What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354785 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5354785?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Credit Of: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Vanity: $382.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354785?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13257920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354785 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5354785?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Credit Of: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Vanity: $382.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354785?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13257920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Byron Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354785 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5354785 — net $695.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent for two days cleaning	$200.00		Rent for two days cleaning
Repairs: vanity	$382.95		Repairs: vanity
Exemplary damages: bond		$500.00	bond
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement		$250.00	tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: business records		$100.00	business records
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit of		$400.00	Rent credit of
Total award	$582.95	$1,278.00
Net award		$695.05
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$695.05

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rhiannon Jarvis and Daniel Jarvis must pay [The tenant/s] $695.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a representative. Ms Jarvis represented the landlord.
This tenancy lasted about a year and the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The questions I have to decide include: • Should the tenant pay for another two days of rent? • Should the tenant pay for the vanity? • Did the tenant damage the carpet? • Did the landlord comply with the requirements for the tenancy agreement, bond, and rent records?

Should the tenant pay another two days of rent?

The tenant gave notice and the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 25 September 2025. The tenant was unable to complete her cleaning and have the carpets cleaned by that date. She asked for an additional two days and the landlord agreed. At the time the landlord said the tenant would not be charged additional rent but has subsequently applied for rent for those two days. In reply the tenant said she relied on the agreement, and she might have acted differently if she knew at the time that she would have to pay rent.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The usual position in the Tribunal is that tenants pay rent for the days they are in possession of the premises. The tenant was still in possession when she was cleaning. I find the tenant should pay $200 for the extra days.
I also note there was an agreed overpayment of rent in the amount of $400 and I have shown this in the table.

Should the tenant pay for the vanity?

There is a claim for a broken vanity. With any claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
It is agreed evidence the vanity broke during the tenancy. The tenant reported the damage and the vanity was repaired. At the time it was not clear that the tenant would be charged for the repair. The tenant gave notice soon after and the landlord said there would be a claim against the bond. I find the claim by the landlord is fair in the circumstances because the amount claimed is reasonable.
The tenant said she was not in the room with her children when the damage occurred. This means the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It seems most likely to me that the damage was careless or intentional. The amount claimed is less than the insurance excess or four weeks rent. I find the landlord has proved the claim and the tenant should pay for the repair.

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

There is a claim for the cost of treating the carpets for odour, and for the cost of replacing the carpets because of heavy damage from animal spoiling. The same law for damage applies, and the landlord must prove that damage to the carpets occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant had the carpets cleaned on the last day of the tenancy. The landlord said that after the carpets completely dried out a number of stains became noticeable, and there was a very bad smell. The tenant was allowed two dogs during the tenancy. The landlord had a contractor come and treat the carpets for the smell. When this was not successful the landlord had a business quote for replacing the carpets. The quotes record there was ‘heavy animal soiling’ in all rooms. The landlord provided photos of the stained carpet which were taken in October, a few weeks after the tenancy ended.
The landlord did not carry out an inspection at the start of the tenancy. Instead, I was provided with marketing photos taken before the landlord bought the house and a video taken when the pre settlement inspection was done in August 2024. The landlord had a witness who did not notice a bad smell when she was at the house in December 2024, two months into the tenancy.
The witness carried out the final inspection. The witness said a smell was apparent at the final inspection. She could see lines on the carpet, like you would see from vacuuming, and some discolouration. She took photos at the time but photos have not been submitted as evidence because the quality was poor.
In reply, the tenant said that the landlord could not prove there was damage during the tenancy because there was no property condition report done before the tenancy started. The tenant questioned the landlord’s photos taken in October because they were so different from the photos taken by the tenant when she moved out. The tenant pointed out that the witness did not recall seeing stains at the final inspection.
I have considered all the evidence. I am not persuaded the tenant damaged the carpets. The marketing photos do not show enough of the carpets for me to make a decision about condition. The video does show the carpets but I cannot ascertain the general condition, any areas of wear, and any marks or stains. The witness’ statement about smell in 2024 does not prove the condition of the carpet when the tenant moved in. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage during the tenancy. The claims for odour treatment and replacement carpet are dismissed. Did the landlord comply with the requirements for the tenancy agreement, bond, and rent records?
The tenant claims that the landlord did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant. The law states that the landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750. See section 13 and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. There is agreed evidence that the tenancy agreement was emailed between the parties before the tenancy started, and eventually signed two months later on Christmas Eve. The landlord said this was an oversight at a very busy time of the year. I find there was a breach of the RTA.
It is agreed evidence the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required 23 working days. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said not lodging the bond was also an oversight. She knew about the requirement to lodge the bond but thought someone else was doing it. She said as soon as she realised the breach she contacted the tenant, apologised, and lodged the bond within days. I find the tenant has proved there was a breach.
The tenant claims the landlord did not keep proper business records showing all payments of rent sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant for a rent summary. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350. See section 29(3), 30 and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The landlord said she did check the bank statements during the tenancy but she did not know she was required to have a rent summary. When she asked AI to provide a summary after the applications were filed the overpayment of rent was found. Keeping an eye on the bank statements is not sufficient because section 29(3) RTA requires the landlord to produce a written statement of rent when requested. I find there was a breach of the duty to keep proper business records.
I find the landlord committed three unlawful acts. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
Landlords are required to know the law around providing a signed tenancy agreement, lodging the bond and keeping proper rent records. These are basic requirements in any tenancy. I find the landlord’s explanations that she was busy, made a mistake, and did not know, are good reasons for awarding exemplary damages. There is public interest in exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA.
The effect for the tenant was a feeling of uncertainty and vulnerability during the tenancy because the rules that protect tenants were ignored. The tenant’s bond was not lodged, she had to provide the landlord with her copy of the tenancy agreement, and the overpayment of rent was not acknowledged, meaning all these usual transactions were delayed. It is in tenants interests that landlords comply with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $250 for the tenancy agreement breach, $500 for failing to lodge the bond, and $100 for the rent summary breach. This is at the lower end of the scale because the tenancy agreement was fully disclosed over email and the bond was lodged during the tenancy. I am not aware of any previous, similar orders against the landlord which would justify a higher award. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5354785 — net $695.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent for two days cleaning	$200.00		Rent for two days cleaning
Repairs: vanity	$382.95		Repairs: vanity
Exemplary damages: bond		$500.00	bond
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement		$250.00	tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: business records		$100.00	business records
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit of		$400.00	Rent credit of
Total award	$582.95	$1,278.00
Net award		$695.05
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$695.05

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rhiannon Jarvis and Daniel Jarvis must pay [The tenant/s] $695.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a representative. Ms Jarvis represented the landlord.
This tenancy lasted about a year and the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The questions I have to decide include: • Should the tenant pay for another two days of rent? • Should the tenant pay for the vanity? • Did the tenant damage the carpet? • Did the landlord comply with the requirements for the tenancy agreement, bond, and rent records?

Should the tenant pay another two days of rent?

The tenant gave notice and the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 25 September 2025. The tenant was unable to complete her cleaning and have the carpets cleaned by that date. She asked for an additional two days and the landlord agreed. At the time the landlord said the tenant would not be charged additional rent but has subsequently applied for rent for those two days. In reply the tenant said she relied on the agreement, and she might have acted differently if she knew at the time that she would have to pay rent.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The usual position in the Tribunal is that tenants pay rent for the days they are in possession of the premises. The tenant was still in possession when she was cleaning. I find the tenant should pay $200 for the extra days.
I also note there was an agreed overpayment of rent in the amount of $400 and I have shown this in the table.

Should the tenant pay for the vanity?

There is a claim for a broken vanity. With any claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
It is agreed evidence the vanity broke during the tenancy. The tenant reported the damage and the vanity was repaired. At the time it was not clear that the tenant would be charged for the repair. The tenant gave notice soon after and the landlord said there would be a claim against the bond. I find the claim by the landlord is fair in the circumstances because the amount claimed is reasonable.
The tenant said she was not in the room with her children when the damage occurred. This means the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It seems most likely to me that the damage was careless or intentional. The amount claimed is less than the insurance excess or four weeks rent. I find the landlord has proved the claim and the tenant should pay for the repair.

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

There is a claim for the cost of treating the carpets for odour, and for the cost of replacing the carpets because of heavy damage from animal spoiling. The same law for damage applies, and the landlord must prove that damage to the carpets occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant had the carpets cleaned on the last day of the tenancy. The landlord said that after the carpets completely dried out a number of stains became noticeable, and there was a very bad smell. The tenant was allowed two dogs during the tenancy. The landlord had a contractor come and treat the carpets for the smell. When this was not successful the landlord had a business quote for replacing the carpets. The quotes record there was ‘heavy animal soiling’ in all rooms. The landlord provided photos of the stained carpet which were taken in October, a few weeks after the tenancy ended.
The landlord did not carry out an inspection at the start of the tenancy. Instead, I was provided with marketing photos taken before the landlord bought the house and a video taken when the pre settlement inspection was done in August 2024. The landlord had a witness who did not notice a bad smell when she was at the house in December 2024, two months into the tenancy.
The witness carried out the final inspection. The witness said a smell was apparent at the final inspection. She could see lines on the carpet, like you would see from vacuuming, and some discolouration. She took photos at the time but photos have not been submitted as evidence because the quality was poor.
In reply, the tenant said that the landlord could not prove there was damage during the tenancy because there was no property condition report done before the tenancy started. The tenant questioned the landlord’s photos taken in October because they were so different from the photos taken by the tenant when she moved out. The tenant pointed out that the witness did not recall seeing stains at the final inspection.
I have considered all the evidence. I am not persuaded the tenant damaged the carpets. The marketing photos do not show enough of the carpets for me to make a decision about condition. The video does show the carpets but I cannot ascertain the general condition, any areas of wear, and any marks or stains. The witness’ statement about smell in 2024 does not prove the condition of the carpet when the tenant moved in. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage during the tenancy. The claims for odour treatment and replacement carpet are dismissed. Did the landlord comply with the requirements for the tenancy agreement, bond, and rent records?
The tenant claims that the landlord did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant. The law states that the landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750. See section 13 and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. There is agreed evidence that the tenancy agreement was emailed between the parties before the tenancy started, and eventually signed two months later on Christmas Eve. The landlord said this was an oversight at a very busy time of the year. I find there was a breach of the RTA.
It is agreed evidence the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required 23 working days. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said not lodging the bond was also an oversight. She knew about the requirement to lodge the bond but thought someone else was doing it. She said as soon as she realised the breach she contacted the tenant, apologised, and lodged the bond within days. I find the tenant has proved there was a breach.
The tenant claims the landlord did not keep proper business records showing all payments of rent sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant for a rent summary. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350. See section 29(3), 30 and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The landlord said she did check the bank statements during the tenancy but she did not know she was required to have a rent summary. When she asked AI to provide a summary after the applications were filed the overpayment of rent was found. Keeping an eye on the bank statements is not sufficient because section 29(3) RTA requires the landlord to produce a written statement of rent when requested. I find there was a breach of the duty to keep proper business records.
I find the landlord committed three unlawful acts. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
Landlords are required to know the law around providing a signed tenancy agreement, lodging the bond and keeping proper rent records. These are basic requirements in any tenancy. I find the landlord’s explanations that she was busy, made a mistake, and did not know, are good reasons for awarding exemplary damages. There is public interest in exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA.
The effect for the tenant was a feeling of uncertainty and vulnerability during the tenancy because the rules that protect tenants were ignored. The tenant’s bond was not lodged, she had to provide the landlord with her copy of the tenancy agreement, and the overpayment of rent was not acknowledged, meaning all these usual transactions were delayed. It is in tenants interests that landlords comply with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $250 for the tenancy agreement breach, $500 for failing to lodge the bond, and $100 for the rent summary breach. This is at the lower end of the scale because the tenancy agreement was fully disclosed over email and the bond was lodged during the tenancy. I am not aware of any previous, similar orders against the landlord which would justify a higher award. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354785 — Exemplary damages at 10 Byron Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354785 — Exemplary damages at 10 Byron Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay another two days of rent?

Should the tenant pay for the vanity?

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay another two days of rent?

Should the tenant pay for the vanity?

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions