How much money was awarded in case 5375076?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375076?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401944-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5375076?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375076?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401944-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375076 — Exemplary damages at 38A Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375076 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] the sum of $ immediately as calculated and

Decided 14 Jul 2026 · Published 14 Jul 2026 · Application 5375076

Exemplary damages

Order

[The landlord/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] the sum of $ immediately as calculated and set out below:
The tenant has sought a declaration that the premises are unlawful residential premises under s78A of the Residential tenancies Act 1986(RTA). After considering the evidence and the relevant legal requirements, I am not satisfied that the premises meet the definition of unlawful residential premises as set out in s 78 RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 11 November 2018 and ended on the 13th of November 2024. This is a landlord application and a tenant cross application.
The property is owned by Paki Investment Trust (PIT), Miss [The landlord/s] (“Nina”) appears at the hearing as a representative for her mother who is a trustee of PIT.
Nina resided in the upstairs unit and helped to manage the day-to-day running of both the rental unit and her property and was the point of contact for the tenant and the owner. Background:
The tenant filed her claim with Tenancy Services on 6 June 2025.
The landlord filed a counter claim on 27 October 2025 seeking compensation for repairs, cleaning, legal fees, and emotional harm. The tenant filed a number of claims in her application.
A case conference was held before the substance hearing of these applications, to clarify the actual claims.
These are the tenant issues identified at the case conference and considered at the substantive hearing. -Failure to lodge the bond (s19 RTA). -Failure to maintain the premises (s45 RTA). -Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (s45RTA) Heating/insulation/ventilation. -Unlawful residential premises (s36 RTA) -Unlawful rental increases (s24 RTA). -Breach of Quiet Enjoyment (s38 RTA). -Failure to notify successor to landlord (s15 RTA). -Exemplary damages for landlord breaches of the RTA. -Compensation for costs and rent refund. -Contribution towards her legal costs.
The tenants’ claims identified in their submissions exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. This was discussed at the case conference with the option of filing the claim in the District Court. The tenant has confirmed that she wishes to stay within the Tribunal and will amend her claim to represent the maximum available in the Tribunal of $100,000.00.
That landlords claim is for damages to a cook top, a broken heater, replacement carpets due to animal urine staining, missing queen size mattress and living room couch. The landlord seeks to be reimbursed for her legal fees and cleaning costs and seeks compensation for distress and emotional harm.
Prior to the hearing the landlord had also sought to be reimbursed for her travel costs to and from Europe to attend the Tribunal hearings. At the substantive hearing on 1 st April 2026 the landlord did not seek to claim those travel costs and therefore I dismiss any claims for travel costs.
The landlord advised that because of the extensive claims made by the tenant that she has engaged the services of experts in Healthy Homes Standards and from the Auckland City Council. The landlord seeks the costs relating to the expert’s preparation and attendance at the hearing be reimbursed by the landlord.
The second day of the substantive hearing was heard on 1 April 2026. I wish to apologise for the length of time this order has taken to complete. Start of the tenancy:
In 2018 the tenant answered an advertisement on trade me for this one-bedroom unit, situated in Mission Bay. During the first four years of the tenancy Nina lived next door to the tenant and the pair became friends. The law:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (in this case the tenant and the landlord), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant and respondent is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence...
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.
Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Unlawful residential premises:
The tenant claims that the unit was an unlawful residential premises and says there is no Certificate of Compliance nor council consent for this to be a lawful residential premises under the RTA.
Section 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the framework for determining and addressing claims of unlawful residential premises. Under section 78A (2), unlawful residential premises are defined as premises that are used for occupation as a place of residence but cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person—either generally or for the particular residential purpose for which the occupation is granted. This may occur, for example, where the premises do not have the required building or resource consents, or where the premises do not comply with relevant building, health, or safety requirements.
For a premises to be considered unlawful under section 78A (2), two elements must be satisfied: -The premises are used for occupation as a place of residence but cannot lawfully be occupied for that purpose; and -The landlord’s failure to comply with their obligations under section 36 or section 45(1)(c) (or, for boarding houses, section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c)) has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation.
If the Tribunal determines that the premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential premises, it has broad powers under section 78A (4) and (5). The Tribunal may: -Order the landlord to pay the tenant all or part of the rent paid for the period the premises were unlawful (section 78A(4)(a)). -Make work orders requiring the landlord to take steps to remove or rectify any impediment to lawful occupation, or to comply with building, health, or safety requirements (section 78A(4)(b)). -Decline to order the tenant to pay rent arrears or other sums to the landlord, unless it would be unjust not to do so, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter (section 78A (3)).
In summary, if a tenant claims the premises are unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal must consider whether the premises could lawfully be used for residential purposes and whether the landlord’s actions or omissions contributed to any unlawfulness. If the claim is upheld, the Tribunal may order a refund of rent, make work orders, or decline to enforce payment of rent arrears, depending on the circumstances and the justice of the case.
The tenant claims that her unit appears to be an unconsented conversion of a garage area into a habitable space. The tenant contacted the Auckland City Council (“ACC”) and received a reply on 21 October 2025 confirming that there were no records of consent being granted to convert the carport into a separate residential premises. Furthermore, that to do such a conversion required compliance with NZBC H1 Energy Efficiency R-Rating and a building consent.
The tenant claims that the Building Consents records for 38A Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay shows it was permitted for the construction of three townhouses, issued 30 October 1980.
The landlord claims that the enclosed carport formed part of the entrance and access area leading to the ground floor on unit 38A. The enclosure of the carport had been done before the landlord purchased the property and so she had nothing to do with the conversion of the structure.
The landlord engaged the services of Jonathan Cutler, a director and principal planner of Planning Initiatives Limited (“PIL”), to provide an expert opinion on whether this was a residential unit. Mr Cutler provided a report for the Tribunal hearing and attended in person as a witness.
The report dated 6 March 2026 sets out the scope of Mr Cutler’s instructions which were specifically to address the issue of whether the lower ground floor unit at 38 A Atkin Avenue, was a lawful self-contained residential unit under the Resource Management Act 1991, (“RMA”).
The conclusion of the report was that the ground floor unit constituted a lawful self-contained residential dwelling under the Auckland Unitary Plan and the RMA.
The planner also gave evidence that the conversion did not require building consent because the work involved a non-structural, non-weight-bearing partition, and that the unit was constructed in accordance with the standards that applied at the time. This evidence addresses compliance with the Building Act 2004 and supports the position that no additional consents were required for the conversation.
While compliance with the RMA and the Auckland Unitary plan is a significant aspect of lawfulness, the Tribunal must also consider whether the premises comply with all other legal requirements for residential occupation, including the Building Act 2004 and any relevant health and safety regulations.
In addition, the landlord provided a Healthy Homes Assessment report dated October 2025, which confirms that the unit is fully complaint with all Healthy Homes Standards. The assessment also confirms that the premises contain a fully separate kitchen, bathroom, and toilet, further supporting that the unit is suitable and lawfully configured for residential occupation.
In this case, the planners report, and the Healthy Homes assessment and the explanation regarding the building consent, together provide strong evidence that the premises are lawfully established and suitable for residential use.
Based on the evidence provided, including the planner’s report, the Healthy Homes assessment and oral evidence, I am satisfied that the carport conversion is a lawful residential unit.
The tenant seeks a declaration that the premises are unlawfully residential premises. On the basis of my findings, I consider there is insufficient evidence to establish that the premises could not lawfully be occupied for residential purposes or that they were in breach of relevant building, health, or safety requirements at the start or during the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenant’s application for a declaration is declined. For the same reasons I decline to award any rent refund.
The tenant resided at the property for 6 years and apart from requests for minor repairs did not raise any concerns about the lawfulness or suitability of the premises during the tenancy. As there is no basis for finding that the property was unlawful, there is no entitlement to a rent rebate. The tenant’s claim for a rent rebate is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not lodge the bond at any time during this tenancy. The landlord says that the tenant was initially unsure how long she intended to remain at the property and so the landlord held off lodging the bond. The landlord said at the conclusion of the tenancy she gave the tenant her bond back and so the tenant has suffered no loss.
Furthermore, the landlord says that the statute of limitations applies and therefore the tenant cannot claim.
For a landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, the relevant limitation period is set by RTA. Exemplary Damages for Failure to Lodge Bond under s 109(2)(a)(ii) of the RTA states that an application for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond must be made within 12 months after the termination of the tenancy.
In this case the tenancy ended on 13 November 2024 and the tenant application was filed on 8 June 2025, which means the RTA does apply and the tenant is able to make the claim.
The landlord has admitted to retaining the bond for the duration of the six-year tenancy, rather than lodging it with the Bond Centre as required by the RTA.
Under section 19 of the RTA, any bond received by a landlord in respect of a residential tenancy must be lodged with the chief executive (Bond Centre) within 23 working days of receipt. This is a fundamental obligation designed to protect both landlords and tenants.
Once a landlord receives a bond in relation to a residential tenancy, the statutory obligations under the RTA are triggered.
In summary, the landlord was required to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre under section 19 of the RTA. The failure to do so over a prolonged period, is a serious breach of the Act.
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.
The failure to lodge the bond is not a mere technical breach, but a substantive and ongoing contravention of the RTA.
Section 19(2) makes it clear that failure to comply with the bond lodgement requirements is an unlawful act, and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages in appropriate cases. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure transparency and security for tenants’ bond monies, and to prevent misuse or disputes over bond funds.
I am awarding the tenants $1000.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. Failure to maintain.
[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 the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
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.
The tenant says that there was a constant leak in the ceiling that was never repaired and a crack in the cement wall. The tenant conceded that the landlord sent a plumber to look into the ceiling leak. The plumber drilled a hole in the ceiling and said he could not see a leak and the landlord took the matter no further.
The landlord says that throughout the 6-year tenancy there were no disputes between the parties and any contact regarding repairs were dealt with promptly. The landlord provided a detailed summary of the maintenance carried out on the unit during the tenancy, which is set out below: -25 May 2021, resetting the internet. -3 June 2021 replacing a blown lightbulb. -30 August 2021 investigating a water leak. -11 March 2022 repair broken refrigerator -21 March 2022 inspected broken piece off bath. -7 April 2022 assisted with internet issue. -23 August 2022 washing machine repair. -20-26 September 2022 reattach bathroom cabinet door.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises as required by section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The specific issues raised by the tenant are: -A persistent leak in the ceiling, which experts were unable to find or resolve. -A crack in the cement internal wall that was never repaired, causing draughts. -Drips from the ceiling falling into her food while cooking.
The tenant says she verbally notified the landlord of these issues but does not have any written record or independent evidence of these conversations. She seeks compensation for stress and the effects on her health, which she attributes to the lack of maintenance.
The landlord’s position is that she fixed all issues she was aware of during the tenancy. She states that she did not know of some of the complaints now raised by the tenant and that the tenant never raised these issues during the tenancy.
The landlord notes that the tenant lived in the property for six and a half years and made no complaints that were not dealt with. The landlord also points out that it is in a landlord’s interest to maintain their property and that the tenant was under a duty to advise her of any defects or maintenance issues.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. If the tenant did not notify the landlord, the landlord cannot be held responsible for failing to repair issues she was unaware of.
The Tribunal must weigh the credibility of both parties. In the absence of written or independent evidence, it is difficult to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was notified of all the issues now raised.
The tenant states that experts were unable to resolve the leak. This suggests that, once aware of the issue, the landlord took reasonable steps to address it by engaging professionals.
Section 45 does not require the landlord to achieve a perfect outcome, but to take reasonable steps to maintain the premises once aware of a problem.
Compensation for stress or health effects is only awarded where there is clear evidence of a breach of the landlord’s obligations and a direct causal link to the harm suffered. In this case, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord failed to act on known maintenance issues or that any breach caused the harm claimed by the tenant.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached her obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord addressed all issues she was made aware of, and there is insufficient evidence that the tenant notified the landlord of the other issues during the tenancy. The claim for compensation for stress and health effects is declined, as there is no clear evidence of a breach or a direct link to the harm claimed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their 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).
In particular the tenant says that there was no heat pump, and no extractor fan in the kitchen. The tenant says as a result the lack of ventilation caused steam to travel up to the ceiling and drip water back into her food. Furthermore, she was required to open the doors because of the moisture which caused mould to develop. Furthermore, there were gaps in the flooring which allowed cold air to seep into the unit.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy homes Standards during the tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2018 and ended on 13 November 2024. There were no variations to the original tenancy agreement during the tenancy.
Under the RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, (“HHS”), the obligation for the landlords to comply with the HHS was phased in over time. For most private tenancies, the requirement to comply applied from 1July 2021 for new or renewed tenancies. However, for tenancies that began before 1 July 2021 and were not renewed or varied, the compliance date is 1 July 2025.
In this case, as the tenancy began before 1 July 2021 and there were no renewals, or variations, the landlord’s obligation to comply with the HHS would not have commenced until 1 July 2025. As this tenancy ended on 13 November 2024, before the compliance date, the landlord was not required to comply with the HHS during the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenants claim in this respect cannot succeed and I am dismissing the tenants’ claims relating to failure to comply with HHS. Failure to notify successor to the landlord:
The tenant claims there was a change of landlord during the tenancy and that she was not advised of who was the actual landlord.
The landlord provided a letter dated 31 March 2026 from ChambersCraigJarvis Lawyers, which confirm that Davenport City law, which merged with ChamberCraigJarvis in December 2021, created the Paki Investment Trust by way of deed of Trust. The trust owns the rental property at 38A Atkin Avenue. The landlord “Nina” was requested by the Trustee of the trust to manage the property.
Section 2 of the RTA defines "landlord" to include any person lawfully acting on behalf of the owner, such as an agent or trustee.
Section 15 of the RTA requires notification to the tenant if the landlord’s interest passes to another person, including the full name and contact address of the new landlord.
In this case, there was no change in the ownership or management of the property; the trust remained the landlord, and the same individual continued to act as the contact person. Therefore, there was no change of landlord under the meaning of the Act, and the requirements of section 15 were not triggered.
I am dismissing the tenants claim relating to the alleged change of landlord. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment:
The tenant claims that she had restrictions specified in the tenancy agreement that prevented her from having visitors or parties without the landlord’s consent.
S 38(2) of the RTA states that the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The right to quiet enjoyment means the tenant is entitled to use the premises in a reasonable way, including having visitors, provided this does not disturb others or breach other terms of the tenancy.
A blanket restriction preventing all visitors or parties without landlord consent is likely to be an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, unless there are specific, justified reasons (such as safety, security, or compliance with body corporate rules).
Reasonable restrictions (for example, limiting large gatherings or requiring notice for overnight guests) may be acceptable, especially in certain types of accommodation, but a total prohibition is generally not consistent with the RTA.
The Tribunal must consider whether the restriction is reasonable and justified in the circumstances of this tenancy. If not, it may be found to be an unlawful interference.
The landlord gave evidence of socialising with the tenant and her friends at the property. The landlord called witnesses who, amongst other things said they saw the tenant partying and socialising with friends on multiple occasions at the property. Witnesses gave evidence of the tenant’s boyfriend staying over at the property and unknown people coming to the unit to visit with the tenant.
The landlord claimed that there was no onerous restriction placed on the tenant and that she would regularly have visitors and socialise.
I do not consider that the tenant has provided evidence to support her claim that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment, and I am dismissing this claim. Unlawful rent Increase:
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully increased the rent on two occasions without providing the required 60 days’ written notice and seeks a refund of the increased rent and exemplary damages. The landlord says the rent remained at $1700 per month from 18 November 2018 to 2 May 2022, and that any increases were voluntary contributions by the tenant towards rising utilities, agreed between the tenant and a neighbouring tenant who shared utilities.
Under section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, any increase in rent must be notified in writing, specifying the amount and the date it becomes payable, and must give at least 60 days’ notice. The landlord cannot increase rent more than once in any 12-month period.
The evidence shows that the base rent of $1700 per month did not change during the tenancy. The additional payments ($30 per month from May 2022, and $90 per month from July 2023) were agreed between the tenant and a neighbouring tenant to cover increased utility costs, not as an increase in rent set by the landlord.
There is no evidence the landlord required or demanded these additional payments as rent, or that the landlord issued a notice of rent increase.
As the base rent did not change and the additional payments were voluntary contributions for utilities, there is no unlawful rent increase. There is no basis for a refund or for exemplary damages under section 24 or section 27 of the Act.
The tenant’s claim for a refund of increased rent and her claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires written notice for rent increases, but in this case, the payments in question were not increases in rent but voluntary contributions for utilities agreed between tenants. There is no evidence the landlord breached section 24. Additional compensation sought:
The tenant seeks to be refunded the sum of $375.00 for the cost of the LIM report and property file from the ACC. I consider this evidence was essential to the Tribunal and both parties have used the information in their submissions. It is reasonable that the landlord should paid for the cost of these documents as they were necessary for the landlord to obtain, and she had the benefit of the documents. Furthermore, the document related solely to the landlord’s property and other than these applications before the Tribunal, the tenant would have no need for this information. I am compensation the tenant for the cost of $375.00 for the LIM report.
The tenant seeks the reimbursement of a dog collar and an invoice from DataLab. I see no relevance for the dog collar and the DateLab invoice was obtained to find evidence to use against the landlord. This is a part of the costs incurred when parties take others to the Tribunal. The tenant should bear these costs.
The tenant in her submissions refers to the cost of $70.00 to remove a mattress from the property and $239.00 for a new mattress. I have considered the tenants claim for the removal of the mattress and replacement of a new one in paragraph 115 of this order. I have dismissed the tenants claims for the mattress. Landlord claims:

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 caused during the tenancy: -The carpet was stained and had to be replaced. -Kitchen cooktop - Mattress damaged -Damage to the sofa bed.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with photos of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices for the cost of the repairs.
The landlord claimed the tenant brought pets into the property, in breach of her tenancy agreement. The landlord says that the unauthorised pets caused urine stains to the carpet. The landlord claims that she engaged the services of a professional carpet cleaners who were unable to effectively remove the stains from the carpet. The landlord is claiming $12,289.00 for the cost of replacing the entire carpet in that unit.
I note that the landlord has provided an invoice dated 26 November 2024 for deep cleaning of carpet and general cleaning and an invoice dated 12 December 2024 for full replacement costs of the carpet and some tiles. The landlord has also provided photos of carpet and tiles. The photos do not clearly show any damage.
The landlord is seeking to claim $1142.84 for the replacement costs of the cook top in the kitchen. The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the cook top was found to be nonfunctional. Carpet and tile replacement:
The landlord claims the cost of replacing the carpet and tiles, alleging that the tenant allowed pets to urinate on the carpet, causing stains and odours that required replacement.
The tenant denies having any pets of her own in the property. She states that she would feed stray cats outside and that a neighbour’s dog visited on occasion, but she did not keep any pets in the unit.
The landlord says she has photographs showing the stains. However, the photos provided do not clearly show any stains or damage attributable to pet urine. The landlord also had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but states that the carpet still needed to be replaced due to the ongoing smell and staining. No independent reports or evidence have been provided to confirm the extent of the staining, the presence of pet urine, or that the tenant kept pets in the property, other than a single photo of a cat at the doorway.
There is insufficient evidence that the tenant kept pets in the property or that any damage to the carpet was caused by the tenant or by pets for which the tenant was responsible. The photographs provided do not clearly show the alleged staining or damage.
The landlord has not produced any independent report or evidence (such as a professional cleaner’s report or invoice noting irreparable damage) to support the claim that the carpet was so damaged it required replacement.
The carpet is at least 10 years old. According to the Tribunal’s depreciation guidelines, carpet of this age has little or no compensable value remaining.
The landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing the carpet and tiles is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused the alleged damage or that the carpet had any remaining value given its age. There is no evidence relating to damage to any tiles. Mattress and sofa bed:
The landlord claims that at the start of the tenancy she provided the tenant with a mattress that was in new condition and a sofa. At the end of the tenancy the landlord said the mattress was cut and damaged beyond fair wear and tear and had to be replaced. The landlord seeks to claim $199.00 for the cost of the new mattress she had to replace the damaged mattress with. The sofa that was part of the chattels at the start of the tenancy was missing, and the landlord seeks $700 to replace the sofa.
The tenant claimed that the mattress in the unit at the start of the tenancy was unusable as it was stained and unhygienic. She claims to have had to replace the mattress and disposed of that mattress. The tenant says that another mattress was purchased for the unit, and it was not damaged. The tenant says the sofa was badly stained and she replaced the sofa.
The landlord’s claim for $199.00 for the value of the mattress and $700.00 for the sofa are dismissed. There is insufficient evidence that the sofa and mattress had any significant value at the time it was disposed of, and the delay in raising the issue undermines the claim.
The tenant’s claim for $70 for dumping the mattress and $295 for the cost of the new mattress is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence regarding the circumstances of the disposal and replacement of these items. Furthermore, there are no invoices for the $70.00 dumping fee. Finally, there is no evidence provided by either party as to an agreement that the tenant would leave the sofa at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal may make orders under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including dismissing an application.
The burden of proof rests with the party making the claim. Neither party has provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. Depreciation must be considered for chattels such as mattresses and a sofa, and after 6.5 years, there is likely to have no significant value. The long delay and lack of contemporaneous complaint suggest neither party considered the matter significant at the time. Both the landlord’s and tenant’s claims regarding the mattress and sofa are dismissed.
The landlord has additional claims that she seeks compensation for, such as: -Legal costs. -Witness expenses. -Exemplary damages. -Compensation for stress. Legal costs/witness expenses:
Both parties have applied for legal costs. Section 102(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal generally has no power to award legal costs, except in the circumstances set out in section 102(2). Under section 102(2)(b), the Tribunal may award reasonable legal costs where a party was represented by counsel.
In this case, both parties were represented by counsel. The claims were substantial and complex, and the landlord’s overseas residence made legal representation particularly necessary. Both parties were entitled to seek legal representation in these circumstances.
However, the Tribunal’s discretion to award legal costs is not automatic. The Tribunal must consider whether it is reasonable and just to award costs in all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and the outcome of the proceedings. Given that both parties were represented, the claims were significant on both sides, I consider that it is appropriate for each party to bear their own legal costs. Witness Expenses
Witnesses attending under a summons are entitled to reasonable travelling allowances and expenses (Schedule of Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974; cl 13 Residential Tenancies Rules 2010).
These expenses are usually paid by the party who requested the witness, but the Tribunal may apportion or order the Crown to pay in some cases.
The landlord seeks compensation for witness expenses. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Schedule of Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974, a witness attending under a summons is entitled to reasonable travelling allowances and expenses. These are generally payable by the party who requested the witness.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimed witness expenses are reasonable and were incurred as part of the proceedings. However, the witness was called in response to a tenant claim that the unit was an unlawful residential premises. The tenant had been provided this information by ACC. I consider that the tenant was entitled to make this claim given the information supplied to her from the ACC.
If the landlord felt that the appropriate response to refute the claim was engaging the services of the planner, then that is on her. The evidence given by Mr Cutler was highly relevant to my decision on the issue of the property being a lawful residential premises.
Had there not been some genuine support for the tenant’s claim, I would have considered apportioning some of the costs to her. But that is not the situation that I am asked to consider.
Had the landlord not employed the services of the planner I consider that the outcome may have been very different and potentially open the landlord up for more liability than was warranted. Compensation for stress:
The landlord seeks compensation for emotional harm or stress arising from the tenant’s actions and the Tribunal proceedings. However, the RTA 1986 does not provide for general compensation for emotional distress or stress suffered by a landlord in the course of a tenancy dispute.
It is well established in Tribunal practice that the process of renting out a property and participating in Tribunal proceedings can be inherently stressful for both landlords and tenants. The statutory framework does not contemplate compensation for this type of stress, as it is a normal and expected part of resolving tenancy disputes. The Tribunal’s role is to determine disputes expeditiously and fairly, but not to compensate parties for the ordinary emotional impact of being involved in legal proceedings.
Accordingly, no order is made for compensation for emotional harm or stress. Cleaning costs:
The landlord seeks reimbursement for cleaning costs, providing an invoice dated 26 December 2024 for carpet cleaning and general house cleaning. However, the landlord has not provided any exit inspection report, photographs, or other evidence to show the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy or to demonstrate that the cleaning was required as a result of the tenant’s actions.
The onus is on the landlord to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and that the cleaning costs claimed were necessary. In the absence of supporting evidence such as an exit report or photographs, I am not satisfied that the landlord has met this burden of proof.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed due to lack of evidence. An observation:
The Tribunal recognises that parties are entitled to bring claims and have them heard. However, it is clear from the evidence, contained in excess of 2500 pages and multiple days of hearing time, and the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted that the claims before the Tribunal have not arisen from a genuine desire to resolve tenancy issues. Rather, these proceedings appear to be the product of a breakdown in a personal relationship between former friends.
Both parties have engaged legal representation, and the landlord has incurred significant costs travelling from overseas to attend the hearing. The level of compensation sought—$148,500.00—compared to the outcome of $1,375.00, further illustrates the lack of substance in most of these claims. The Tribunal is not a forum for settling personal grievances. Its purpose is to resolve genuine tenancy disputes fairly and expeditiously. Filing Fee
As neither party have been wholly or partly successful, I am not ordering the reimbursement of the filing fee under section 102(4).

Order

[The landlord/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] the sum of $ immediately as calculated and set out below:

The tenant has sought a declaration that the premises are unlawful residential premises under s78A of the Residential tenancies Act 1986(RTA). After considering the evidence and the relevant legal requirements, I am not satisfied that the premises meet the definition of unlawful residential premises as set out in s 78 RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This was a tenancy that commenced on 11 November 2018 and ended on the 13th of November 2024. This is a landlord application and a tenant cross application.

The property is owned by Paki Investment Trust (PIT), Miss [The landlord/s] (“Nina”) appears at the hearing as a representative for her mother who is a trustee of PIT.

Nina resided in the upstairs unit and helped to manage the day-to-day running of both the rental unit and her property and was the point of contact for the tenant and the owner. Background:

The tenant filed her claim with Tenancy Services on 6 June 2025.

The landlord filed a counter claim on 27 October 2025 seeking compensation for repairs, cleaning, legal fees, and emotional harm. The tenant filed a number of claims in her application.

A case conference was held before the substance hearing of these applications, to clarify the actual claims.

These are the tenant issues identified at the case conference and considered at the substantive hearing. -Failure to lodge the bond (s19 RTA). -Failure to maintain the premises (s45 RTA). -Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (s45RTA) Heating/insulation/ventilation. -Unlawful residential premises (s36 RTA) -Unlawful rental increases (s24 RTA). -Breach of Quiet Enjoyment (s38 RTA). -Failure to notify successor to landlord (s15 RTA). -Exemplary damages for landlord breaches of the RTA. -Compensation for costs and rent refund. -Contribution towards her legal costs.

The tenants’ claims identified in their submissions exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. This was discussed at the case conference with the option of filing the claim in the District Court. The tenant has confirmed that she wishes to stay within the Tribunal and will amend her claim to represent the maximum available in the Tribunal of $100,000.00.

That landlords claim is for damages to a cook top, a broken heater, replacement carpets due to animal urine staining, missing queen size mattress and living room couch. The landlord seeks to be reimbursed for her legal fees and cleaning costs and seeks compensation for distress and emotional harm.

Prior to the hearing the landlord had also sought to be reimbursed for her travel costs to and from Europe to attend the Tribunal hearings. At the substantive hearing on 1 st April 2026 the landlord did not seek to claim those travel costs and therefore I dismiss any claims for travel costs.

The landlord advised that because of the extensive claims made by the tenant that she has engaged the services of experts in Healthy Homes Standards and from the Auckland City Council. The landlord seeks the costs relating to the expert’s preparation and attendance at the hearing be reimbursed by the landlord.

The second day of the substantive hearing was heard on 1 April 2026. I wish to apologise for the length of time this order has taken to complete. Start of the tenancy:

In 2018 the tenant answered an advertisement on trade me for this one-bedroom unit, situated in Mission Bay. During the first four years of the tenancy Nina lived next door to the tenant and the pair became friends. The law:

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (in this case the tenant and the landlord), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant and respondent is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence...

In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.

Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.

Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Unlawful residential premises:

The tenant claims that the unit was an unlawful residential premises and says there is no Certificate of Compliance nor council consent for this to be a lawful residential premises under the RTA.

Section 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the framework for determining and addressing claims of unlawful residential premises. Under section 78A (2), unlawful residential premises are defined as premises that are used for occupation as a place of residence but cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person—either generally or for the particular residential purpose for which the occupation is granted. This may occur, for example, where the premises do not have the required building or resource consents, or where the premises do not comply with relevant building, health, or safety requirements.

For a premises to be considered unlawful under section 78A (2), two elements must be satisfied: -The premises are used for occupation as a place of residence but cannot lawfully be occupied for that purpose; and -The landlord’s failure to comply with their obligations under section 36 or section 45(1)(c) (or, for boarding houses, section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c)) has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation.

If the Tribunal determines that the premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential premises, it has broad powers under section 78A (4) and (5). The Tribunal may: -Order the landlord to pay the tenant all or part of the rent paid for the period the premises were unlawful (section 78A(4)(a)). -Make work orders requiring the landlord to take steps to remove or rectify any impediment to lawful occupation, or to comply with building, health, or safety requirements (section 78A(4)(b)). -Decline to order the tenant to pay rent arrears or other sums to the landlord, unless it would be unjust not to do so, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter (section 78A (3)).

In summary, if a tenant claims the premises are unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal must consider whether the premises could lawfully be used for residential purposes and whether the landlord’s actions or omissions contributed to any unlawfulness. If the claim is upheld, the Tribunal may order a refund of rent, make work orders, or decline to enforce payment of rent arrears, depending on the circumstances and the justice of the case.

The tenant claims that her unit appears to be an unconsented conversion of a garage area into a habitable space. The tenant contacted the Auckland City Council (“ACC”) and received a reply on 21 October 2025 confirming that there were no records of consent being granted to convert the carport into a separate residential premises. Furthermore, that to do such a conversion required compliance with NZBC H1 Energy Efficiency R-Rating and a building consent.

The tenant claims that the Building Consents records for 38A Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay shows it was permitted for the construction of three townhouses, issued 30 October 1980.

The landlord claims that the enclosed carport formed part of the entrance and access area leading to the ground floor on unit 38A. The enclosure of the carport had been done before the landlord purchased the property and so she had nothing to do with the conversion of the structure.

The landlord engaged the services of Jonathan Cutler, a director and principal planner of Planning Initiatives Limited (“PIL”), to provide an expert opinion on whether this was a residential unit. Mr Cutler provided a report for the Tribunal hearing and attended in person as a witness.

The report dated 6 March 2026 sets out the scope of Mr Cutler’s instructions which were specifically to address the issue of whether the lower ground floor unit at 38 A Atkin Avenue, was a lawful self-contained residential unit under the Resource Management Act 1991, (“RMA”).

The conclusion of the report was that the ground floor unit constituted a lawful self-contained residential dwelling under the Auckland Unitary Plan and the RMA.

The planner also gave evidence that the conversion did not require building consent because the work involved a non-structural, non-weight-bearing partition, and that the unit was constructed in accordance with the standards that applied at the time. This evidence addresses compliance with the Building Act 2004 and supports the position that no additional consents were required for the conversation.

While compliance with the RMA and the Auckland Unitary plan is a significant aspect of lawfulness, the Tribunal must also consider whether the premises comply with all other legal requirements for residential occupation, including the Building Act 2004 and any relevant health and safety regulations.

In addition, the landlord provided a Healthy Homes Assessment report dated October 2025, which confirms that the unit is fully complaint with all Healthy Homes Standards. The assessment also confirms that the premises contain a fully separate kitchen, bathroom, and toilet, further supporting that the unit is suitable and lawfully configured for residential occupation.

In this case, the planners report, and the Healthy Homes assessment and the explanation regarding the building consent, together provide strong evidence that the premises are lawfully established and suitable for residential use.

Based on the evidence provided, including the planner’s report, the Healthy Homes assessment and oral evidence, I am satisfied that the carport conversion is a lawful residential unit.

The tenant seeks a declaration that the premises are unlawfully residential premises. On the basis of my findings, I consider there is insufficient evidence to establish that the premises could not lawfully be occupied for residential purposes or that they were in breach of relevant building, health, or safety requirements at the start or during the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenant’s application for a declaration is declined. For the same reasons I decline to award any rent refund.

The tenant resided at the property for 6 years and apart from requests for minor repairs did not raise any concerns about the lawfulness or suitability of the premises during the tenancy. As there is no basis for finding that the property was unlawful, there is no entitlement to a rent rebate. The tenant’s claim for a rent rebate is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond:

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There is no dispute that the landlord did not lodge the bond at any time during this tenancy. The landlord says that the tenant was initially unsure how long she intended to remain at the property and so the landlord held off lodging the bond. The landlord said at the conclusion of the tenancy she gave the tenant her bond back and so the tenant has suffered no loss.

Furthermore, the landlord says that the statute of limitations applies and therefore the tenant cannot claim.

For a landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, the relevant limitation period is set by RTA. Exemplary Damages for Failure to Lodge Bond under s 109(2)(a)(ii) of the RTA states that an application for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond must be made within 12 months after the termination of the tenancy.

In this case the tenancy ended on 13 November 2024 and the tenant application was filed on 8 June 2025, which means the RTA does apply and the tenant is able to make the claim.

The landlord has admitted to retaining the bond for the duration of the six-year tenancy, rather than lodging it with the Bond Centre as required by the RTA.

Under section 19 of the RTA, any bond received by a landlord in respect of a residential tenancy must be lodged with the chief executive (Bond Centre) within 23 working days of receipt. This is a fundamental obligation designed to protect both landlords and tenants.

Once a landlord receives a bond in relation to a residential tenancy, the statutory obligations under the RTA are triggered.

In summary, the landlord was required to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre under section 19 of the RTA. The failure to do so over a prolonged period, is a serious breach of the Act.

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.

The failure to lodge the bond is not a mere technical breach, but a substantive and ongoing contravention of the RTA.

Section 19(2) makes it clear that failure to comply with the bond lodgement requirements is an unlawful act, and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages in appropriate cases. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure transparency and security for tenants’ bond monies, and to prevent misuse or disputes over bond funds.

I am awarding the tenants $1000.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. Failure to maintain.

[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 the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

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.

The tenant says that there was a constant leak in the ceiling that was never repaired and a crack in the cement wall. The tenant conceded that the landlord sent a plumber to look into the ceiling leak. The plumber drilled a hole in the ceiling and said he could not see a leak and the landlord took the matter no further.

The landlord says that throughout the 6-year tenancy there were no disputes between the parties and any contact regarding repairs were dealt with promptly. The landlord provided a detailed summary of the maintenance carried out on the unit during the tenancy, which is set out below: -25 May 2021, resetting the internet. -3 June 2021 replacing a blown lightbulb. -30 August 2021 investigating a water leak. -11 March 2022 repair broken refrigerator -21 March 2022 inspected broken piece off bath. -7 April 2022 assisted with internet issue. -23 August 2022 washing machine repair. -20-26 September 2022 reattach bathroom cabinet door.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises as required by section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The specific issues raised by the tenant are: -A persistent leak in the ceiling, which experts were unable to find or resolve. -A crack in the cement internal wall that was never repaired, causing draughts. -Drips from the ceiling falling into her food while cooking.

The tenant says she verbally notified the landlord of these issues but does not have any written record or independent evidence of these conversations. She seeks compensation for stress and the effects on her health, which she attributes to the lack of maintenance.

The landlord’s position is that she fixed all issues she was aware of during the tenancy. She states that she did not know of some of the complaints now raised by the tenant and that the tenant never raised these issues during the tenancy.

The landlord notes that the tenant lived in the property for six and a half years and made no complaints that were not dealt with. The landlord also points out that it is in a landlord’s interest to maintain their property and that the tenant was under a duty to advise her of any defects or maintenance issues.

Section 40(1)(d) of the Act requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. If the tenant did not notify the landlord, the landlord cannot be held responsible for failing to repair issues she was unaware of.

The Tribunal must weigh the credibility of both parties. In the absence of written or independent evidence, it is difficult to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was notified of all the issues now raised.

The tenant states that experts were unable to resolve the leak. This suggests that, once aware of the issue, the landlord took reasonable steps to address it by engaging professionals.

Section 45 does not require the landlord to achieve a perfect outcome, but to take reasonable steps to maintain the premises once aware of a problem.

Compensation for stress or health effects is only awarded where there is clear evidence of a breach of the landlord’s obligations and a direct causal link to the harm suffered. In this case, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord failed to act on known maintenance issues or that any breach caused the harm claimed by the tenant.

On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached her obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord addressed all issues she was made aware of, and there is insufficient evidence that the tenant notified the landlord of the other issues during the tenancy. The claim for compensation for stress and health effects is declined, as there is no clear evidence of a breach or a direct link to the harm claimed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards:

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their 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).

In particular the tenant says that there was no heat pump, and no extractor fan in the kitchen. The tenant says as a result the lack of ventilation caused steam to travel up to the ceiling and drip water back into her food. Furthermore, she was required to open the doors because of the moisture which caused mould to develop. Furthermore, there were gaps in the flooring which allowed cold air to seep into the unit.

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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy homes Standards during the tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2018 and ended on 13 November 2024. There were no variations to the original tenancy agreement during the tenancy.

Under the RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, (“HHS”), the obligation for the landlords to comply with the HHS was phased in over time. For most private tenancies, the requirement to comply applied from 1July 2021 for new or renewed tenancies. However, for tenancies that began before 1 July 2021 and were not renewed or varied, the compliance date is 1 July 2025.

In this case, as the tenancy began before 1 July 2021 and there were no renewals, or variations, the landlord’s obligation to comply with the HHS would not have commenced until 1 July 2025. As this tenancy ended on 13 November 2024, before the compliance date, the landlord was not required to comply with the HHS during the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenants claim in this respect cannot succeed and I am dismissing the tenants’ claims relating to failure to comply with HHS. Failure to notify successor to the landlord:

The tenant claims there was a change of landlord during the tenancy and that she was not advised of who was the actual landlord.

The landlord provided a letter dated 31 March 2026 from ChambersCraigJarvis Lawyers, which confirm that Davenport City law, which merged with ChamberCraigJarvis in December 2021, created the Paki Investment Trust by way of deed of Trust. The trust owns the rental property at 38A Atkin Avenue. The landlord “Nina” was requested by the Trustee of the trust to manage the property.

Section 2 of the RTA defines "landlord" to include any person lawfully acting on behalf of the owner, such as an agent or trustee.

Section 15 of the RTA requires notification to the tenant if the landlord’s interest passes to another person, including the full name and contact address of the new landlord.

In this case, there was no change in the ownership or management of the property; the trust remained the landlord, and the same individual continued to act as the contact person. Therefore, there was no change of landlord under the meaning of the Act, and the requirements of section 15 were not triggered.

I am dismissing the tenants claim relating to the alleged change of landlord. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment:

The tenant claims that she had restrictions specified in the tenancy agreement that prevented her from having visitors or parties without the landlord’s consent.

S 38(2) of the RTA states that the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.

The right to quiet enjoyment means the tenant is entitled to use the premises in a reasonable way, including having visitors, provided this does not disturb others or breach other terms of the tenancy.

A blanket restriction preventing all visitors or parties without landlord consent is likely to be an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, unless there are specific, justified reasons (such as safety, security, or compliance with body corporate rules).

Reasonable restrictions (for example, limiting large gatherings or requiring notice for overnight guests) may be acceptable, especially in certain types of accommodation, but a total prohibition is generally not consistent with the RTA.

The Tribunal must consider whether the restriction is reasonable and justified in the circumstances of this tenancy. If not, it may be found to be an unlawful interference.

The landlord gave evidence of socialising with the tenant and her friends at the property. The landlord called witnesses who, amongst other things said they saw the tenant partying and socialising with friends on multiple occasions at the property. Witnesses gave evidence of the tenant’s boyfriend staying over at the property and unknown people coming to the unit to visit with the tenant.

The landlord claimed that there was no onerous restriction placed on the tenant and that she would regularly have visitors and socialise.

I do not consider that the tenant has provided evidence to support her claim that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment, and I am dismissing this claim. Unlawful rent Increase:

The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully increased the rent on two occasions without providing the required 60 days’ written notice and seeks a refund of the increased rent and exemplary damages. The landlord says the rent remained at $1700 per month from 18 November 2018 to 2 May 2022, and that any increases were voluntary contributions by the tenant towards rising utilities, agreed between the tenant and a neighbouring tenant who shared utilities.

Under section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, any increase in rent must be notified in writing, specifying the amount and the date it becomes payable, and must give at least 60 days’ notice. The landlord cannot increase rent more than once in any 12-month period.

The evidence shows that the base rent of $1700 per month did not change during the tenancy. The additional payments ($30 per month from May 2022, and $90 per month from July 2023) were agreed between the tenant and a neighbouring tenant to cover increased utility costs, not as an increase in rent set by the landlord.

There is no evidence the landlord required or demanded these additional payments as rent, or that the landlord issued a notice of rent increase.

As the base rent did not change and the additional payments were voluntary contributions for utilities, there is no unlawful rent increase. There is no basis for a refund or for exemplary damages under section 24 or section 27 of the Act.

The tenant’s claim for a refund of increased rent and her claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires written notice for rent increases, but in this case, the payments in question were not increases in rent but voluntary contributions for utilities agreed between tenants. There is no evidence the landlord breached section 24. Additional compensation sought:

The tenant seeks to be refunded the sum of $375.00 for the cost of the LIM report and property file from the ACC. I consider this evidence was essential to the Tribunal and both parties have used the information in their submissions. It is reasonable that the landlord should paid for the cost of these documents as they were necessary for the landlord to obtain, and she had the benefit of the documents. Furthermore, the document related solely to the landlord’s property and other than these applications before the Tribunal, the tenant would have no need for this information. I am compensation the tenant for the cost of $375.00 for the LIM report.

The tenant seeks the reimbursement of a dog collar and an invoice from DataLab. I see no relevance for the dog collar and the DateLab invoice was obtained to find evidence to use against the landlord. This is a part of the costs incurred when parties take others to the Tribunal. The tenant should bear these costs.

The tenant in her submissions refers to the cost of $70.00 to remove a mattress from the property and $239.00 for a new mattress. I have considered the tenants claim for the removal of the mattress and replacement of a new one in paragraph 115 of this order. I have dismissed the tenants claims for the mattress. Landlord claims:

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 caused during the tenancy: -The carpet was stained and had to be replaced. -Kitchen cooktop - Mattress damaged -Damage to the sofa bed.

The landlord has provided the Tribunal with photos of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices for the cost of the repairs.

The landlord claimed the tenant brought pets into the property, in breach of her tenancy agreement. The landlord says that the unauthorised pets caused urine stains to the carpet. The landlord claims that she engaged the services of a professional carpet cleaners who were unable to effectively remove the stains from the carpet. The landlord is claiming $12,289.00 for the cost of replacing the entire carpet in that unit.

I note that the landlord has provided an invoice dated 26 November 2024 for deep cleaning of carpet and general cleaning and an invoice dated 12 December 2024 for full replacement costs of the carpet and some tiles. The landlord has also provided photos of carpet and tiles. The photos do not clearly show any damage.

The landlord is seeking to claim $1142.84 for the replacement costs of the cook top in the kitchen. The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the cook top was found to be nonfunctional. Carpet and tile replacement:

The landlord claims the cost of replacing the carpet and tiles, alleging that the tenant allowed pets to urinate on the carpet, causing stains and odours that required replacement.

The tenant denies having any pets of her own in the property. She states that she would feed stray cats outside and that a neighbour’s dog visited on occasion, but she did not keep any pets in the unit.

The landlord says she has photographs showing the stains. However, the photos provided do not clearly show any stains or damage attributable to pet urine. The landlord also had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but states that the carpet still needed to be replaced due to the ongoing smell and staining. No independent reports or evidence have been provided to confirm the extent of the staining, the presence of pet urine, or that the tenant kept pets in the property, other than a single photo of a cat at the doorway.

There is insufficient evidence that the tenant kept pets in the property or that any damage to the carpet was caused by the tenant or by pets for which the tenant was responsible. The photographs provided do not clearly show the alleged staining or damage.

The landlord has not produced any independent report or evidence (such as a professional cleaner’s report or invoice noting irreparable damage) to support the claim that the carpet was so damaged it required replacement.

The carpet is at least 10 years old. According to the Tribunal’s depreciation guidelines, carpet of this age has little or no compensable value remaining.

The landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing the carpet and tiles is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused the alleged damage or that the carpet had any remaining value given its age. There is no evidence relating to damage to any tiles. Mattress and sofa bed:

The landlord claims that at the start of the tenancy she provided the tenant with a mattress that was in new condition and a sofa. At the end of the tenancy the landlord said the mattress was cut and damaged beyond fair wear and tear and had to be replaced. The landlord seeks to claim $199.00 for the cost of the new mattress she had to replace the damaged mattress with. The sofa that was part of the chattels at the start of the tenancy was missing, and the landlord seeks $700 to replace the sofa.

The tenant claimed that the mattress in the unit at the start of the tenancy was unusable as it was stained and unhygienic. She claims to have had to replace the mattress and disposed of that mattress. The tenant says that another mattress was purchased for the unit, and it was not damaged. The tenant says the sofa was badly stained and she replaced the sofa.

The landlord’s claim for $199.00 for the value of the mattress and $700.00 for the sofa are dismissed. There is insufficient evidence that the sofa and mattress had any significant value at the time it was disposed of, and the delay in raising the issue undermines the claim.

The tenant’s claim for $70 for dumping the mattress and $295 for the cost of the new mattress is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence regarding the circumstances of the disposal and replacement of these items. Furthermore, there are no invoices for the $70.00 dumping fee. Finally, there is no evidence provided by either party as to an agreement that the tenant would leave the sofa at the end of the tenancy.

The Tribunal may make orders under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including dismissing an application.

The burden of proof rests with the party making the claim. Neither party has provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. Depreciation must be considered for chattels such as mattresses and a sofa, and after 6.5 years, there is likely to have no significant value. The long delay and lack of contemporaneous complaint suggest neither party considered the matter significant at the time. Both the landlord’s and tenant’s claims regarding the mattress and sofa are dismissed.

The landlord has additional claims that she seeks compensation for, such as: -Legal costs. -Witness expenses. -Exemplary damages. -Compensation for stress. Legal costs/witness expenses:

Both parties have applied for legal costs. Section 102(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal generally has no power to award legal costs, except in the circumstances set out in section 102(2). Under section 102(2)(b), the Tribunal may award reasonable legal costs where a party was represented by counsel.

In this case, both parties were represented by counsel. The claims were substantial and complex, and the landlord’s overseas residence made legal representation particularly necessary. Both parties were entitled to seek legal representation in these circumstances.

However, the Tribunal’s discretion to award legal costs is not automatic. The Tribunal must consider whether it is reasonable and just to award costs in all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and the outcome of the proceedings. Given that both parties were represented, the claims were significant on both sides, I consider that it is appropriate for each party to bear their own legal costs. Witness Expenses

Witnesses attending under a summons are entitled to reasonable travelling allowances and expenses (Schedule of Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974; cl 13 Residential Tenancies Rules 2010).

These expenses are usually paid by the party who requested the witness, but the Tribunal may apportion or order the Crown to pay in some cases.

The landlord seeks compensation for witness expenses. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Schedule of Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974, a witness attending under a summons is entitled to reasonable travelling allowances and expenses. These are generally payable by the party who requested the witness.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimed witness expenses are reasonable and were incurred as part of the proceedings. However, the witness was called in response to a tenant claim that the unit was an unlawful residential premises. The tenant had been provided this information by ACC. I consider that the tenant was entitled to make this claim given the information supplied to her from the ACC.

If the landlord felt that the appropriate response to refute the claim was engaging the services of the planner, then that is on her. The evidence given by Mr Cutler was highly relevant to my decision on the issue of the property being a lawful residential premises.

Had there not been some genuine support for the tenant’s claim, I would have considered apportioning some of the costs to her. But that is not the situation that I am asked to consider.

Had the landlord not employed the services of the planner I consider that the outcome may have been very different and potentially open the landlord up for more liability than was warranted. Compensation for stress:

The landlord seeks compensation for emotional harm or stress arising from the tenant’s actions and the Tribunal proceedings. However, the RTA 1986 does not provide for general compensation for emotional distress or stress suffered by a landlord in the course of a tenancy dispute.

It is well established in Tribunal practice that the process of renting out a property and participating in Tribunal proceedings can be inherently stressful for both landlords and tenants. The statutory framework does not contemplate compensation for this type of stress, as it is a normal and expected part of resolving tenancy disputes. The Tribunal’s role is to determine disputes expeditiously and fairly, but not to compensate parties for the ordinary emotional impact of being involved in legal proceedings.

Accordingly, no order is made for compensation for emotional harm or stress. Cleaning costs:

The landlord seeks reimbursement for cleaning costs, providing an invoice dated 26 December 2024 for carpet cleaning and general house cleaning. However, the landlord has not provided any exit inspection report, photographs, or other evidence to show the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy or to demonstrate that the cleaning was required as a result of the tenant’s actions.

The onus is on the landlord to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and that the cleaning costs claimed were necessary. In the absence of supporting evidence such as an exit report or photographs, I am not satisfied that the landlord has met this burden of proof.

The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed due to lack of evidence. An observation:

The Tribunal recognises that parties are entitled to bring claims and have them heard. However, it is clear from the evidence, contained in excess of 2500 pages and multiple days of hearing time, and the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted that the claims before the Tribunal have not arisen from a genuine desire to resolve tenancy issues. Rather, these proceedings appear to be the product of a breakdown in a personal relationship between former friends.

Both parties have engaged legal representation, and the landlord has incurred significant costs travelling from overseas to attend the hearing. The level of compensation sought—$148,500.00—compared to the outcome of $1,375.00, further illustrates the lack of substance in most of these claims. The Tribunal is not a forum for settling personal grievances. Its purpose is to resolve genuine tenancy disputes fairly and expeditiously. Filing Fee

As neither party have been wholly or partly successful, I am not ordering the reimbursement of the filing fee under section 102(4).