What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356955 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties and

How much money was awarded in case 5356955?

The reconciled net award was $15,255.41.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356955?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356955 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties and

How much money was awarded in case 5356955?

The reconciled net award was $15,255.41.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356955?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356955 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356955 — net $15,255.41 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$15,255.41

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356955 — net $15,255.41 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$15,255.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties and both parties’ consent to both parties receiving name suppression. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord
The tenant is to pay the landlord $14,850.41 immediately as outlined in the table below

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference. Both parties have filed claims against the other.
The case was first before me and the issues were agreed upon for both parties and recorded in the order dated 20 November 2025. The evidence in relation to the tenant’s claim was also heard at that time.
The claim was again adjourned in December with the consent of both parties and on 16 February I heard the remaining evidence in relation to the landlord’s application and the tenant reconfirmed his views in relation to documents filed by the landlord at the previous hearing in relation to the appropriate rental.
The parties are to prove their case on the civil burden of proof, that is on the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not.
I am required to determine issues that are within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act (the Act) that clearly defines what I can and can not make an order on. There are claims that have been raised by both parties that do not fall with the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and I shall address those in the decision. An example of this is in the application filed by the tenant he states “ consider compensation for financial hardship and emotional distress. This is not with within the jurisdiction and is a misunderstanding of the law.
Both parties confirmed at the conclusion of both hearings that they had presented their case with nothing further to add.
The issues for determination were broken down to the following. Issues to be determined: The tenants’ issues for determination were: a) When did the tenancy end? b) What is the correct market rental for the property, and should he receive a refund of the difference between the market rental and the amount he paid during the tenancy? c) Did the landlord change in that the representative of the landlord is no longer a director of the Company and if so, what were the damages suffered by the tenant of this occurring? d) Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard in relation to draughty windows? e) Did the landlord fail to maintain the property in relation to the lights in the kitchen, the deck, tap outside and hole in the lid of the septic tank? The landlords’ issues for determination were: f) How much rent arrears are owing? g) Should agency costs of $15,960.00 be awarded to the agent for the hours in preparing this case? h) Should the tenant pay exemplary damages for a breach of Section 109 of $6500 to the landlord given its director was required to get a loan to cover the rent arrears that were intentionally missed. i) Should the tenant meet the costs of the interest on the loan (as stated above) that was obtained of $626.14? j) Did the tenant cause damage to the following and if so, what is the proven loss? i)French Doors internal and external ii)Wardrobe doors iii)Carpet cleaning due to dog odour iv)Other painting costs, bathroom shelf, lounge walls and bedroom walls v)Gas bottles vi)Key replacement and lock smith costs vii)Rubbish bags viii)Printing costs for the preparation of this hearing.

When did the tenancy end?

The tenant’s application was filed on 1 st October 2025, recording that the tenancy started on 10 April 2022 and ended 19 August 2025. It was agreed that he vacated in the early hours of the 20 th August 2025. It was agreed that the rent up to the 19 August owed was $15,991.43. What is the correct market rental for the property, and should he receive a refund of the difference between the market rental and the amount he paid during the tenancy?
The tenant seeks a refund of the rent claiming that the rent should not have been over $775.00. he claims that the rent was excessive when it began on 10 April 2022, that notice was given for him to vacate on 6 August, but he actually vacated on 19 August 2025.
The tenant claims that he wanted his rent at the outset to be between $750 and $800 because that was his budget, however he agreed to $900.00 stating that it was the only rental available to him and his family at the time. When it was up for review it increased to $965.00 per week from 24 March 2023.
The tenant claims he was stuck in the tenancy because he had a dog, and it was difficult to find alternative accommodation. He claims that the landlord justified the increase on the basis of “COVID inflation”.
The tenant submitted significant comparisons to determine that he believed the rent should have been $775.00 for the duration of the tenancy and therefore he seeks a refund of $29,495.00. He asks that the Tribunal review the evidence and consider ordering a partial refund of the overcharged rent , “in accordance with the principles of fairness and market alignment under the Residential Tenancies Act.”.
The tenant claims he tried to discuss with the landlord his financial situation attempting to lower the rate of the rent with no success. There was no application made to the Tribunal during the tenancy seeking the Tribunal to assess the rental rate.
A tenant can not claim a rent refund after the tenancy has ended solely on the basis that the rent was over the market rent.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides a process for tenants to challenge excess rent while the tenancy is ongoing, specifically under Section 25.
The tenant must apply to the Tribunal for a market assessment during the tenancy. The Tribunal can then make an order to reduce the rent if it is found to be substantially higher than market rents at that time.
Once the tenancy has ended the Tribunal does not have the Jurisdiction to retrospectively order a refund of rent on the basis that it was above market rent.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord change in that the representative of the landlord is no longer a director of the Company and if so what were the damages suffered by the tenant of this occurring?
The tenant claims that the landlord misrepresented herself. He was confused in relation to it being [The landlord] or her daughter who was in and out of the country.
I do not see how this is an unlawful act as defined in the Residential Tenancies Act and if it was, I cannot see what damages the tenant suffered because of this. The claim is not proven and is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard in relation to draughty windows?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant claims that the underfloor insulation standard is not reached. He states that there are holes through the floor that expose the interior directly tot eh outside environment, “compromising thermal resistance and allowing cold air, moisture, and pests to enter”. I note that the parties signed the Standards documentation that attached to the tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that there is a breach of the draft stopping standard, claiming that there are unsealed gaps and holes in both the floor and walls. He claims this has led to the “unsafe and unsanitary conditions.”
The tenancy came to an end following significant issues with the not being paid. There is no evidence of requests of concerns raised to the landlord and there is no independent evidence of a report stating the property fails to comply with the Standards. The tenant resided in the property for over three years.
Considering all of the evidence and submissions I can not find on the balance of probabilities that the breach occurred, and the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property in relation to the lights in the kitchen, the deck, tap outside and hole in the lid of the septic tank?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I shall deal with each claim separately: Kitchen:
The claim is that the landlord failed to address a light fitting in the kitchen that caused difficulty, “tripping the breaker”. He was told not to use it as the remedy was a significant job regarding re wiring and the costs was approximately $8,000.00 as a new switch board was needed. This issue was raised approximately a year and a half through the tenancy. The tenant chose to accept this by continuing to remain at the property.
There is in insufficient evidence to support the claim that this was a breach of this section of the Act, and I dismiss this claim accordingly. Deck:
The tenant claims that there was a loose board on the deck. The evidence again is insufficient to prove that the landlord breached their obligations to maintain. Tap outside:
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy a dripping tap. The landlord submitted that she paid a plumber $178.65 who investigated it. It may not have been at the speed the tenant wanted however there is no evidence that the delay was unreasonable, and that the landlord breached the act. Again, the claim is dismissed. Hole in septic man hole lid:
The tenant claimed that there was a hole in the lid that was under his parked campervan in the driveway. This was inspected and the parties told it was a crack and not needed to be replaced at that time and continues to be checked.
Again, there is no evidence of a breach, and the claim is dismissed.
That concludes the issues identified and confirmed by the tenant. The claims are not proven, and no costs will be awarded against the landlord and again I confirm the amount of rent outstanding at the end of the tenancy is $15,991.43.
I shall now deal with the landlords application and issues agreed upon to be determined.

How much rent arrears are owing?

As stated above the tenancy ended on 19 August 2025, and it was agreed that the amount of rent owing at that time was $15,991.43.
I refer to the above decision in relation to the tenants claim to have this refunded or reduced and confirm that the amount of rent arrears outstanding is $15,991.43. Should agency costs of $15,960.00 be awarded to the agent for the hours in preparing this case? Printing costs?
This is a claim for the time spent preparing the case. This is not a cost that the Tribunal awards. There is no requirement or contractual obligation for another party to meet the costs of the other in preparing a case before the tenancy Tribunal and this claim is dismissed.
This approach is consistent with the Tribunals general practice and is supported by the principle that the Tribunal proceedings should be simple informal and low cost.
The landlord also claims separately for the printing costs for the preparation of this hearing.
I refer to the above in relation to preparation of a hearing, this is not able to be claimed, and the claim is dismissed. Should the tenant pay exemplary damages for a breach of Section 109 of $6500 to the landlord given its director was required to get a loan to cover the rent arrears that were intentionally missed.
The landlord claims that the tenant intentionally failed to pay his rent, prioritising over other payments. As a result, the property owner was required to get a loan. Because of this, she claims that it was an unlawful act under section 109 and that the tenant is liable for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are only available for specific ‘unlawful acts’ as set out in the Act. Failing to pay rent is a breach of the tenancy agreement but is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages maybe awarded. This claim is outside the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
The landlord can apply for rent arrears and termination of a tenancy but not such costs as sought here.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Should the tenant meet the costs of the interest on the loan (as stated above) that was obtained of $626.14?
Given the reason above, this claim is not within the jurisdiction and the claim is dismissed. Did the tenant cause damage to the following and if so, what is the proven loss?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was allegedly caused during the tenancy. I must be satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. French Doors internal and external
The landlord seeks $3380 plus GST in relation to a quote to have the French doors remedied stating that the damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The tenant was allowed a dog at the property, and he states that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy as the previous tenant had a dog.
In any event he claims he was there for over three years, and it was fair wear and tear. He was allowed a dog, and some scratches could be expected.
A landlord can not claim for minor marks or wear that would be expected from normal living, but significant or excess scratching caused by a pet would not be considered fair wear and tear.
A property inspection report has been submitted, undated but records “superficial scratches on French doors”. It is not clear in relation to when this relates and who signed it.
A further property inspection report filed with the tenancy agreement dated 7-4- 22 signed by the tenant only is blank in relation to the condition of the property.
I am not satisfied that the claim is proven that there is significant damaged over and above fair wear and tear caused in the three and a half year tenancy where the tenant was allowed a large dog. Wardrobe doors
Again, the claim is for scratches on the wardrobe.
The concerns in relation to pre inspection reports as outlined above apply.
I am not satisfied the claim is proven in relation to the damage having been caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. Carpet cleaning due to dog odour
The landlord claims $120.00 for carpet cleaning. The tenant says he borrowed a friend’s cleaner to do the carpets. There was a stain and dog odour that required the carpet to be cleaned. I accept that this would be a reasonable cost that would be incurred following a tenancy where a dog occupied the property for over three years. There is no independent evidence to confirm that the carpet was cleaned by the tenant. Considering the submissions I order the amount accordingly. Other painting costs, bathroom shelf, lounge walls and bedroom walls
The landlord states that the interior of the house had been repainted in May 2020. She claims the costs to repaint the damage caused by a tv screwed to the lounge wall, wall hangings in the bedroom. The claim for the lounge in relation to the labour costs sought are $149.50 and for the bedroom $149.50, together with a claim for staining on a wooden shelf in the bathroom for $448.00. the tenant accepts that the soap container damaged the shelf in the bathroom, and he had attempted to remedy this.
It would be expected that in a three and a half year period shelves in the bathroom may be affected by fair wear and tear, it is not necessarily proven that this damage was intentional nor careless.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the damage to the lounge and bedroom is careless however I do not accept the shelf in the bathroom is proven to be damage that the tenant is liable for.
Having considered the evidence I accept therefore that the amount of $299.00 is proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
In relation to this issue, the landlord claims for the following; Gas bottles;
The landlord claims that there were gas bottles missing at the end of the tenancy. They were in the chattels list and the tenancy agreement provided that they needed to be returned full and were not. The tenant claims they were only partial full at the outset, however there is no evidence that this was the case and complained about at the time.
Having considered the submissions and evidence I find on the balance of probabilities that the claim is proven, and I make the award for the amount of $404.00 for the missing gas bottle and to refill the bottles. Key replacement and lock smith costs:
The landlord claims the cost of the replacement combination lock for the outside shed, and the costs to change of locks given the sleep out had a missing key and that there was one front door key missing. Whilst the tenant returned what he had, there were keys missing and the landlord had a right to change the locks to ensure the property would be secure. I accept the claim is therefore proven. Rubbish bags
The landlord is claiming for the costs of the four skips bags, total $130.25.
There is insufficient evidence to say that such bags were needed. There is no claim for clean up costs just the bags, I am not satisfied that this is proven, and the claim is dismissed.
This concludes all matters in relation to both parties’ applications.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356955 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356955 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

How much rent arrears are owing?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

How much rent arrears are owing?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions