What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343522?

The tribunal order states: Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd and Mitzi Madden, Maurice

How much money was awarded in case 5343522?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Gardening: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343522?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343522?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251448-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343522?

The tribunal order states: Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd and Mitzi Madden, Maurice

How much money was awarded in case 5343522?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Gardening: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343522?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343522?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251448-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Wikitoria Road, Putiki, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343522 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343522 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Gardening	$200.00		46. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to $200 of the bond, with the balance of $20.00 being payable to the tenant.
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	$20.00 being payable to the tenant. However, I have ordered the landlord to pay $2,000 in exemplary damages, and so, rather than split the bond, I have ordered…
Total award	$200.00	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,800.00

Order

Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd and Mitzi Madden, Maurice Takarangi, And Huia Broughton As Trustees For The Takarangi Whanau Trust must pay Scott de Lautour $1,800 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The bond centre must release the balance of the bond of $220 to Scott de Lautour.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing along with Katrina Phillips who also lived at the property. Ms Thompson and Ms Haami represented the property management company, Landlords Link, who had been the landlord for the duration of the tenancy.
Ms Marion Takarangi attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord whānau, but did not wish to speak. She confirmed that the trustees were aware of the hearing but could not attend. I allowed her to take notes to report back to the whānau.
In an email dated 2 March 2026 from Ms Mitzi Madden to Ms Thompson, she said, “I am not sure who is attending the Tribunal from my whanau. Marian certainly is and hopefully Huia and possibly myself. Not sure about Maurice though he is aware via Landlords Links emails that the Tribunal is happening next week.”
I am satisfied that the trustees had notice of the hearing.
The onus of proof is on each party to establish their claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Background
The tenancy began on 1 February 2021.
Last year one of the owners, Mr Maurice Takarangi, advised the tenant that they were looking at selling the property and giving him an opportunity to buy it. The tenant found full-time work in effort to support the lending required, but was not able to progress matters.
In July 2025, the tenant was told that the neighbour was interested in buying the property and so a viewing was arranged on 5 July 2025 with the trustee, Mitzi Madden also attending.
Two days later, on 7 July 2025 the property manager, Mr Harris, gave the tenant a 42-day notice telling him that the owner required the property for a member of their family. The termination date was 19 August 2025.
The next day, on 8 July 2025, Mr Harris emailed the tenant saying that a property valuer would be coming on 15 July 2025.
On 19 July 2025 the tenant gave 21 days’ notice from 20 July, with a termination date of 10 August 2025. The keys were handed to Mr Harris on 11 August.
On 3 September Mr Harris emailed the tenant saying that overall, the property was left in a reasonable state with some cleaning required before a family member could move in. The tenant declined doing any more cleaning, saying that they were not required to get the premises to sale standard.
The landlord conducted an exit inspection and provided a report dated 11 September 2025. On the same day the landlord filed an application for rent arrears as well as cleaning and grounds work that had not been undertaken. Quotes were provided.
The tenant cross-applied for compensation of $6,500 for “Retaliatory and unlawful practice of tenancy Act by Owners represented by Ross Harris of Landlords Link causing unnecessary distress to tenants using false pretense of owners family moving in to bypass 90 days’ notice.”
At a case conference on 19 December 2025, the adjudicator recorded that the tenant was claiming exemplary damages for the landlord’s notice to terminate being given under false pretences and without proper grounds (section 60AA).
It was recorded that the tenant has also raised his concern that the claims from the landlord for compensation were retaliatory and made after the tenant raised they would be making a claim for the landlord giving him a 42 day notice to terminate where a 90 day notice would have been appropriate. The tenant’s claims
At the hearing on 9 March 2026, the provisions of section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) were explained to the tenant at the hearing and it was confirmed that the tenant’s claim about the termination notice is that the tenant believes the 42-day notice was not valid, and he should have been given 90 days’ notice. There is no claim for retaliatory notice. The application should therefore be considered under section 60AA, as recorded in the directions following the case conference.
Under section 51 of the Act, a landlord must give 90 days’ notice, unless certain conditions exist. A landlord may give only 42 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family. In this instance the termination date was 19 August 2025, meaning that a family member would start living there within 90 days of that date. That means that they would move in between 20 August and 16 November and would live there for a further 90 days.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that no member of the family moved into the premises within 90 days and there was never any intention for that to happen.
Mr Harris has now left Landlord Link and was not called as a witness.
Ms Thompson produced an email received from one of the trustees, Mitzi Madden on 2 March 2026. She said that they had a working bee over Labour Weekend and her son, Wairata, moved into the residence over 8 and 9 November 2025.
Mr de Lautour disputed that anyone had moved in. He noted that the final inspection was not done until 11 September, after which he returned to check on the mail and paint the letterbox.
Mr de Lautour said that he visited the property again in November to see if any mail had come. He knocked on the door, but no-one came. He looked through the window and there was no furniture. He produced photographs dated 20, 21 and 26 November which he took through the windows. They show an empty house.
Because none of the trustees was at the hearing, and the family member who was present did not want to speak, there was no evidence on behalf of the landlord to counter the tenant’s evidence or explain why it appeared that no-one was living at the premises between 20 and 26 November. Ms Madden’s email has the status of hearsay and she has not been available to answer questions about it. Therefore, it has less weight than Mr de Lautour’s evidence, corroborated by photographs, that when he visited the property approximately 100 days after the tenancy had ended, no-one was living at the property. I find it very unlikely that the family member moved in on 8 November and then had moved out by 20 November.
Put together with the evidence that two days before the 42-day notice was given, a prospective buyer viewed the property and one day after the 42-day notice was given, Mr Harris of Landlords Link emailed the tenant to notify a valuer was visiting on 15 July, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that when the 42-day notice was given, the landlord knew that no family member was going to move in within 90 days. I find it more likely that the owners wanted to avoid giving 90 days’ notice. I therefore find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that the 6-week notice put pressure on them to find a new home and to clean the property. Because of the time constraints, they had to rehome one of their pets.
A message must be sent to this landlord and to others, that the termination provisions of the Act must be strictly complied with. Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd, Mitzi Madden, Maurice Takarangi, And Huia Broughton As Trustees For The Takarangi Whanau Trust must pay the tenant $2,000, which is less than one third of the maximum payable for this breach. The landlord’s claims
The landlord had applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The parties agreed that the rent owing was $1,500. Before the tenancy ended, the tenant had told Mr Harris, the property manager, that the $1,500 rent could be taken from the bond. That has now happened, leaving a balance of $220.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 21 October 2025 from Jay’s Clean and Fresh for cleaning and gardening for 16 hours at $50 an hour plus GST. A quote shows this broken down into 4 hours for cleaning and 12 hours for gardening and cleaning the pen marks off the back of the letterbox. Therefore the amounts claimed are: a. cleaning 4 hours at $50 an hour plus GST: $230 b. gardening 12 hours at $50 an hour plus GST: $690.
There is a second invoice for $410 from Pure Steam Cleaning Company for steam cleaning the ceiling to remove flyspots.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The tenant is not required to have the premises spotlessly clean, ready for sale or even ready for the next tenant. The landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning before someone else moves in.
In an email dated 3 September 2025, three weeks after the tenants had vacated, the property manager listed the following items, which were then included the quote provided by Jay’s Clean for four hours cleaning.
The quote for cleaning listed the following: Kitchen -floors, clean/mop -drawers and cupboards, clean insided and out, -kitchen blinds clean -extraction filters Lounge -vacuum carpets and flea bomb Bathroom -bathroom caddie -mixer/rose and hose.
The tenant is not usually required to clean the ceilings in order to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. There might be instances where the tenant has caused some damage to the ceiling, but this is not the case here. In fact, the photos show very clean light fittings and light shades.
The photographs produced by the landlord show a property that is very clean and tidy. The floor coverings are patterned, which might disguise some dirt, but the tenant and his partner say they spent a considerable amount of time cleaning and clearing up the property.
The tenants provided a list of their cleaning, which included vacuuming and mopping floors, cleaning the fluorescent light tubes, washing the windows, cleaning the sills and skirting boards. The photos produced by the landlord are consistent with these descriptions.
The only area that appeared might require a little more attention was the shower. The tenant said that the plastic bathroom caddie was old and stained and the markings on the plastic were not removable. They wiped the mixer rose and hose.
The tenant did not clean the kitchen blinds. I do not consider that was required in order to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Having considered all matters, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to comply with their obligation to leave the interior reasonably clean and tidy.
For the exterior, the quote of 12 hours was for: -hand pull and dig all weeds around the immediate house rake leaves, trim trees, take away all excess weeds and rubbish.
The tenant says that he weed-trimmed around the house and gardens on 6 August, cleared and swept all external spaces, including the carport. He left a small amount of firewood stacked neatly for future tenants. He removed the marks of the letter box when he cleared the mail.
Looking at the photographs, it is difficult to see much difference between the entry and exit inspections. The tenant is not responsible for growth on the property or build-up of leaves between 10 August and 11 September 2025. The tenant has said that he had already painted the letterbox. That said, there are some areas by the fences where the weeds are high. I order 4 hours at $50.00 an hour for clearing those. That comes to $200.00.
Therefore, the landlord is entitled to $200 of the bond, with the balance of $20.00 being payable to the tenant. However, I have ordered the landlord to pay $2,000 in exemplary damages, and so, rather than split the bond, I have ordered the landlord’s share of the bond to be paid to the tenant, in reduction of the amount the landlord owes to the tenant. That leaves a balance of $1,800.
Because both parties have had success, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343522 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Gardening	$200.00		46. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to $200 of the bond, with the balance of $20.00 being payable to the tenant.
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	$20.00 being payable to the tenant. However, I have ordered the landlord to pay $2,000 in exemplary damages, and so, rather than split the bond, I have ordered…
Total award	$200.00	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,800.00

Order

Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd and Mitzi Madden, Maurice Takarangi, And Huia Broughton As Trustees For The Takarangi Whanau Trust must pay Scott de Lautour $1,800 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The bond centre must release the balance of the bond of $220 to Scott de Lautour.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing along with Katrina Phillips who also lived at the property. Ms Thompson and Ms Haami represented the property management company, Landlords Link, who had been the landlord for the duration of the tenancy.
Ms Marion Takarangi attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord whānau, but did not wish to speak. She confirmed that the trustees were aware of the hearing but could not attend. I allowed her to take notes to report back to the whānau.
In an email dated 2 March 2026 from Ms Mitzi Madden to Ms Thompson, she said, “I am not sure who is attending the Tribunal from my whanau. Marian certainly is and hopefully Huia and possibly myself. Not sure about Maurice though he is aware via Landlords Links emails that the Tribunal is happening next week.”
I am satisfied that the trustees had notice of the hearing.
The onus of proof is on each party to establish their claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Background
The tenancy began on 1 February 2021.
Last year one of the owners, Mr Maurice Takarangi, advised the tenant that they were looking at selling the property and giving him an opportunity to buy it. The tenant found full-time work in effort to support the lending required, but was not able to progress matters.
In July 2025, the tenant was told that the neighbour was interested in buying the property and so a viewing was arranged on 5 July 2025 with the trustee, Mitzi Madden also attending.
Two days later, on 7 July 2025 the property manager, Mr Harris, gave the tenant a 42-day notice telling him that the owner required the property for a member of their family. The termination date was 19 August 2025.
The next day, on 8 July 2025, Mr Harris emailed the tenant saying that a property valuer would be coming on 15 July 2025.
On 19 July 2025 the tenant gave 21 days’ notice from 20 July, with a termination date of 10 August 2025. The keys were handed to Mr Harris on 11 August.
On 3 September Mr Harris emailed the tenant saying that overall, the property was left in a reasonable state with some cleaning required before a family member could move in. The tenant declined doing any more cleaning, saying that they were not required to get the premises to sale standard.
The landlord conducted an exit inspection and provided a report dated 11 September 2025. On the same day the landlord filed an application for rent arrears as well as cleaning and grounds work that had not been undertaken. Quotes were provided.
The tenant cross-applied for compensation of $6,500 for “Retaliatory and unlawful practice of tenancy Act by Owners represented by Ross Harris of Landlords Link causing unnecessary distress to tenants using false pretense of owners family moving in to bypass 90 days’ notice.”
At a case conference on 19 December 2025, the adjudicator recorded that the tenant was claiming exemplary damages for the landlord’s notice to terminate being given under false pretences and without proper grounds (section 60AA).
It was recorded that the tenant has also raised his concern that the claims from the landlord for compensation were retaliatory and made after the tenant raised they would be making a claim for the landlord giving him a 42 day notice to terminate where a 90 day notice would have been appropriate. The tenant’s claims
At the hearing on 9 March 2026, the provisions of section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) were explained to the tenant at the hearing and it was confirmed that the tenant’s claim about the termination notice is that the tenant believes the 42-day notice was not valid, and he should have been given 90 days’ notice. There is no claim for retaliatory notice. The application should therefore be considered under section 60AA, as recorded in the directions following the case conference.
Under section 51 of the Act, a landlord must give 90 days’ notice, unless certain conditions exist. A landlord may give only 42 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family. In this instance the termination date was 19 August 2025, meaning that a family member would start living there within 90 days of that date. That means that they would move in between 20 August and 16 November and would live there for a further 90 days.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that no member of the family moved into the premises within 90 days and there was never any intention for that to happen.
Mr Harris has now left Landlord Link and was not called as a witness.
Ms Thompson produced an email received from one of the trustees, Mitzi Madden on 2 March 2026. She said that they had a working bee over Labour Weekend and her son, Wairata, moved into the residence over 8 and 9 November 2025.
Mr de Lautour disputed that anyone had moved in. He noted that the final inspection was not done until 11 September, after which he returned to check on the mail and paint the letterbox.
Mr de Lautour said that he visited the property again in November to see if any mail had come. He knocked on the door, but no-one came. He looked through the window and there was no furniture. He produced photographs dated 20, 21 and 26 November which he took through the windows. They show an empty house.
Because none of the trustees was at the hearing, and the family member who was present did not want to speak, there was no evidence on behalf of the landlord to counter the tenant’s evidence or explain why it appeared that no-one was living at the premises between 20 and 26 November. Ms Madden’s email has the status of hearsay and she has not been available to answer questions about it. Therefore, it has less weight than Mr de Lautour’s evidence, corroborated by photographs, that when he visited the property approximately 100 days after the tenancy had ended, no-one was living at the property. I find it very unlikely that the family member moved in on 8 November and then had moved out by 20 November.
Put together with the evidence that two days before the 42-day notice was given, a prospective buyer viewed the property and one day after the 42-day notice was given, Mr Harris of Landlords Link emailed the tenant to notify a valuer was visiting on 15 July, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that when the 42-day notice was given, the landlord knew that no family member was going to move in within 90 days. I find it more likely that the owners wanted to avoid giving 90 days’ notice. I therefore find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that the 6-week notice put pressure on them to find a new home and to clean the property. Because of the time constraints, they had to rehome one of their pets.
A message must be sent to this landlord and to others, that the termination provisions of the Act must be strictly complied with. Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd, Mitzi Madden, Maurice Takarangi, And Huia Broughton As Trustees For The Takarangi Whanau Trust must pay the tenant $2,000, which is less than one third of the maximum payable for this breach. The landlord’s claims
The landlord had applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The parties agreed that the rent owing was $1,500. Before the tenancy ended, the tenant had told Mr Harris, the property manager, that the $1,500 rent could be taken from the bond. That has now happened, leaving a balance of $220.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 21 October 2025 from Jay’s Clean and Fresh for cleaning and gardening for 16 hours at $50 an hour plus GST. A quote shows this broken down into 4 hours for cleaning and 12 hours for gardening and cleaning the pen marks off the back of the letterbox. Therefore the amounts claimed are: a. cleaning 4 hours at $50 an hour plus GST: $230 b. gardening 12 hours at $50 an hour plus GST: $690.
There is a second invoice for $410 from Pure Steam Cleaning Company for steam cleaning the ceiling to remove flyspots.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The tenant is not required to have the premises spotlessly clean, ready for sale or even ready for the next tenant. The landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning before someone else moves in.
In an email dated 3 September 2025, three weeks after the tenants had vacated, the property manager listed the following items, which were then included the quote provided by Jay’s Clean for four hours cleaning.
The quote for cleaning listed the following: Kitchen -floors, clean/mop -drawers and cupboards, clean insided and out, -kitchen blinds clean -extraction filters Lounge -vacuum carpets and flea bomb Bathroom -bathroom caddie -mixer/rose and hose.
The tenant is not usually required to clean the ceilings in order to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. There might be instances where the tenant has caused some damage to the ceiling, but this is not the case here. In fact, the photos show very clean light fittings and light shades.
The photographs produced by the landlord show a property that is very clean and tidy. The floor coverings are patterned, which might disguise some dirt, but the tenant and his partner say they spent a considerable amount of time cleaning and clearing up the property.
The tenants provided a list of their cleaning, which included vacuuming and mopping floors, cleaning the fluorescent light tubes, washing the windows, cleaning the sills and skirting boards. The photos produced by the landlord are consistent with these descriptions.
The only area that appeared might require a little more attention was the shower. The tenant said that the plastic bathroom caddie was old and stained and the markings on the plastic were not removable. They wiped the mixer rose and hose.
The tenant did not clean the kitchen blinds. I do not consider that was required in order to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Having considered all matters, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to comply with their obligation to leave the interior reasonably clean and tidy.
For the exterior, the quote of 12 hours was for: -hand pull and dig all weeds around the immediate house rake leaves, trim trees, take away all excess weeds and rubbish.
The tenant says that he weed-trimmed around the house and gardens on 6 August, cleared and swept all external spaces, including the carport. He left a small amount of firewood stacked neatly for future tenants. He removed the marks of the letter box when he cleared the mail.
Looking at the photographs, it is difficult to see much difference between the entry and exit inspections. The tenant is not responsible for growth on the property or build-up of leaves between 10 August and 11 September 2025. The tenant has said that he had already painted the letterbox. That said, there are some areas by the fences where the weeds are high. I order 4 hours at $50.00 an hour for clearing those. That comes to $200.00.
Therefore, the landlord is entitled to $200 of the bond, with the balance of $20.00 being payable to the tenant. However, I have ordered the landlord to pay $2,000 in exemplary damages, and so, rather than split the bond, I have ordered the landlord’s share of the bond to be paid to the tenant, in reduction of the amount the landlord owes to the tenant. That leaves a balance of $1,800.
Because both parties have had success, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343522 — Exemplary damages at 30 Wikitoria Road, Putiki, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343522 — Exemplary damages at 30 Wikitoria Road, Putiki, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions