agreement about the property complying with draught stopping standards for Healthy Homes and about the state of the underfloor insulation, indicating that there was underfloor insulation in some of the property, both of which were shown to be untrue by the tenant’s HHR. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,700.00. Compensation
- The tenant claimed compensation as follows: a. For extra power paid due to conditions in the property - $1,000.00. b. For extra firewood paid for due to conditions in the property - $1,000.00. c. For paying a half share of a roof repair – initially this claim was for $2,500.00, amended in the hearing to a claim for $2,900.00. Compensation – power and firewood costs
- The tenant said he had to pay for additional power charges and for more firewood than usual due to issues with the heating and insulation at the property. The tenant said these expenses were much more than a ‘normal’ home would require. He said that $1,000.00 for each of the power and firewood expenses was an approximate estimate.
- The landlord said the tenant had said the fireplace was working and that firewood is usually expensive, and power costs are high for everyone anyway. The landlord pointed out the tenant had not provided any receipts for these expenses.
- The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence of power or firewood costs, or any evidence showing any such costs would likely be higher than in other properties. As such, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the claims for compensation for power or firewood and so dismiss these claims. Compensation – roof repairs
- The tenant claimed $2,900.00 for half of the cost of a roof repair in the amount of $5,800.00. The tenant provided a handwritten receipt from [roofing company] in the amount of $5,800.00, with a narrative of work done, including replacing the nails in the roof. It was noted this invoice was undated. The tenant also provided an email from a building inspector who had viewed the property, noticed leaking around some of the roof nails and recommended the nails be replaced. The builder said the leaks were fairly bad in places and advised fixing the issue soon, due to the damage that could be caused if it was left unrepaired.
- The tenant said he discussed the issue with the landlord and, because he was intending to purchase the property at the time, he suggested that he pay for half the roof repair and the landlord pay for the other half of the cost of repair. He said he told the landlord the amount quoted by [roofing company], $5,800.00 on the phone, but did not provide a written quote of this to the landlord. The tenant said that he changed his mind about buying the property and so claimed the half share he paid the roofing company, which was $2,900.00.
- The landlord said they did not receive any written quote of the roof repair, that they had attempted to contact [roofing company] to get a formal detailed typewritten invoice with the work that had been completed but had no response from [roofing company] about this. The landlord said they had paid $2,900.00 to the tenant for their half share of the roof repairs and provided bank statements showing $2,900.00 being paid in March 2025, noted as roof repairs. The tenant acknowledged receiving $2,900.00 from the landlord and said he then withdrew $5,800.00 in cash to pay the invoice for [roofing company]. The tenant said he did not have any written proof that he had paid the [roofing company] invoice, as such. There was nothing provided by the tenant from [roofing company], confirming what the tenant had paid them or when, nor did the tenant provide any bank statements showing his withdrawal of the amount to pay the invoice, or any other evidence confirming this payment made by the tenant. The landlord said they had concerns that the money they gave the tenant for the roof repairs had not actually been used to pay for roof repairs, as they could not see any difference to the roof when they viewed it.
- The tenant seeks compensation for $2,900.00 he said he paid for roof repairs on behalf of the landlord and so must provide additional supporting evidence that he made this payment to the roofing company, for example by bank statements or a witness statement from the roofer or other such evidence. The tenant has not provided any such additional supporting evidence of this payment and so this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
- As the tenant has been partly successful with the claims, I award the tenant reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord’s claims
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 1 October 2025. The landlord was initially unsure as to the amount to claim for rent arrears and eventually confirmed they wished to claim the equivalent of 2 weeks’ rent @ $545.00/week, coming to $1,090.00 for rent arrears up to 1 October 2025. Following a case conference before the hearing, the landlord was directed to provide a rent summary for the full tenancy period, using the rent summary template on the Tenancy Services website. The landlord provided a rent summary which only began on 8 August 2025, however. This rent summary was missing the rent periods for the first four lines, one rent period (8 to 12 September 2025) was repeated twice further down the rent summary, then an arrears amount of $77.03 was put in the cumulative arrears column incorrectly.
- The landlord said they did not provide a rent summary for the full tenancy period as they did not keep these records. Landlords are obligated to maintain proper business records relating to the tenancy, especially in relation to rent payments, pursuant to section 30 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant acknowledged he did not pay the last 2 weeks’ rent but said he had paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance at the start of the tenancy and so assumed the last 2 weeks’ rent would be covered by his initial 2 weeks’ rent in advance payment. Unfortunately, as the landlord did not provide a rent summary from the start of the tenancy, this could not be assessed by viewing the initial rent transactions at the start of the tenancy. Further, the tenancy agreement did not include information about any advance rent payment amounts required at the start of the tenancy, as is usual in tenancy agreements. The landlord said she recalled receiving the bond and one week’s rent in advance only. However, this could not be verified as there was no supporting evidence showing this.
- Given the confusing and incomplete rent summary, which only began on 8 August 2025, when the tenancy had begun on 17 June 2022, and given the missing and incorrect information in the rent summary that was provided, and that even the landlord struggled to understand their rent summary at the hearing, when it was discussed in some detail, and as the tenant believed he had paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance that should have covered the last 2 weeks’ rent but this could not be viewed or verified by the landlord via any rent summary covering the start of the tenancy, or any evidence otherwise, I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove their claim for rent arrears and so dismiss this claim.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Missing chattels - compensation
- The landlord said that chattels provided at the property were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed $5,000.00 to replace these chattels. The landlord provided some photographs of the inside of the property showing furnishings such as a couch, chairs, table, beds, kitchen items, linen and other items and furnishings. The landlord was unsure as to when these photographs were taken but thought they were taken by the real estate agent during the purchase process when the landlord bought the property, which the landlord believed was around April 2022 possibly. The landlord confirmed that there were no entry inspection photographs taken at the start of the tenancy, but said the property looked just the same as the purchase photographs when the tenancy started as it was sold to them fully furnished. The landlord also did not provide any chattels list attached to the tenancy agreement to outline the chattels left at the property. The landlord provided photographs of the inside of the property at the end of the tenancy, showing no furnishings were left and the property was empty. The landlord said they filed a police report about this, and provided a copy of the police report.
- The tenant said that the photographs the landlord provided of the furnishings when they bought the property did not correctly reflect what was in the house at the start of the tenancy. The tenant pointed to the lack of any chattels list in the tenancy agreement and said that much of what was left was old, not useful or relevant to them and so most of it was moved into the garage and was replaced by the tenant himself. The tenant said he phoned the landlord and asked what they wanted to do with the old furnishings, and he was told by the landlord to just put it out on the street. The landlord said she only recalled telling the tenant to put an old bed onto the street but nothing else.
- The landlord did not provide photographs of the inside of the property at the start of the tenancy to confirm the furnishings and items provided by the landlord at that time, such as is usually provided in an entry inspection report, not provided here, and the tenant disputed that the same items were left in the property at the start of the tenancy from the purchase photographs provided by the landlord. Further, the landlord did not provide any chattels list, attached to the tenancy agreement or otherwise. The landlord also did not provide any confirmation of the values of the items claimed, such as valuations or estimates from retailers to purchase new similar items, so would have been unable to prove the amount of the claim made. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
- As the landlord has not proved their claims, which included a claim for refund of the bond, then the bond reverts to the tenant.
- Therefore, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,550.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Sharn Linoen Black, immediately. Suppression
- The tenant did not request name suppression. The landlord requested name suppression. The landlord’s evidence was that one of the landlords had Alzheimer’s, requiring full time care, during the tenancy period, and that those care requirements were ongoing. The landlord’s evidence was that the issues raised about the property in the tenant’s application were all addressed after the tenancy ended. Given the evidence and in the circumstances, I find the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.