What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365001 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications by both parties for compensation and exemplary damages are

How much money was awarded in case 5365001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365001?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13070879-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365001 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications by both parties for compensation and exemplary damages are

How much money was awarded in case 5365001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365001?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13070879-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Roy Crescent, Concord, Dunedin 9018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5365001 — Rent arrears

Order

The applications by both parties for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (5320983-003) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rescheduled hearing.
On 13/10/2025 the tenant applied for refund of the $1,440.00 bond, compensation of $5,400.00 and exemplary damages for breach of healthy homes standards.
In response on 2/12/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears of $3,920.00, compensation of $3,191.70, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
With the agreement of the parties at the hearing on 3/12/2025 the Tribunal referred the matters to mediation and the applications have now returned for hearing.
The tenancy began on 1/3/2013 and was for a fixed term, which was regularly renewed to end on 1/9/2025.
The weekly rent at the end of the tenancy was $560.00.
The remaining tenant vacated between 1/10 and 12/10/2025. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on each applicant to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether either has merit or not. Tenant case

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to comply with healthy homes standards, have the trees on the back of the property cut and allowing their son to operate a business out of several containers situated on the property over a number of years.
In her application the tenant submitted she was unhappy because neither bathroom had extractor fans, the kitchen rangehood was internally vented, underfloor insulation was not completed and gutters not cleaned causing excess water around the property.
The witness for the tenant confirmed when she had lived in the premises with her parents there were two different containers over a period of seven years.
During one of the periods the witness resided at the premises she suggested that she mowed around the containers and cut down one of the trees to allow access up steps.
In response, the landlord agreed that there were no extractor fans in the bathrooms or kitchen but thought they had until 1/7/2025 to install these. They submitted although a quote was obtained for this, they did not go ahead with the work due to the health issues of one tenant.
The landlord suggested insulation was not needed in the basement and what was there was in fact sound proofing, installed before 2013, which could not be completed due to the possessions of the tenant in the basement.
The landlord believed their son had liaised with the tenant about the trees because he was their agent for part of the time during the tenancy.
Further the landlord confirmed that there was a container on the property at the beginning of the tenancy until February 2018 and then another container was moved on in October 2021.
The landlord submitted that from 2017 the part of the section with the container was no longer part of the property and provided an agreement for sale and purchase to support their position.
In addition, the landlord suggested that his son largely took care of maintenance issues at the premises and worked to convert the containers with the agreement and assistance of one tenant.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I am not persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the landlord failed to maintain the property, in particular the trees and guttering or that the presence of the containers before 2017 was without the agreement of at least one tenant.
While the photograph provided by the tenant does show vegetation growing in part of the guttering, the photograph was taken at the end of the tenancy and there is no compelling evidence that the landlord was advised of the issue at any time during the tenancy.
The compensation claim for breach of section 45(1)(b) fails.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Breaching of 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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Under the SAI there are two different standards, depending on when the insulation was installed. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R- value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
Between 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2025, Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016 will cease to apply and will be replaced by the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The HHS require that the higher standards of R-2.9 and R-3.3 for ceiling insulation, and R-1.9 for underfloor insulation, apply to all rented premises. For private landlords, where the tenancy starts or is renewed after 1 July 2021, the higher standards apply 120 days after the commencement or renewal date. All tenancies must be compliant by 1 July 2025.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
As the tenancy was renewed on 21/6/2022 the compliance date for healthy homes standards was 90 days from the date of renewal, that was 19/9/2022.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to install bathroom and kitchen extractor fans.
However, the exemption does apply for the ceiling insulation in the basement.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to install extractor fans in the bathroom before the relevant compliance date. Landlord case

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $3,920.00, being $1,120.00 rent and 21 days $1,680.00 rent in lieu of notice.
In support of the claim the landlord provided bank statements and a letter setting out the amount they believed was owing.
As the tenant had not given 21 days notice to end the tenancy the landlord sought 21 days rent in lieu.
I am persuaded, just, that the tenant owed two weeks rent at the end of the tenancy.
The rent records and an support the payments were missed and the tenant was not two weeks in advance at the end of the tenancy.
However, I do not consider the landlord is entitled to a further 21 days rent.
While the tenant agreed she did not give notice, I accept her explanation that she believed the landlord had given notice for her tenancy to end on 1/10/2025, because they needed possession of the property to do work to make it ready for sale.
The email of 1/7/2025 from the landlord supports such an interpretation by the tenant because despite the fixed term ending on 1/9/2025 the email confirms that the fixed term would not be renewed after 1/10/2025.
The claim for rent arrears of $1,120.00 is successful but the claim for a further $1,680.00 fails.

Did the tenant comply with her 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.
Initially the landlord sought compensation of $3,191.70 for cleaning, section tidy, repairs and painting.
Subsequently at the hearing this was amended to $4,672.43 as follows: a. $1,236.25 for commercial cleaning, including oven and carpets, b. $352.00 for replacement locks, c. $784.18 for section clearing and green waste removal, d. $2,300.00 for labour.
In support of the claim the landlord provided some invoices and quotes and photographs taken in October and November 2025 and between 15 and 28 January 2026.
On the other hand, the tenant disputed that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, as did the witness who gave evidence about cleaning.
However, the witness agreed not all rubbish was removed from the basement and the downstairs bathroom had not been cleaned.
There is no dispute that the tenant did not return all the keys.
I am persuaded that some compensation is available to the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, section tidying and changing the locks.
However, much of the compensation sought, in particular the professional cleaning I consider is for work outside the scope of what would be expected of a tenant, such as cleaning windows outside, soft washing the side of the chimney and cleaning the gutters and spouting.
I consider an amount of $1,000.00 is reasonable for cleaning, replacement locks, section tidy and rubbish removal.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord sought compensation of $6,303.85 for repairs and painting of walls and doors.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a quote for materials and labour and extensive photographs taken in January 2026.
The witness confirmed her son was responsible for the hole in a bedroom door, but disputed liability for a hole in the floor of the wardrobe.
Unfortunately, the tenant left the hearing without making any comment about the issue of damages.
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.
Apart from the damage agreed to by the witness I am not persuaded the landlord has proved damage was caused during the tenancy after 27 August 2019, and if damage was caused after that date that it was as anything other than fair wear and tear.
The tenant occupied the premises, with other family members for twelve years.
The photographs provided by the landlord suggest much of the damage being claimed was possibly of long standing.
The only property inspection report provided by the landlord was attached to the tenancy agreement dated 14/5/2024 where the only issue raised was a bathroom socket “blowing bulbs”.
No quarterly inspection reports were provided, and the landlord confirmed the initial property inspection in 2013 was a “walk through”.
The photographs in support were taken three months after the tenancy ended.
Even had I considered the damaged proved the amount I could have awarded as compensation would have been minimal due to betterment and depreciation.
The claim for compensation for repairs and painting fails.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed an unlawful act by not complying with healthy homes standards I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In regard to the breach of healthy homes standards for the extractor fans, I consider the landlord did not intentionally commit an unlawful act, but rather did so first in the mistaken belief that they had until 1 July to install the fans and second out of respect for the personal issues being suffered by the tenant.
Further, as the breach occurred in September 2022, I am mindful of section 109(2)(b) which provides that a tenant may not apply for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Despite exemplary damages for the breach not being available, I consider an award of compensation is reasonable in the circumstances because the tenant has had to put up with the lack of extractor fans for several years.
In addition, I consider the laissez fair attitude of the landlord in administration of the tenancy contributed significantly to the dispute between the parties.
As both parties have been partly successful, rather than make similar awards against both parties, to resolve the dispute, I have dismissed both applications.
This means that the tenant is not liable for rent arrears or compensation nor the landlord for compensation.
Instead, I have refunded the bond in full to the tenant, because a bond is tenants’ money.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties have been partly successful, and the fees effectively cancel each other out.
Neither party sought suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365001 — Rent arrears at 3B Roy Crescent, Concord, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365001 — Rent arrears at 3B Roy Crescent, Concord, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions