What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5382607 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5382607?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382607?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382607?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13584961-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5382607 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5382607?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382607?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382607?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13584961-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5382607 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5382607 — net $2,084.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.12.25	$2,285.71		Rent arrears to 17.12.25
Cleaning	$172.50		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$126.50		Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages: Failing to complete HH		$500.00	Failing to complete HH
Total award	$2,584.71	$500.00
Net award	$2,084.71
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,084.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5382607 — net $2,084.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.12.25	$2,285.71		Rent arrears to 17.12.25
Cleaning	$172.50		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$126.50		Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages: Failing to complete HH		$500.00	Failing to complete HH
Total award	$2,584.71	$500.00
Net award	$2,084.71
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,084.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,084.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,084.71 [The tenant/s]: $1,115.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and compensation for an alleged breach of landlord obligations during the tenancy.
The landlord cross applied seeking rent arrears and compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The premises consist of a two level, 4 bedroom and 3-bathroom house. The tenant resided at the premises with two flatmates.
The tenancy started on 28 February 2025 and ended on 17 December 2025. The tenant vacated the premises on 1 December 2025.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to determine are these:
Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?
Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Has the tenant breached her obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation? Statutory provisions
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
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 and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory notice? – section 54 RTA.
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. 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.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • 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: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Tenant application Did the landlord fail to complete the Healthy Homes compliance section of the tenancy agreement?
The tenant says that the landlord did not complete the HH compliance statement as part of the tenancy agreement. The tenant provided a copy of the tenancy agreement where the compliance statement appears to have been left blank.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: • That on, and after, the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by the Act.
And include any information prescribed by the regulations made under s138B(5) of the Act.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to complete the details of compliance with the healthy homes standards. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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 landlord responded by stating that the girl in the office did not complete this compliance statement as the tenant was in a hurry to get everything processed.
The landlord was unsure during the hearing whether this had been completed and stated that she would need to check with the office. The landlord received confirmation during the hearing that the compliance statement was completed later and sent to the tenant. The tenant maintains that she did not receive this. The landlord says that the HH compliance statement was sent to tenant on 19 July 2025, nearly 5 months after the start of the tenancy.
The tenant says she never received an updated copy of the tenancy agreement with the compliance statement completed.
I consider the landlord’s failure in this respect must be deliberate. There is a pre- formatted section in the tenancy agreement for them to complete and they have failed to do so, despite completing other portions of the agreement. The landlord is also a professional property manager which I find to be an aggravating feature.
I consider there is a public interest, and an interest in tenants specifically, in landlords turning their minds to the healthy homes requirements, and proactively confirming that rented premises are compliant. Tenants should not need to chase their landlords for compliance.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. In the circumstances, I award $500.00. Landlord failure to keep records
The tenant claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
The tenant says that she did not receive inspection reports from the inspections which were undertaken. The landlord undertook inspections 2 June 2025, 2 November 2025 and the exit inspection on 1 December 2025.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that on the first inspection there were no problems so did not forward any reports to the tenant. The second inspection they were advised by the tenant that there were problems with the house and that she did not want to live there anymore.
The landlord says that she emailed a copy of the exit inspection report to the tenant. The tenant confirmed this. The tenant says that not once did she ever say that she did not like the house and wanted to move out.
While routine inspections were carried out during the tenancy there is no statutory requirement under section 30 for a landlord to provide the tenant with a copy of the inspection report following each routine inspection.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim in respect of failing to keep records has not been established.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises during the tenancy. She states there was no moisture barrier. The tenant claims that approximately one third of the underfloor insulation was missing.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The landlord confirmed that a Healthy Homes assessment report was completed 28 June 2025. The landlord confirmed that the first report was completed 2 November 2021.
The tenant says that she had to live in a draughty home despite this report. The tenant also suggests that the HH assessment report prepared on 28 June 2025 was done by a company that does not exist, although has not provided her own independent report challenging this.
The landlord stated that she told the tenant that she was welcome to arrange her own assessment if she wanted to. The landlord says they paid for the second assessment report. They did not check if they were registered or not. The landlord says that they could not locate the first company who completed the first report. They wanted them to redo the assessment in 2025 which is why they went to this different company. They believe they engaged a professional company to undertake the assessment and prepare the report.
The tenant has failed to produce any evidence in support of this claim. At the very least the Tribunal would have expected evidence from an independence source confirming that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and actual evidence that the landlord failed to maintain the premises.
The claim has not been established and is dismissed.

Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

The tenant claims that the landlord verbally gave her notice that if she did not like the house then she can move out in 3 months’ time. This was a discussion which took place in the kitchen on 2 November. The tenant says that she confirmed with the landlord 3 times that she was making her move out in 3 months. The tenant says that the discussion was all verbal. The tenant says that it was after this that she received an email from the landlord stating that they would not renew the fixed term. The tenant says that this is a retaliatory eviction.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory under section 54 RTA the following matters must be satisfied a. The application must be made in time (within 28 working days of service of the notice); b. The 90-day notice must be a valid notice that complies with section 51 RTA; c. The onus is then on the tenant to prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See ss54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord says that they notify tenants 3 months in advance if they are not going to renew the fixed term. The landlord says that the tenant told her it was a dangerous house. She told the landlord that her last landlord got fined for not complying. The landlord says that she did not say those things. The landlord confirmed that the owner instructed them to not renew the fixed term.
The landlord says that the tenant moved out early. The tenant says that the landlord verbally stated that you have to move out in 3 months, but you can give me 3 weeks’ notice if you want to move out earlier. The landlord states that she did not say this.
The landlord says that a new tenant moved in on 18 December 2025 and provided a new tenancy agreement to confirm this which I sighted during the hearing and confirmed to this tenant.
The tenant’s claim is based on the landlord notifying the tenant of their intention to not renew the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
The landlord does not accept that the decision not to renew the fixed term tenancy amounts to a retaliatory notice within the meaning of the RTA.
The tenancy was fixed for a 12-month period from 28 February 2025 to 27 February 2026. The landlord’s notice to not renew the fixed term tenancy is a legitimate one under the RTA, with the landlord exercising their lawful right to allow the tenancy to conclude at the expiry of the fixed term. A notice advising the tenant that the fixed term will not be extended is not a retaliatory notice.
Under current law a landlord notifying a tenant that a fixed term tenancy will not continue at the end of the term is not the same as eviction in the usual sense – but it does mean that the tenant must leave when the fixed term expires. A non- renewal notice is simply the tenancy ending at the agreed expiry date under the fixed term agreement.
The claim has not been established and is dismissed. Tenant claim for compensation for stress
The tenant claims compensation for stress stating that it was a horrible time being evicted and being yelled at.
There is no evidence establishing the alleged conduct and any loss or compensable harm suffered by the tenant.
In the absence of objective evidence demonstrating that the landlord’s actions caused financial loss or other compensable damage, the claim for compensation for stress must be dismissed.
The tenant’s claim in respect of bond money and failing to provide a receipt for rent were withdrawn by the tenant during the hearing. Landlord application Rent arrears

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant vacated the premises on 1 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing until 17 December 2025, being the start date of a new tenancy.
The landlord claims rent arrears of $2285.71 for rent payable up until 17 December 2025 when a new tenant moved in. The tenant says that she was given a retaliatory notice and told to move out.
The tenant was subject to a 12-month fixed term tenancy. There is no evidence placed before the Tribunal which confirms the landlord was prepared to release the tenant from her financial obligations pursuant to this fixed term. The landlord also provided a copy of the new tenancy agreement confirming the start date of 18 December 2025 which I sighted during the hearing.
The claim for rent arrears is established and proven.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises (kitchen and bathroom) reasonably clean. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice for $172.50. The tenant says that she does not agree with the cleaning claim. The tenant says that she went to the property on 1 December 2025 and cleaned the property. The tenant says she cleaned the property fully and took photos as well. Lawns
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord provided photographs taken of the lawn and garden dated 1 December 2025. The tenant says she had someone mow the lawns and provided email evidence from the contractor that this took place on 24 November 2025. The landlord claims $126.50.
Having sighted the evidence provided by the landlord in support of these two claims I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The photographs clearly show that further cleaning was required.
I am also satisfied that the lawns required mowing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided invoices in support of the amounts claimed. The amounts claimed are entirely reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 says that the tenant damaged the upstairs bathroom floor.
The tenant says that the floor had some minor swelling and notified the landlord. The landlord responded by stating that the tenant should have advised her earlier.
The landlord filed an insurance claim and now claims $750.00, being the insurance excess.
The tenant says that she did not cause the damage. The landlord took a photo of the damage on 5 November 2025. They say that only half of the repairs have been done.
The tenant says that a plumber looked at it and confirmed that it was a leak behind a wall. The landlord sent two handymen to attend. They say that the tenant threw the tools out of the house.
The landlord has failed to provide any persuasive and reliable evidence which suggests on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for damage to the premises.
This claim has not been established and is dismissed. Landlord claim for break lease fee
The landlord claims the amount of $500.00 as compensation for petrol, office administration costs, reference checks and time in attendance. They have not provided an itemised expense claim for this. The landlord also claims a TradeMe fee of $538.14 to relist the premises.
The landlord says that they were forced to readvertise the property which, as a result, caused financial loss to them.
The landlord has not provided an itemised invoice listing the expenses incurred by the landlord as a result of the breach.
The RTA clearly provides as follows in respect of break lease fees: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
Because the landlord has not provided an itemised account the claim has not been established.
The claim for break lease fee compensation is dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord and tenant applied for a name suppression order. Both parties have had a degree of success with their applications and therefore I grant their requests for name suppression.
Because the parties have both had a degree of success I make no order reimbursing the application fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5382607 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5382607 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

How much is owed for rent?

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