What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359003 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 5359003?

Cleaning: $569.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359003?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13565179-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359003 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 5359003?

Cleaning: $569.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359003?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13565179-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359003 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359003 — net $3,497.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/11/2025	$4,300.00	Rent arrears to 08/11/2025
Cleaning	$569.25	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,497.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,497.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,497.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 March 2026.
The tenancy was from 24 March 2018 until 8 November 2025. 5359003, 53593442
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for total compensation of $10,000.00 for the premises failing to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
I deal with the landlord’s application first. Landlord’s claims
The landlord sought for rent arrears of $4,300.00. The landlord provided rent records to prove the arrears. The tenant did not dispute this. Accordingly, this claim is granted.
The landlord also sought exit cleaning fees. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos from 11 November 2025 to prove how the premises was at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided an invoice for $569.25 from 28 November 2025 for the exit cleaning done. The exit cleaning included basic cleaning and carpet shampooing.
The tenant said that the premiss was left reasonably clean and that the photos provided by the landlord showed mould damage which was not simply a matter of cleaning. The tenant accepted that the stain on the carpet was from her child. The tenant had some help from others to clean the premises before she left. The tenant was unsure whether the state of the bathroom, kitchen, and the dining area was still the same as the 11 November 2025 photos at the end of the tenancy after she cleaned. The tenant had no photos to show the state of the premises that was taken later than the landlord’s photos from 11 November 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the premises was not left reasonably clean as per the photos provided by the landlord.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $569.25 for the exit cleaning.
That deals with the landlord’s claims. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the HHS. 5359003, 53593443
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 RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant claimed that during the seven years of her tenancy, the house consistently failed to meet the HHS. She claimed that the insulation was inadequate, the bathroom and the kitchen lacked extractor fans, there was no ground moisture barrier and there was poor drainage that led to persistent dampness. The tenant said that the gaps around windows and doors caused significant draughts making the home cold and uncomfortable.
The tenant claimed that these issues contributed to ongoing mould and moisture problems, which affected the health of the tenant’s family. She said that her daughter became seriously ill due to the damp environment.
The tenant sought $10,000.00 in compensation. The tenant said that this reflected the ongoing deterioration of the property over several years which significantly affected the tenant’s living conditions. The issues in the house required the tenant to run a dehumidifier and heater for extended periods resulting in higher power bills. These additional costs placed the tenant under financial hardship and the situation also caused emotional stress for her and her household.
To rebut the tenant’s HHS claim, the landlord from an HHS compliance report where the inspection done on 25 June 2025 found that the premises was HHS compliant. The legal deadline for HHS for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.
The tenant also raised issues with the roof leaking. The tenant said that every year all 3 bedrooms leaked. One of the family members of the landlord came and fixed it when it was raised by the tenant twice. In May 2024 when the roof got damaged by a cyclone, professional roofers came and had the roof fixed.
The landlord had provided invoices for $3,335.00 for roof maintenance from 11 May 2024, for $437.00 for gib board hole and crack fixing from 4 June 2025 and $305.48 for repair of the leaking water closet from 7 August 2025.
The tenant had never provided any notices in writing to the landlord to fix these leaks. There was no evidence of any “14-day notices” or the like to prove the seriousness of these issues. The photos of the containers proved that the roof having leaked at some point, but it does not prove the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises or the landlord’s failure to repair when it was raised by the tenant. 5359003, 53593444
The tenant provided photos of ceiling painting peeling, but the landlord said that was from the ceiling of the bathroom within the master bedroom where there was bound to be moisture when it was being used.
In June 2025, the tenant requested that the entire house be painted, carpet professionally cleaned and new furniture and curtains to be provided. When the owner of the premises, property manager and the beneficiary went to inspect the premises, they said that they were barefoot but that they did not feel any dampness. They checked around the house, ceiling, walls, curtains including the back side of the curtains. They did not see any signs of mould.
The tenant wanted some rent reduction from the landlord during the tenancy, but the negotiations were not successful. The landlord highlighted to the Tribunal that there had not been any rent increase during the entire tenancy and that the landlord waived the tenant’s water charges towards the latter part of the tenancy to help the tenant out.
I have seen the photos provided by the landlord. Despite the curtains being old, there was no signs of mould on them. That is very telling.
The other photos provided both parties did not show any obvious signs of mould or dampness.
On the balance of probabilities, I do not find that the tenant’s claims are proven.
Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s claims. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359003 — net $3,497.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/11/2025	$4,300.00	Rent arrears to 08/11/2025
Cleaning	$569.25	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,497.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,497.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,497.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 March 2026.
The tenancy was from 24 March 2018 until 8 November 2025. 5359003, 53593442
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for total compensation of $10,000.00 for the premises failing to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
I deal with the landlord’s application first. Landlord’s claims
The landlord sought for rent arrears of $4,300.00. The landlord provided rent records to prove the arrears. The tenant did not dispute this. Accordingly, this claim is granted.
The landlord also sought exit cleaning fees. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos from 11 November 2025 to prove how the premises was at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided an invoice for $569.25 from 28 November 2025 for the exit cleaning done. The exit cleaning included basic cleaning and carpet shampooing.
The tenant said that the premiss was left reasonably clean and that the photos provided by the landlord showed mould damage which was not simply a matter of cleaning. The tenant accepted that the stain on the carpet was from her child. The tenant had some help from others to clean the premises before she left. The tenant was unsure whether the state of the bathroom, kitchen, and the dining area was still the same as the 11 November 2025 photos at the end of the tenancy after she cleaned. The tenant had no photos to show the state of the premises that was taken later than the landlord’s photos from 11 November 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the premises was not left reasonably clean as per the photos provided by the landlord.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $569.25 for the exit cleaning.
That deals with the landlord’s claims. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the HHS. 5359003, 53593443
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 RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant claimed that during the seven years of her tenancy, the house consistently failed to meet the HHS. She claimed that the insulation was inadequate, the bathroom and the kitchen lacked extractor fans, there was no ground moisture barrier and there was poor drainage that led to persistent dampness. The tenant said that the gaps around windows and doors caused significant draughts making the home cold and uncomfortable.
The tenant claimed that these issues contributed to ongoing mould and moisture problems, which affected the health of the tenant’s family. She said that her daughter became seriously ill due to the damp environment.
The tenant sought $10,000.00 in compensation. The tenant said that this reflected the ongoing deterioration of the property over several years which significantly affected the tenant’s living conditions. The issues in the house required the tenant to run a dehumidifier and heater for extended periods resulting in higher power bills. These additional costs placed the tenant under financial hardship and the situation also caused emotional stress for her and her household.
To rebut the tenant’s HHS claim, the landlord from an HHS compliance report where the inspection done on 25 June 2025 found that the premises was HHS compliant. The legal deadline for HHS for this tenancy was 1 July 2025.
The tenant also raised issues with the roof leaking. The tenant said that every year all 3 bedrooms leaked. One of the family members of the landlord came and fixed it when it was raised by the tenant twice. In May 2024 when the roof got damaged by a cyclone, professional roofers came and had the roof fixed.
The landlord had provided invoices for $3,335.00 for roof maintenance from 11 May 2024, for $437.00 for gib board hole and crack fixing from 4 June 2025 and $305.48 for repair of the leaking water closet from 7 August 2025.
The tenant had never provided any notices in writing to the landlord to fix these leaks. There was no evidence of any “14-day notices” or the like to prove the seriousness of these issues. The photos of the containers proved that the roof having leaked at some point, but it does not prove the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises or the landlord’s failure to repair when it was raised by the tenant. 5359003, 53593444
The tenant provided photos of ceiling painting peeling, but the landlord said that was from the ceiling of the bathroom within the master bedroom where there was bound to be moisture when it was being used.
In June 2025, the tenant requested that the entire house be painted, carpet professionally cleaned and new furniture and curtains to be provided. When the owner of the premises, property manager and the beneficiary went to inspect the premises, they said that they were barefoot but that they did not feel any dampness. They checked around the house, ceiling, walls, curtains including the back side of the curtains. They did not see any signs of mould.
The tenant wanted some rent reduction from the landlord during the tenancy, but the negotiations were not successful. The landlord highlighted to the Tribunal that there had not been any rent increase during the entire tenancy and that the landlord waived the tenant’s water charges towards the latter part of the tenancy to help the tenant out.
I have seen the photos provided by the landlord. Despite the curtains being old, there was no signs of mould on them. That is very telling.
The other photos provided both parties did not show any obvious signs of mould or dampness.
On the balance of probabilities, I do not find that the tenant’s claims are proven.
Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s claims. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359003 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359003 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions