What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5373021?

The tribunal order states: Mi Kyeong Kim must pay Christopher Henderson $1,900.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5373021?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373021?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13268480-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5373021?

The tribunal order states: Mi Kyeong Kim must pay Christopher Henderson $1,900.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5373021?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373021?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13268480-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

701A Beach Road, Rothesay Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5373021 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373021 — net $1,900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Deck cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning: Deck cleaning
Exemplary damages: Purporting to terminate tenancy		$2,100.00	Purporting to terminate tenancy
Total award	$200.00	$2,100.00
Net award		$1,900.00
Bond		$4,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,900.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373021 — net $1,900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Deck cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning: Deck cleaning
Exemplary damages: Purporting to terminate tenancy		$2,100.00	Purporting to terminate tenancy
Total award	$200.00	$2,100.00
Net award		$1,900.00
Bond		$4,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,900.00

Order

Mi Kyeong Kim must pay Christopher Henderson $1,900.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (BN-00044085) to Christopher Henderson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by the court appointed Korean language interpreter.
The landlord has applied for 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, exemplary damages in respect the fixed term agreement and compensation for moving costs. Background
The tenancy started on 13 February 2025 and ended on 24 September 2025.
The parties were subject to a fixed term tenancy agreement for two years from 13 February 2025.
The tenant resided there with his wife, 3 children and one large dog. The premises are approximately 22 years old.
The property manager was instructed on 23 July 2025.
I held a hearing with both parties present today. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Did the tenant breach his obligations at the end of the tenancy? If so, has the landlord proved a claim for compensation? b. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? c. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? Relevant law
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 60AA RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibility in respect of terminating a tenancy knowing that they are not entitled to do so.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Landlord application

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. Deck cleaning
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the deck reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a quote for $450.00 plus GST ($517.50) for water blasting the deck. The landlord says that they cleaned, and water blasted the deck. The landlord provided photographic evidence of the deck in support of their claim. The landlord confirmed that the photos were taken on 25 September 2025.
The tenant says that he cleaned the deck prior to moving out using his own water blaster.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the landlord I am satisfied that the deck was not left in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy. I find that it would be a reasonable expectation for the deck to be cleaned prior to new tenants moving into the premises.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for deck cleaning but award a reduced amount of $200.00 as fair compensation for the landlord’s time in respect of this.

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 landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: Carpet
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the carpet. They say that after the inspection they noticed damage to the carpet from dog urine. The landlord says that the carpet had to be replaced in certain areas. The total amount claimed including GST is $3657.00.
The landlord says that the carpet had to be replaced in the lounge, bedroom and the hallway. The carpet is approximately 10 years old.
The amount claimed is only a quote and has not been paid.
The landlord says that there were many areas of the carpet that had been damaged, both upstairs and downstairs. The landlord also says that they had their carpet tradesman attend prior to the tenancy to check on the carpet.
The tenant says that they had the carpet professionally cleaned the day before they moved out. The tenant says that the carpet was old and worn in areas. The tenant says that the house has since been rented without the quoted repairs. The tenant acknowledges some accidents with his young son but stressed that any damage was not intentional. Dog scratches
The landlord claims that the tenant’s dog damaged the entrance door, living room door and stairs.
The landlord claims the amount of $1437.50.
This amount claimed is a quote and has not been paid. Curtain damage
The landlord says that the curtain was ripped off. They say that it was a sheer curtain covering the dining room window by the deck.
The amount claimed is $650.00 and is only a quote.
The tenant disputes this claim. He says that he removed the curtain which had been damaged. He says that the curtain would blow in the wind and managed to catch on something. He says that he did not hide it from the landlord and only stored it in the garage, forgetting to mention it to the landlord.
The curtain was approximately 10 years old. Kitchen drawer
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the kitchen rubbish drawer. The landlord says that the frame and screws were pulled out of the cabinet frame.
The amount claimed is $230.00 which has been paid.
The landlord says that there was no problem with the drawer. The landlord says that when they looked at the kitchen drawer she did not understand how it was broken. They suggest that it would have needed some force to damage it.
The tenant says that this was loose at the start of the tenancy. He referred to the incoming inspection report which refers to a ‘loose drawer’. He says that he did not bring this to the landlord’s attention but rather stored it in the garage and went off and brought a new bin. He also stored the frame in the garage and used a plastic bin purchased from Mitre 10 as a replacement.
The tenant does not accept that he damaged the bin.
The landlord says that the amount claimed has been paid but has not provided a receipt of payment in support of this claim. Analysis
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the kitchen rubbish drawer, alleging that the tenant is responsible for the damage. However, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the tenant caused the damage during the tenancy.
Notably, the entry inspection report records that the drawer was already loose at the commencement of the tenancy.
In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating that the tenant caused or contributed to the damage beyond fair wear and tear, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven the claim to the required standard.
Accordingly, the claim is declined. Canopy
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the outdoor canopy by causing a crack in it. The canopy is approximately 10 years old. They suggest that the damage may have been caused by the tenant’s dog.
The amount claimed is $1955.00 and is only a quote.
The tenant does not accept this claim. He provided a video dated 12 April 2025 showing damage to the canopy. The tenant says that it is above railing height and would be impossible for his dog could have reached this.
The photographic evidence provided by the landlord clearly show signs of aging.
The amount claimed is a quote and has not been paid. Interior painting
The landlord claims that the tenant painted some areas of the house which was not done professionally.
The landlord says that the tenant painted the dining room and the hallway. They say that because it was not done professionally they will need to have it repainted.
The amount claimed is $2434.00 and is only a quote.
The landlord referred to photographs during the hearing. They say that the work done was not professional. They say that the interior painting should be in line with the original painting. The landlord says that they just want the original colour back again.
The tenant says that there was a painting agreement and approval for the colour used. He wanted to paint parts of the inside which were in line with their taste given that they were going to be there for two years. The landlord approved the tenant’s request for painting by email dated 12 June 2025.
The tenant is unsure what the landlord is claiming given that he had the job done by a professional. The first two coats were done by themselves and the final coat and touch up were undertaken by a professional painter.
The tenant believes that what he has done has improved the quality of the house. Sliding door stopper
The landlord says that the sliding door stopper was missing at the time the tenant moved out. The landlord is yet to have this replaced.
The amount claimed is only a quote and has not been paid.
The tenant has no idea about this claim. The tenant does not know anything about the missing door stopper. Analysis
The landlord seeks compensation for costs allegedly incurred as a result of the tenant’s actions. However, in support of the amounts claimed, the landlord has provided only quotes for the proposed work and has not produced any invoices or receipts confirming that these expenses have actually been paid.
The Tribunal requires evidence of actual loss or expenditure before compensation can be awarded.
In the absence of proof that the claimed amounts have been incurred, I am not satisfied that the landlord has suffered a compensable loss.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation is declined. Tenant application
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 4 July 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord a video showing a buckled dining room floor. The landlord then undertook an inspection of the premises on 19 July 2025.
The tenant says that the landlord emailed him on 31 July 2025 indicating that they have made the decision to terminate the fixed term tenancy agreement between ‘you and the landlord’. “Before landlord rented house to several different tenants, never happen like current bad situation, they worried the condition getting worse and they made decision to terminate current tenancy agreement between you and landlord”
On 8 August 2025 the property manager emailed the tenant again of their decision to terminate the fixed term tenancy. The email stated “Landlord replied me several emails after discussion with her husband, unfortunately, landlord quite worry about house condition getting worse and hard to communication with you directly etc, and landlord made decision to terminate current tenancy agreement, sorry about that, could you please let me know your decision?”
The tenant says that the landlord accused the tenant’s dog of committing damage to the premises. The termination email caused the tenant and his family significant stress. The tenant responded to the landlord by stating that they cannot unilaterally cancel a fixed term agreement.
The tenant says that their decision to terminate was based on the alleged damage by the tenant’s dog. The tenant reluctantly agreed on a date of 24 September 2025 to vacate. Analysis
Section 60AA makes it an unlawful act for a landlord to terminate, or to purport to terminate, a tenancy (including a fixed-term tenancy) without lawful grounds, except as permitted by the Act. The section is not limited to formal written notices; it also covers any communication or action by the landlord that would reasonably lead the tenant to believe the tenancy is being ended without proper grounds.
A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract for a set period. The core idea is to provide certainty for both parties that the tenancy will last for that duration. Consequently, neither the landlord nor the tenant can end a fixed term tenancy early simply by giving notice. An email from the landlord to the tenant where the landlord has decided to end the fixed term agreement is an attempt to do exactly that.
While I accept that the landlord eventually lodged a separate application with the Tribunal to cancel the fixed term the initial emails to the tenant were prior to the application being lodged. I also find that the only reason the landlord withdrew the application to cancel was due to the tenant reluctantly agreeing to end the tenancy early after pressure from the landlord. The landlord also failed to provide evidence that they had lodged a separate application with the Tribunal.
A communication “purports to be a notice if it represents itself as legally operative. The threshold is functional: would a reasonable tenant understand the landlord’s email of 31 July 2025 and 8 August 2025 to be a notice that legally ends the tenancy?
Accordingly, I find that the landlord’s emails are considered as purporting to terminate the tenancy, even though not in the form of a formal notice to terminate. Both formal and informal communications that attempt to end a tenancy without lawful grounds can breach section 60AA.
Having carefully considered the email evidence before me I am satisfied that the landlord’s emails purported to be a notice to unilaterally end the fixed term early. The landlord had no right to do this.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to all the circumstances I award exemplary damages of $2,100.00, being one third of the maximum penalty. Tenant claims for vacated compensation Moving expenses
The tenant says that he had to pay $2033.20 to move to a different address at the end of his tenancy. Carpet cleaning
The tenant decided to have the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant seeks reimbursement of $442.75. Professional cleaning
The tenant says that he wanted to leave the house in an immaculate condition as it was when he moved in.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of $770.50. Analysis
The tenant’s claim for vacated compensation must fail. Moving expenses are ordinary costs which are associated with any move from one tenancy address to another. Furthermore, a landlord is not liable for reimbursement in the event a tenant incurs expenses which are of a voluntary nature.
Similarly, cleaning costs voluntarily incurred by the tenant, without any requirement or direction from the landlord or the Tribunal, are not compensable.
In the absence of evidence that the landlord required the tenant to incur them, the tenant’s claim for reimbursement is declined.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for vacated compensation has not been established.
I make no order for reimbursement of the respective filing fees. Both parties lodged applications and therefore costs should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373021 — Exemplary damages at 701A Beach Road, Rothesay Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373021 — Exemplary damages at 701A Beach Road, Rothesay Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions