What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345022 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5345022?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345022?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13875042-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345022 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5345022?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345022?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13875042-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345022 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345022 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The claims are allowed as set out in this order and its

Reasons

. All other claims are dismissed.

[The tenants] must pay [the landlord] $463.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $8,000.00 (6544580-001) immediately apportioned as follows:
[The landlord]: $463.05 [The tenants]: $7,536.95 DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 1 August 2025 Lock/key replacement, and garage remote $2,404.77 $517.50 Minor wall damage repairs Cabinet door repair Compensation for premises not being provided clean $511.75 $402.50 $2,000.00 Compensation for lighting and wiring issues $400.00 Compensation for septic tank and sewage issues $2,000.00 Exemplary damages for FTM the sewage system $1,500.00 Interference with quiet enjoyment - scaffolding $514.29 Study floors repair: re-sand and re-polyurethane$1,150.00 Study cabinet repair$345.00 Trellis gate$262.32 Fireplace tools Kitchen drawer bin Tile replacement Wall and door frame repairs $140.00 $150.00 $425.00 $350.00 Lock/key replacement – back door$218.50 Subtotals$463.05$7,536.95 Net award to the landlord$463.05 Bond Centre to pay:$463.05$7,536.95 REASONS ON RESERVED DECISION:
I heard these claims at the Manukau District Court on 9 June 2026.
[Two relatives of the tenants] attended the hearing for the tenants.
[The property management company’s manager] attended for the landlord. The current owners, [owners’ names] who purchased the premised during the tenancy, also attended.
The tenants apply for compensation, exemplary damages, and return of their bond.
The landlord applies for rent arrears, compensation for vacated costs, and payment over of the bond. Background and issues for determination
The tenancy began on 2 August 2024 and ended on 1 August 2025.
The property is a luxury home on a lifestyle block with about 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres) land. The house, which was constructed in about 1995, has a floor area of about 560m 2 and has a New Zealand country manor aesthetic. It has five bedrooms, and four bathrooms, a built-in swimming pool, and unobstructed views to Rangitoto. When the real estate company, Bayleys, marketed the house for sale during the tenancy, described the property as: Absolutely ideal for a large or extended family, a combination of elegance and practicality, a fabulous lifestyle opportunity not to be missed, perfectly located in one of Whitfords most beautiful locations
The two principal tenants are a married couple who are experienced teachers. They are kaumātua figures in their whānau. Much of the appeal of the property to them was that it was (as described in the marketing advertising) “ideal for a large or extended family”. The tenants who, were moving from a rural community, owned ponies and the property had paddocks that were suitable for horses, which meant they could bring their ponies to Auckland with them for their mokopuna to ride. The property also has a swimming pool which their water-loving whānau could enjoy. The generous number of bedrooms and bathrooms and living space offered the ability to have the family’s elders, their “nan” and “koroua” live with them and have other family and friends stay over for days or weeks at a time.
A vast property like this is not easy to clean and maintain. Indeed, when the tenants moved in, they encountered a number or cleaning and maintenance issues. Just a few days after the tenancy began, on 5 August 2024, the tenants emailed Ms [manager’s surname] and Mr [surname], the property manager from [the property management company]: Kia ora korua Firstly, thank you both for trying to work through the issues we are having with the move into the property. The house itself is beautiful, and all our whanau and friends love it. However, we are hugely disappointed with the situation we moved into. There are several issues that we have had in the first few days, and I'm only listing the major issues as there are several minor ones as well...
The tenants listed 11 issues, including: - rubbish all around the property - no key for the shed to access the water pump - disgusting state of the shed where the pump is (rat droppings everywhere and rubbish) - no key/clicker to exit the main gate - one of the fireplace glass is broken (fire hazard) and I think the vent is not working as it should be because wood burns like paper - the garage and foyer were not clean. the garage had curtains on the ground, and the floor was filthy - the carpets have not been shampooed and cleaned (not sure this is a requirement, but every other property we've rented has always had freshly cleaned carpets) - gardens and general conditions of grounds not good
Also, importantly for the tenants, the swimming pool was not provided in a useably clean condition. Even though it was winter, and the pool was not heated, some of the tenants’ extended family would have used the pool if it had been provided clean even though it was winter.
During the tenancy, the tenants say they experienced ongoing maintenance issues including septic tank problems and lighting and wiring issues. Later, they say, the landlord erected scaffolding without notice which they submit interfered with their enjoyment of the premises.
When they moved out at the end of the tenancy, the tenants did not finish cleaning the property. However, the property manager arranged for the tenants to re-enter the premises after the tenancy ended to complete cleaning and carry out some minor repairs. However, there were some things that the tenants did not fully repair.
The issues the Tribunal must decide arise from the parties’ claims.
The tenants claim: a. The landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. b. The landlord did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) standard for heating. c.The landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. d. The landlord interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
For remedy, the tenants seek orders for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlords claim: a. The tenants owe rent arrears. b. The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean or remove all their rubbish. c.The tenants damaged the premises.
The landlord seeks orders for compensation.
The tenants accept the landlord’s claims for rent arrears of $2,404.77, key replacements costing $517.50, internal wall repair and repainting costing $511.75, and the cost to repair a cabinet door of $402.50.
I consider each of the claims in turn.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Prior to the tenancy beginning, the property had been intermittently vacant. The owners had not fully completed their intended cleaning and tidying work when the tenants moved in.
Inside, many of the house’s curtains had been piled up in internal garage where rodents had been active, leaving their droppings on the curtains. The garage was not clean and the tiles in the foyer and the carpet on the entry stairs had some mud stains. Outside, there was still some litter here and there and parts of the grounds needed tidying, mowing, weeding, and cleaning. Legal principles
“Reasonably clean and tidy” means clean and tidy to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. Frequently, even after a landlord’s previous tenant has cleaned the premises at the end of their tenancy, the landlord may still have some work to get the premises up to standard for their new tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness and tidiness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the tenants must prove the facts on which they rely. Discussion
The tenants’ photographs show that some parts of the grounds were scruffy. For instance, there were pieces of litter in the driveway. Some lawn areas at the back of the house were not cut back and weeded. The pool area’s tiles had some areas where weeds were growing through and scattered patches of lichen.
I consider the tenants’ 5 August 2024 email (quoted from above) can be relied as accurately recording the state of the premises because it was contemporaneous and made by one of the principal tenants whose correspondence is consistent with the contemporaneous photographs.
It follows, I am satisfied that the landlord did not provide the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. Remedies
The premises should have been clean when the tenants moved in. The landlord addressed most of the issues by the end of September 2024. However, the pool was fully cleaned until mid-November 2024, which was a particular disappointment to the tenants because it was an amenity their whanau would have got a lot of enjoyment from.
I order the landlord to pay the tenants one week’s rent, being $2,000.00, to compensate the tenants for the premises not being reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
I decline to order exemplary damages, however, because I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises reasonably clean. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to award exemplary damages. 1 Did the landlord comply with the HHS’s standard for heating?
The tenants claimed that the landlord did not comply with the HHS heating standard.
Clause 8 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 provides: 8 Main living room must have qualifying heaters (1) The main living room of the premises must be heated— (a) by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room... ... (2) If the premises are not in a boarding house, the main living room of the premises is,— (a) if the premises have 1 living room, that living room; or 1 Pursuant to Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 109)3). (b) if the premises have 2 or more living rooms, the largest of them.
The Regulations’ interpretation clause defines living room as follows: 2 living room means a room that consists of, or includes, a habitable space that is for use, or could reasonably be expected to be used, for general everyday living, whether as a lounge room, dining room, sitting room, family room, or other similar use
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. 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/
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 3
The premises had two large living areas. The main living room in this case was the dining and lounge area next to the kitchen.
The evidence provided indicated that the heaters provided for this main living room met the HHS standard.
That being so, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenants claim that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. They reported many issues to the landlord which they accept were addressed. However, they say that the landlord did not adequately address lighting and power issues and persistent septic tank problems. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 clause 3. 3 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes... Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair such known defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. The author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 4 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 5 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord of damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair promptly after they discover the damage or disrepair. 6 Notwithstanding the tenant’s duty to notify, Landlords have an independent obligation to repair problems that are apparent from observation: 7 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
If a landlord breaches their duty to maintain the premises, the Tribunal may order compensation; and if the failure is intentional, exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 8 Lighting and power issues
The tenants submit they experienced ongoing problems with lights and power throughout the tenancy. They say the lights in the upstairs corridor flickered. The lights in the kitchen/dining/living area would frequently fail. The pantry lights flickered on and off, and the lights in the downstairs bathroom malfunctioned.
On 2 December 2024, the tenants complained about a lock falling off the door and: 4 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(d). 7 See n 1. 8 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. Lights: We are having the same problems with lights in the dining area flickering off after 5/10 minutes or so. In the study as well and upstairs end bedroom and hall way.
On 10 February 2025, the tenants again emailed about the lights: Lights keep serging and turni g off then back on or, just turn off for no reason. The wall plugs in family room dont all work. The study, the family room & up stairs rooms and sometimes in garage also have issua with lights.
On 12 June 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord (among seven other issues):
Lights flickering: Most of the lights aren’t working properly in the pantry, wash house, and smaller downstairs lounge. Some are flickering, and others don’t turn on at all.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises’ lighting to a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord commissioned an electrician to fix the lights but did not address the more fundamental issues that caused the persistent lighting problems.
I order the landlord to pay the tenants $400.00 compensation for their loss of amenity in the premises.
I do not order exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that the landlord’s failure to maintain the lights and power was intentional. 9 Septic tank and sewage problems
There were ongoing problems with the sewage system at the premises from the beginning of the tenancy. Untreated sewage frequently leaked out of an overflow trap behind the house creating a foul stench.
The tenants submit the system was defective. The defects had been identified years before the tenancy began but the owner had not addressed them. The landlord blames the tenants for the problems for having too many people living at the property and putting inappropriate items down the toilets which blocked the system. I turn to the contractors’ invoices which have narrations that report to the landlord what the contractors found and the work they did.
On 6 August 2024, Tibbits Plumbing and Maintenance Specialists attended the premises noting: 9 See RTA s 109. Urgent-sewage overflow, shower blocked... ...Sewage pump system not working will need drainage truck to attend
On 8 August 2024 Tibbits attended with Hydrovac technicians and noted as follows: Note: The discharge lines from this system are not functioning and a quote was done some 4 years ago to upgrade and nothing was done. This compromised the operation and the complete system. Biocycle systems and discharge lines are required to be annually inspected by registered technicians for council requirements to ensure they comply and are not affecting the surrounding environment. This system does not meet these requirements which could result in large fines if not rectified. ... Note: the drain entering the tank is broken and holding water. This section of drainage requires to be dug up and replaced urgently.
In respect to the tenants, Tibbits commented: The drainage system was designed for a maximum of 8 people and will not cope with the amount of waste from the amount of occupiers living at the property (possibly 20 people). I have explained to the tenants that they cannot put any sanitary waste or put any form of wet wipes down toilets. They can only use toilet paper.
Hydro Vac Limited attended to a blockage on 21 October 2024. It found there was not disposal field connected to the tank and new field lines were needed. It recorded in its invoice: Note: System was a mess on arrival, as per previous notes there was an electrical issue and system flooded. Electrical issue now rectified. Inlet broken – was to be repaired by Tibbets plumbing. Fat deposits throughout system, toilet products, baby wipes and tampons in chambers and walls
In November of 2024, the landlord’s contactor repaired the wastewater pump and carried out earthworks and unblocked and replaced pipes.
In March of 2025, following a routine visit to check the system HydroVac advised the landlord that the septic system’s “primary chamber has increased crust & sludge levels and the system requires an empty”.
On 17 March 2025, its technician recorded that “Pump has been pumping solids and has failed. Suspect system had been turned off then flooded. When switched back on the pump has pumped contaminated water until it has failed”. Discussion
Tibbets noted that it had quoted to upgrade the system four years previously which indicates the owner would have been aware that the premises’ sewage system required upgrading.
Tibbets noted that there were a lot more than eight people at the premises which and that system “will not cope with the amount of water from the amount of occupiers living at the property”. While the tenants lived with extended family and had guests it is not clear exactly how many people were living at or visiting the premises at the time.
While the sewage system was in a substandard state at the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord did carry out significant repairs to it during the tenancy. Further, in October 2024 Hydro Vac found baby wipes and tampons in the system which would have contributed to the problems. It is probable that the landlord did not anticipate the number of the guests and occupants the tenants would have at the house so did not turn their minds to what impact that might have on the sewage system.
Overall, I consider the landlord failed to provide and maintain the sewage system in a reasonable state of repair.
Taking account of the tenants’ contributory negligence by flushing down inappropriate items, I order the landlord to pay the tenants $2,000.00 for loss of amenity.
Tibbets had previously advised the owners of the system’s shortcomings. That advice is not of a kind that would easily slip one’s mind. I am satisfied that the landlord’s omission to repair and maintain the septic tank was intentional.
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. 10 The landlord’s intents was not malicious, it arose from the principal landlords putting their heads in the sand and hoping and praying all would be well. 10 RTA s 109(3). Latter events proved that not all would be well. The system catastrophically failed mainly because they did not upgrade it when they should have. A mitigating factor is that the landlord would not realistically have expected the number of occupants and guests the tenants would have at the premises, further stressing the sewage system. Further, the tenants misused the system by flushing inappropriate items. These two matters mean that the exemplary damages must be set significantly lower than they would otherwise be.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants had to live with an awful odour for many months during the tenancy. It is in the tenants’ interests that the Tribunal makes an order for exemplary damages. It is in the public interest to order exemplary damages to deter the specific landlord and landlords in general from neglecting necessary work on the premises that they rent out.
I order the landlords to pay the tenants $1,500.00 exemplary damages for the breach. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace?
The tenants claim that the landlord interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy by putting up scaffolding without communicating with them.
The scaffolding blocked the front entrance to the house and was in place between 24 November and 11 December 2024. The scaffolding was arranged to fix roof leaks. The repairs being done at about the time of settlement of the sale and purchase agreement over the property on 28 November 2024. Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 11 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. 12
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". 13
Black’s Law Dictionary 14 defines “harassment” as: 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 38(2). 12 RTA s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 13 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English 15 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation. Discussion
As was discussed above, landlords have a duty to repair and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Naturally, to comply with those duties the landlord will have to instruct contractors to enter the premises to conduct repairs and maintenance as the need arises. That is what happened in this case. The roof was leaking and the landlord or the owners had contractors repair the roof, which required the scaffolding to be erected.
The tenants say they were not informed of the work, but the evidence is sketchy. Nor did the tenants claim for the landlord failing to give notice under s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the landlord would be required to do.
The erecting of the scaffolding was clearly not harassment. On the other hand, the works did constitute an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, albeit it was justifiable interference. Commonly, when the landlord’s necessary repairs and maintenance work inconvenience the tenant, the landlord reimburse the tenant for their loss of amenity.
I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the landlord should be ordered to make a payment to the tenants to compensate them for the interference. I set the figure at 10 per cent of the weekly rent for the period which is $200.00 per week for a period of 18 days. The final amount of compensation ordered is $514.29.

Did the tenants meet their moving out obligations?

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.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and relies on its exit inspection photographs and comments. However, the exit inspection was 14 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 15 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). conducted on about 2 August 2025, but the landlord gave the tenants until 21 August 2025 to carry out further cleaning. That was fair given the property is huge. The tenants say that after moving out, they returned and extensively cleaned and tidied the premises and removed all their belongings and rubbish.
The landlord did not carry out another inspection to assess how successfully the tenants had cleaned the premises after that date.
Consequently, I am not satisfied that the tenants failed to leave the premises in general reasonably clean and tidy and remove all their rubbish by the end of the landlord’s extended timeframe because I have no objective evidence of the state of the premises at that time.
The situation with the pool is similar but slightly different. The landlord says the pool was green. The tenants say when they returned to clean, they took a sample of the water which they took to a hardware store which analysed the sample. Based on that analysis, they used they bought the necessary doses of various chemicals to treat the pool. They then cleaned and treated the pool with the chemicals.
I am not confident that the tenants were adequately knowledgeable to successfully treat the pool. However, I note that it was winter, and the premises remained untenanted for many months. So, even if the pool were not perfectly clean, it does not appear the landlord would have suffered a loss because no one would be using the pool in winter and by summertime the pool would likely have needed treating again.
Therefore, I do not make any order against the tenants for failing to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants did not return the key for the back door. I order them to pay $218.50 for lock and key replacement.
The wood burner’s fire tools were absent at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenants to pay the landlord $140.00 for their replacement.
A kitchen bin went missing. The landlord seeks and order for $285.00 (plus GST) to replace the bin. The bin was old. To account for depreciation and betterment, I order the tenants to pay $150.00 towards the cost of replacement, which is about 50 percent of the cost sought.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for damage to the premises. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the landlord must prove the alleged damage, that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If the landlord proves those elements, 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. 16
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. 17
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. 18
Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 19
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. 20 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. 21
In assessing the compensation (if any) that the Tribunal should order for any tenant damage, the Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal takes account of the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpets
The landlord claims for carpet damage. 16 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 17 18 RTA s 49B(3)(b). 19 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 20 RTA s 49B(1). 21 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am satisfied that during the tenancy, the carpets were badly stained to a level well beyond fair wear and tear. Much of the damage is likely attributable to the tenants’ young mokopuna’s art materials missing their mark of spilling drinks.
The owners’ insurers covered the cost of replacing the carpet, which cost about $24,260.00. However, the owners had to pay five excesses of $2,000.00 – so $10,000.00 in total.
The purpose of compensation is to reimburse the landlord for its loss. The Tribunal’s order should restore the landlord to the economic position they were in prior to the damage occurring. In that regard, I must consider depreciation and betterment.
Prior to the tenancy beginning, the premises’ carpets were generally in a poor and worn condition. Carpets are expected to have a useful life of about eight years. 22 This carpet was near the end of its useful life.
In this case, the insurer paid $14,260.00 towards the approximately $24,260.00 cost of replacing the carpets. In consequence, the landlord was economically better off than it would have been had the tenants not damaged the carpets.
Because the landlord has not suffered any loss I decline to order compensation to the landlord. Study cabinetry and flooring damage
The study’s wooden flooring and a cabinet were scratched during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants do not dispute that the damage must have been caused carelessly.
The landlord has been quoted $4,020.00 (plus GST) to have 67m 2 of wooden flooring sanded and re-Polyurethane. The study is about 12m 2 and a separate room. For the floors, I order the tenants to pay the landlord $1,150.00 because only the study’s floors were damaged, and to account for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord was quoted $300.00 (plus GST) of the cabinet damage. I order $345.00 for that. Kitchen and conservatory window cracks 22 Tenancy Services website; Inland Revenue Depreciation Guidelines.
The landlord claimed the tenants are liable for damage to the kitchen and conservatory windows. However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The photographs of the damage to the large kitchen window suggest the isolated cracking of glass in the left bottom corner of the window could well be due to tension to the glass from the frame or a spontaneous failure of the glass.
Similarly, the photograph of the damaged conservatory window has the appearance of a crack due to the window flexing when being opened and closed in a prudent way. I am persuaded that the damage was likely caused by something beyond ordinary wear and tear.
These claims are dismissed. Trellis gate
During the tenancy, an old, trellised gate to the premises’ wheelie bins storage area disintegrated.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded the tenants were not careless in respect to the damage.
Taking account of the age and likely useful life of the gate, I order the tenants to pay the landlords one-third of the cost quoted to replace the gate, which comes to $262.32. Outdoor chair
The landlord claims for the cost or replacing a damaged outdoor armchair. The armchair’s armrest is broken off. The damage could easily have occurred due to ordinary use.
I am not satisfied that the damage was due to more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Door handles
The landlord claims for cost of replacing six door handles. The tenants reported ongoing problems with the door handles during the tenancy.
However, the tenants could not explain the absence of the master bedroom door’s handle, the rumpus room’s handle, or the lift’s handle.
Replacement handles will cost about $300.00 each.
I must account for depreciation and betterment. The house was built in the 1990s. The handles probably date from then, so they must be about 30 years old. The door handles were already old and in need of replacement or refurbishment.
I was minded to ordering the tenants pay the landlord $250.00 for the door handles. However, the property’s old and failing door handles were a source of persistent consternation to the tenants during the tenancy. I have not ordered any compensation to the tenants for the loss of amenity caused by the door handles failing. To acknowledge that, I find it apposite to refrain from ordering the tenants to pay any compensation towards replacing the door handles. Wood burner’s glass
During the tenancy, one of the word burner’s glass windows cracked.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. It is a similar kind of damage to the damage the tenants reported early in the tenancy. That indicates the cracking of the glass may well be due to an ongoing fault in the wood burner. Early in the tenancy, the tenants reported that the wood burner burnt through wood as if the wood were paper. Possibly, the wood burner generated excessive heat causing the glass to crack.
This claim is dismissed. Sewage pump
The new owners submitted the tenants had damaged the sewage pump by putting inappropriate items down the toilet.
However, the photographs they submitted do not prove the damage was caused by alien objects in the system. The contractors provided detailed reports of what they found and their conclusions, but they did not find that the sewage pump damage was due to foreign objects entering the system.
This claim is dismissed. Damaged tile
During the tenancy, a tile adjacent to the wood burner was chipped.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly.
The landlord relies on a quote for repair in the sum of $599.00 plus GST. I am not prepared to order that amount because the cost strikes me as excessive.
The landlord has not done the repair so there is uncertainty as to whether the landlord will use the quoting contractor or indeed whether the landlord will have the repair done given the damage is cosmetic in nature.
I order the tenants to pay the landlord $425.00 for the damage. Dog kennel and clothesline
The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing a dog kennel and a clothesline.
The tenants say they simply wore out due to reaching the end of their natural life.
The dog kennel was homebuilt and appears from the photographs to be over a decade old, and dilapidated.
From the tenants’ photographs, the clothesline looks old and to be falling apart.
I am not satisfied that any damage that occurred to these items during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear.
These claims are dismissed. Curtains and curtain rails
At the beginning of the tenancy, most of the premises’ curtains were lying in a heap in the garage. The curtains and the various rails and connectors and pulleys were also old and worn.
I am not satisfied that any damage to these items during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear. Wiring and chandelier
Similarly, the premises’ chandelier and wiring were old and in need of attention at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that those items were damaged beyond fair wear and tear during the tenancy. Kitchen
The landlord claimed the tenants were liable for water damage to the kitchen. However, I am not satisfied that the damage complained of is more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Door alignment
The landlord claimed for the cost of realigning the front door.
I am not persuaded that the sag in the door amounted to more than fair wear and tear. Garage shower cubicle
The landlord claimed for a cracked shower wall.
The tenants denied they damaged the wall.
The property manager’s exit photographs did not show a perceptible crack. After the hearing, the landlord submitted photographs from the new owner that showed a clear crack. However, the tenants did not have the opportunity to respond to that evidence. Also, the photograph is not dated, and the landlord has not explained how it is that the property manager’s photographs taken after the tenants had moved out do not show the crack.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the shower wall was damaged during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Wall and door frame damage
The tenants accepted liability for $511.75 for minor wall damage. The landlord claims for additional wall and door frame damage.
I am satisfied that there was additional damage to the walls and door frames that is more than fair wear and tear.
I must account for depreciation and betterment. Landlords can expect to have to carry out minor repairs and repainting to walls every five-to-ten-years.
I order the tenants to pay $350.00 towards the cost of repair. Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The parties seek orders for non-publication.
Both parties succeeded in the proceedings to substantial degree. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address.

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The claims are allowed as set out in this order and its

Reasons

. All other claims are dismissed.

[The tenants] must pay [the landlord] $463.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $8,000.00 (6544580-001) immediately apportioned as follows:
[The landlord]: $463.05 [The tenants]: $7,536.95 DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 1 August 2025 Lock/key replacement, and garage remote $2,404.77 $517.50 Minor wall damage repairs Cabinet door repair Compensation for premises not being provided clean $511.75 $402.50 $2,000.00 Compensation for lighting and wiring issues $400.00 Compensation for septic tank and sewage issues $2,000.00 Exemplary damages for FTM the sewage system $1,500.00 Interference with quiet enjoyment - scaffolding $514.29 Study floors repair: re-sand and re-polyurethane$1,150.00 Study cabinet repair$345.00 Trellis gate$262.32 Fireplace tools Kitchen drawer bin Tile replacement Wall and door frame repairs $140.00 $150.00 $425.00 $350.00 Lock/key replacement – back door$218.50 Subtotals$463.05$7,536.95 Net award to the landlord$463.05 Bond Centre to pay:$463.05$7,536.95 REASONS ON RESERVED DECISION:
I heard these claims at the Manukau District Court on 9 June 2026.
[Two relatives of the tenants] attended the hearing for the tenants.
[The property management company’s manager] attended for the landlord. The current owners, [owners’ names] who purchased the premised during the tenancy, also attended.
The tenants apply for compensation, exemplary damages, and return of their bond.
The landlord applies for rent arrears, compensation for vacated costs, and payment over of the bond. Background and issues for determination
The tenancy began on 2 August 2024 and ended on 1 August 2025.
The property is a luxury home on a lifestyle block with about 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres) land. The house, which was constructed in about 1995, has a floor area of about 560m 2 and has a New Zealand country manor aesthetic. It has five bedrooms, and four bathrooms, a built-in swimming pool, and unobstructed views to Rangitoto. When the real estate company, Bayleys, marketed the house for sale during the tenancy, described the property as: Absolutely ideal for a large or extended family, a combination of elegance and practicality, a fabulous lifestyle opportunity not to be missed, perfectly located in one of Whitfords most beautiful locations
The two principal tenants are a married couple who are experienced teachers. They are kaumātua figures in their whānau. Much of the appeal of the property to them was that it was (as described in the marketing advertising) “ideal for a large or extended family”. The tenants who, were moving from a rural community, owned ponies and the property had paddocks that were suitable for horses, which meant they could bring their ponies to Auckland with them for their mokopuna to ride. The property also has a swimming pool which their water-loving whānau could enjoy. The generous number of bedrooms and bathrooms and living space offered the ability to have the family’s elders, their “nan” and “koroua” live with them and have other family and friends stay over for days or weeks at a time.
A vast property like this is not easy to clean and maintain. Indeed, when the tenants moved in, they encountered a number or cleaning and maintenance issues. Just a few days after the tenancy began, on 5 August 2024, the tenants emailed Ms [manager’s surname] and Mr [surname], the property manager from [the property management company]: Kia ora korua Firstly, thank you both for trying to work through the issues we are having with the move into the property. The house itself is beautiful, and all our whanau and friends love it. However, we are hugely disappointed with the situation we moved into. There are several issues that we have had in the first few days, and I'm only listing the major issues as there are several minor ones as well...
The tenants listed 11 issues, including: - rubbish all around the property - no key for the shed to access the water pump - disgusting state of the shed where the pump is (rat droppings everywhere and rubbish) - no key/clicker to exit the main gate - one of the fireplace glass is broken (fire hazard) and I think the vent is not working as it should be because wood burns like paper - the garage and foyer were not clean. the garage had curtains on the ground, and the floor was filthy - the carpets have not been shampooed and cleaned (not sure this is a requirement, but every other property we've rented has always had freshly cleaned carpets) - gardens and general conditions of grounds not good
Also, importantly for the tenants, the swimming pool was not provided in a useably clean condition. Even though it was winter, and the pool was not heated, some of the tenants’ extended family would have used the pool if it had been provided clean even though it was winter.
During the tenancy, the tenants say they experienced ongoing maintenance issues including septic tank problems and lighting and wiring issues. Later, they say, the landlord erected scaffolding without notice which they submit interfered with their enjoyment of the premises.
When they moved out at the end of the tenancy, the tenants did not finish cleaning the property. However, the property manager arranged for the tenants to re-enter the premises after the tenancy ended to complete cleaning and carry out some minor repairs. However, there were some things that the tenants did not fully repair.
The issues the Tribunal must decide arise from the parties’ claims.
The tenants claim: a. The landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. b. The landlord did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) standard for heating. c.The landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. d. The landlord interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
For remedy, the tenants seek orders for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlords claim: a. The tenants owe rent arrears. b. The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean or remove all their rubbish. c.The tenants damaged the premises.
The landlord seeks orders for compensation.
The tenants accept the landlord’s claims for rent arrears of $2,404.77, key replacements costing $517.50, internal wall repair and repainting costing $511.75, and the cost to repair a cabinet door of $402.50.
I consider each of the claims in turn.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Prior to the tenancy beginning, the property had been intermittently vacant. The owners had not fully completed their intended cleaning and tidying work when the tenants moved in.
Inside, many of the house’s curtains had been piled up in internal garage where rodents had been active, leaving their droppings on the curtains. The garage was not clean and the tiles in the foyer and the carpet on the entry stairs had some mud stains. Outside, there was still some litter here and there and parts of the grounds needed tidying, mowing, weeding, and cleaning. Legal principles
“Reasonably clean and tidy” means clean and tidy to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. Frequently, even after a landlord’s previous tenant has cleaned the premises at the end of their tenancy, the landlord may still have some work to get the premises up to standard for their new tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness and tidiness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the tenants must prove the facts on which they rely. Discussion
The tenants’ photographs show that some parts of the grounds were scruffy. For instance, there were pieces of litter in the driveway. Some lawn areas at the back of the house were not cut back and weeded. The pool area’s tiles had some areas where weeds were growing through and scattered patches of lichen.
I consider the tenants’ 5 August 2024 email (quoted from above) can be relied as accurately recording the state of the premises because it was contemporaneous and made by one of the principal tenants whose correspondence is consistent with the contemporaneous photographs.
It follows, I am satisfied that the landlord did not provide the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. Remedies
The premises should have been clean when the tenants moved in. The landlord addressed most of the issues by the end of September 2024. However, the pool was fully cleaned until mid-November 2024, which was a particular disappointment to the tenants because it was an amenity their whanau would have got a lot of enjoyment from.
I order the landlord to pay the tenants one week’s rent, being $2,000.00, to compensate the tenants for the premises not being reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
I decline to order exemplary damages, however, because I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises reasonably clean. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to award exemplary damages. 1 Did the landlord comply with the HHS’s standard for heating?
The tenants claimed that the landlord did not comply with the HHS heating standard.
Clause 8 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 provides: 8 Main living room must have qualifying heaters (1) The main living room of the premises must be heated— (a) by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room... ... (2) If the premises are not in a boarding house, the main living room of the premises is,— (a) if the premises have 1 living room, that living room; or 1 Pursuant to Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 109)3). (b) if the premises have 2 or more living rooms, the largest of them.
The Regulations’ interpretation clause defines living room as follows: 2 living room means a room that consists of, or includes, a habitable space that is for use, or could reasonably be expected to be used, for general everyday living, whether as a lounge room, dining room, sitting room, family room, or other similar use
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. 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/
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 3
The premises had two large living areas. The main living room in this case was the dining and lounge area next to the kitchen.
The evidence provided indicated that the heaters provided for this main living room met the HHS standard.
That being so, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenants claim that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. They reported many issues to the landlord which they accept were addressed. However, they say that the landlord did not adequately address lighting and power issues and persistent septic tank problems. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 clause 3. 3 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes... Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair such known defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. The author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 4 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 5 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord of damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair promptly after they discover the damage or disrepair. 6 Notwithstanding the tenant’s duty to notify, Landlords have an independent obligation to repair problems that are apparent from observation: 7 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
If a landlord breaches their duty to maintain the premises, the Tribunal may order compensation; and if the failure is intentional, exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 8 Lighting and power issues
The tenants submit they experienced ongoing problems with lights and power throughout the tenancy. They say the lights in the upstairs corridor flickered. The lights in the kitchen/dining/living area would frequently fail. The pantry lights flickered on and off, and the lights in the downstairs bathroom malfunctioned.
On 2 December 2024, the tenants complained about a lock falling off the door and: 4 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(d). 7 See n 1. 8 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. Lights: We are having the same problems with lights in the dining area flickering off after 5/10 minutes or so. In the study as well and upstairs end bedroom and hall way.
On 10 February 2025, the tenants again emailed about the lights: Lights keep serging and turni g off then back on or, just turn off for no reason. The wall plugs in family room dont all work. The study, the family room & up stairs rooms and sometimes in garage also have issua with lights.
On 12 June 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord (among seven other issues):
Lights flickering: Most of the lights aren’t working properly in the pantry, wash house, and smaller downstairs lounge. Some are flickering, and others don’t turn on at all.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises’ lighting to a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord commissioned an electrician to fix the lights but did not address the more fundamental issues that caused the persistent lighting problems.
I order the landlord to pay the tenants $400.00 compensation for their loss of amenity in the premises.
I do not order exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that the landlord’s failure to maintain the lights and power was intentional. 9 Septic tank and sewage problems
There were ongoing problems with the sewage system at the premises from the beginning of the tenancy. Untreated sewage frequently leaked out of an overflow trap behind the house creating a foul stench.
The tenants submit the system was defective. The defects had been identified years before the tenancy began but the owner had not addressed them. The landlord blames the tenants for the problems for having too many people living at the property and putting inappropriate items down the toilets which blocked the system. I turn to the contractors’ invoices which have narrations that report to the landlord what the contractors found and the work they did.
On 6 August 2024, Tibbits Plumbing and Maintenance Specialists attended the premises noting: 9 See RTA s 109. Urgent-sewage overflow, shower blocked... ...Sewage pump system not working will need drainage truck to attend
On 8 August 2024 Tibbits attended with Hydrovac technicians and noted as follows: Note: The discharge lines from this system are not functioning and a quote was done some 4 years ago to upgrade and nothing was done. This compromised the operation and the complete system. Biocycle systems and discharge lines are required to be annually inspected by registered technicians for council requirements to ensure they comply and are not affecting the surrounding environment. This system does not meet these requirements which could result in large fines if not rectified. ... Note: the drain entering the tank is broken and holding water. This section of drainage requires to be dug up and replaced urgently.
In respect to the tenants, Tibbits commented: The drainage system was designed for a maximum of 8 people and will not cope with the amount of waste from the amount of occupiers living at the property (possibly 20 people). I have explained to the tenants that they cannot put any sanitary waste or put any form of wet wipes down toilets. They can only use toilet paper.
Hydro Vac Limited attended to a blockage on 21 October 2024. It found there was not disposal field connected to the tank and new field lines were needed. It recorded in its invoice: Note: System was a mess on arrival, as per previous notes there was an electrical issue and system flooded. Electrical issue now rectified. Inlet broken – was to be repaired by Tibbets plumbing. Fat deposits throughout system, toilet products, baby wipes and tampons in chambers and walls
In November of 2024, the landlord’s contactor repaired the wastewater pump and carried out earthworks and unblocked and replaced pipes.
In March of 2025, following a routine visit to check the system HydroVac advised the landlord that the septic system’s “primary chamber has increased crust & sludge levels and the system requires an empty”.
On 17 March 2025, its technician recorded that “Pump has been pumping solids and has failed. Suspect system had been turned off then flooded. When switched back on the pump has pumped contaminated water until it has failed”. Discussion
Tibbets noted that it had quoted to upgrade the system four years previously which indicates the owner would have been aware that the premises’ sewage system required upgrading.
Tibbets noted that there were a lot more than eight people at the premises which and that system “will not cope with the amount of water from the amount of occupiers living at the property”. While the tenants lived with extended family and had guests it is not clear exactly how many people were living at or visiting the premises at the time.
While the sewage system was in a substandard state at the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord did carry out significant repairs to it during the tenancy. Further, in October 2024 Hydro Vac found baby wipes and tampons in the system which would have contributed to the problems. It is probable that the landlord did not anticipate the number of the guests and occupants the tenants would have at the house so did not turn their minds to what impact that might have on the sewage system.
Overall, I consider the landlord failed to provide and maintain the sewage system in a reasonable state of repair.
Taking account of the tenants’ contributory negligence by flushing down inappropriate items, I order the landlord to pay the tenants $2,000.00 for loss of amenity.
Tibbets had previously advised the owners of the system’s shortcomings. That advice is not of a kind that would easily slip one’s mind. I am satisfied that the landlord’s omission to repair and maintain the septic tank was intentional.
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. 10 The landlord’s intents was not malicious, it arose from the principal landlords putting their heads in the sand and hoping and praying all would be well. 10 RTA s 109(3). Latter events proved that not all would be well. The system catastrophically failed mainly because they did not upgrade it when they should have. A mitigating factor is that the landlord would not realistically have expected the number of occupants and guests the tenants would have at the premises, further stressing the sewage system. Further, the tenants misused the system by flushing inappropriate items. These two matters mean that the exemplary damages must be set significantly lower than they would otherwise be.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants had to live with an awful odour for many months during the tenancy. It is in the tenants’ interests that the Tribunal makes an order for exemplary damages. It is in the public interest to order exemplary damages to deter the specific landlord and landlords in general from neglecting necessary work on the premises that they rent out.
I order the landlords to pay the tenants $1,500.00 exemplary damages for the breach. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace?
The tenants claim that the landlord interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy by putting up scaffolding without communicating with them.
The scaffolding blocked the front entrance to the house and was in place between 24 November and 11 December 2024. The scaffolding was arranged to fix roof leaks. The repairs being done at about the time of settlement of the sale and purchase agreement over the property on 28 November 2024. Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 11 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. 12
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". 13
Black’s Law Dictionary 14 defines “harassment” as: 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 38(2). 12 RTA s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 13 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English 15 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation. Discussion
As was discussed above, landlords have a duty to repair and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Naturally, to comply with those duties the landlord will have to instruct contractors to enter the premises to conduct repairs and maintenance as the need arises. That is what happened in this case. The roof was leaking and the landlord or the owners had contractors repair the roof, which required the scaffolding to be erected.
The tenants say they were not informed of the work, but the evidence is sketchy. Nor did the tenants claim for the landlord failing to give notice under s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the landlord would be required to do.
The erecting of the scaffolding was clearly not harassment. On the other hand, the works did constitute an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, albeit it was justifiable interference. Commonly, when the landlord’s necessary repairs and maintenance work inconvenience the tenant, the landlord reimburse the tenant for their loss of amenity.
I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the landlord should be ordered to make a payment to the tenants to compensate them for the interference. I set the figure at 10 per cent of the weekly rent for the period which is $200.00 per week for a period of 18 days. The final amount of compensation ordered is $514.29.

Did the tenants meet their moving out obligations?

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.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and relies on its exit inspection photographs and comments. However, the exit inspection was 14 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 15 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). conducted on about 2 August 2025, but the landlord gave the tenants until 21 August 2025 to carry out further cleaning. That was fair given the property is huge. The tenants say that after moving out, they returned and extensively cleaned and tidied the premises and removed all their belongings and rubbish.
The landlord did not carry out another inspection to assess how successfully the tenants had cleaned the premises after that date.
Consequently, I am not satisfied that the tenants failed to leave the premises in general reasonably clean and tidy and remove all their rubbish by the end of the landlord’s extended timeframe because I have no objective evidence of the state of the premises at that time.
The situation with the pool is similar but slightly different. The landlord says the pool was green. The tenants say when they returned to clean, they took a sample of the water which they took to a hardware store which analysed the sample. Based on that analysis, they used they bought the necessary doses of various chemicals to treat the pool. They then cleaned and treated the pool with the chemicals.
I am not confident that the tenants were adequately knowledgeable to successfully treat the pool. However, I note that it was winter, and the premises remained untenanted for many months. So, even if the pool were not perfectly clean, it does not appear the landlord would have suffered a loss because no one would be using the pool in winter and by summertime the pool would likely have needed treating again.
Therefore, I do not make any order against the tenants for failing to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants did not return the key for the back door. I order them to pay $218.50 for lock and key replacement.
The wood burner’s fire tools were absent at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenants to pay the landlord $140.00 for their replacement.
A kitchen bin went missing. The landlord seeks and order for $285.00 (plus GST) to replace the bin. The bin was old. To account for depreciation and betterment, I order the tenants to pay $150.00 towards the cost of replacement, which is about 50 percent of the cost sought.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for damage to the premises. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the landlord must prove the alleged damage, that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If the landlord proves those elements, 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. 16
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. 17
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. 18
Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 19
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. 20 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. 21
In assessing the compensation (if any) that the Tribunal should order for any tenant damage, the Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal takes account of the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpets
The landlord claims for carpet damage. 16 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 17 18 RTA s 49B(3)(b). 19 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 20 RTA s 49B(1). 21 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am satisfied that during the tenancy, the carpets were badly stained to a level well beyond fair wear and tear. Much of the damage is likely attributable to the tenants’ young mokopuna’s art materials missing their mark of spilling drinks.
The owners’ insurers covered the cost of replacing the carpet, which cost about $24,260.00. However, the owners had to pay five excesses of $2,000.00 – so $10,000.00 in total.
The purpose of compensation is to reimburse the landlord for its loss. The Tribunal’s order should restore the landlord to the economic position they were in prior to the damage occurring. In that regard, I must consider depreciation and betterment.
Prior to the tenancy beginning, the premises’ carpets were generally in a poor and worn condition. Carpets are expected to have a useful life of about eight years. 22 This carpet was near the end of its useful life.
In this case, the insurer paid $14,260.00 towards the approximately $24,260.00 cost of replacing the carpets. In consequence, the landlord was economically better off than it would have been had the tenants not damaged the carpets.
Because the landlord has not suffered any loss I decline to order compensation to the landlord. Study cabinetry and flooring damage
The study’s wooden flooring and a cabinet were scratched during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants do not dispute that the damage must have been caused carelessly.
The landlord has been quoted $4,020.00 (plus GST) to have 67m 2 of wooden flooring sanded and re-Polyurethane. The study is about 12m 2 and a separate room. For the floors, I order the tenants to pay the landlord $1,150.00 because only the study’s floors were damaged, and to account for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord was quoted $300.00 (plus GST) of the cabinet damage. I order $345.00 for that. Kitchen and conservatory window cracks 22 Tenancy Services website; Inland Revenue Depreciation Guidelines.
The landlord claimed the tenants are liable for damage to the kitchen and conservatory windows. However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The photographs of the damage to the large kitchen window suggest the isolated cracking of glass in the left bottom corner of the window could well be due to tension to the glass from the frame or a spontaneous failure of the glass.
Similarly, the photograph of the damaged conservatory window has the appearance of a crack due to the window flexing when being opened and closed in a prudent way. I am persuaded that the damage was likely caused by something beyond ordinary wear and tear.
These claims are dismissed. Trellis gate
During the tenancy, an old, trellised gate to the premises’ wheelie bins storage area disintegrated.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded the tenants were not careless in respect to the damage.
Taking account of the age and likely useful life of the gate, I order the tenants to pay the landlords one-third of the cost quoted to replace the gate, which comes to $262.32. Outdoor chair
The landlord claims for the cost or replacing a damaged outdoor armchair. The armchair’s armrest is broken off. The damage could easily have occurred due to ordinary use.
I am not satisfied that the damage was due to more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Door handles
The landlord claims for cost of replacing six door handles. The tenants reported ongoing problems with the door handles during the tenancy.
However, the tenants could not explain the absence of the master bedroom door’s handle, the rumpus room’s handle, or the lift’s handle.
Replacement handles will cost about $300.00 each.
I must account for depreciation and betterment. The house was built in the 1990s. The handles probably date from then, so they must be about 30 years old. The door handles were already old and in need of replacement or refurbishment.
I was minded to ordering the tenants pay the landlord $250.00 for the door handles. However, the property’s old and failing door handles were a source of persistent consternation to the tenants during the tenancy. I have not ordered any compensation to the tenants for the loss of amenity caused by the door handles failing. To acknowledge that, I find it apposite to refrain from ordering the tenants to pay any compensation towards replacing the door handles. Wood burner’s glass
During the tenancy, one of the word burner’s glass windows cracked.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. It is a similar kind of damage to the damage the tenants reported early in the tenancy. That indicates the cracking of the glass may well be due to an ongoing fault in the wood burner. Early in the tenancy, the tenants reported that the wood burner burnt through wood as if the wood were paper. Possibly, the wood burner generated excessive heat causing the glass to crack.
This claim is dismissed. Sewage pump
The new owners submitted the tenants had damaged the sewage pump by putting inappropriate items down the toilet.
However, the photographs they submitted do not prove the damage was caused by alien objects in the system. The contractors provided detailed reports of what they found and their conclusions, but they did not find that the sewage pump damage was due to foreign objects entering the system.
This claim is dismissed. Damaged tile
During the tenancy, a tile adjacent to the wood burner was chipped.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly.
The landlord relies on a quote for repair in the sum of $599.00 plus GST. I am not prepared to order that amount because the cost strikes me as excessive.
The landlord has not done the repair so there is uncertainty as to whether the landlord will use the quoting contractor or indeed whether the landlord will have the repair done given the damage is cosmetic in nature.
I order the tenants to pay the landlord $425.00 for the damage. Dog kennel and clothesline
The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing a dog kennel and a clothesline.
The tenants say they simply wore out due to reaching the end of their natural life.
The dog kennel was homebuilt and appears from the photographs to be over a decade old, and dilapidated.
From the tenants’ photographs, the clothesline looks old and to be falling apart.
I am not satisfied that any damage that occurred to these items during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear.
These claims are dismissed. Curtains and curtain rails
At the beginning of the tenancy, most of the premises’ curtains were lying in a heap in the garage. The curtains and the various rails and connectors and pulleys were also old and worn.
I am not satisfied that any damage to these items during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear. Wiring and chandelier
Similarly, the premises’ chandelier and wiring were old and in need of attention at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that those items were damaged beyond fair wear and tear during the tenancy. Kitchen
The landlord claimed the tenants were liable for water damage to the kitchen. However, I am not satisfied that the damage complained of is more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Door alignment
The landlord claimed for the cost of realigning the front door.
I am not persuaded that the sag in the door amounted to more than fair wear and tear. Garage shower cubicle
The landlord claimed for a cracked shower wall.
The tenants denied they damaged the wall.
The property manager’s exit photographs did not show a perceptible crack. After the hearing, the landlord submitted photographs from the new owner that showed a clear crack. However, the tenants did not have the opportunity to respond to that evidence. Also, the photograph is not dated, and the landlord has not explained how it is that the property manager’s photographs taken after the tenants had moved out do not show the crack.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the shower wall was damaged during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Wall and door frame damage
The tenants accepted liability for $511.75 for minor wall damage. The landlord claims for additional wall and door frame damage.
I am satisfied that there was additional damage to the walls and door frames that is more than fair wear and tear.
I must account for depreciation and betterment. Landlords can expect to have to carry out minor repairs and repainting to walls every five-to-ten-years.
I order the tenants to pay $350.00 towards the cost of repair. Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The parties seek orders for non-publication.
Both parties succeeded in the proceedings to substantial degree. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345022 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345022 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the tenants meet their moving out obligations?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the tenants meet their moving out obligations?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?