What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384822 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made.

How much money was awarded in case 5384822?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Interfering with power…: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384822?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609576-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384822 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made.

How much money was awarded in case 5384822?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Interfering with power…: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384822?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609576-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Mohua Street, Waikanae 5036 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384822 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384822. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Interfering with power and Wi-Fi	$600.00		Interfering with power and Wi-Fi
Carpet Cleaning: Mould on bedroom carpet		$600.00	Carpet Cleaning: Mould on bedroom carpet
Total award	$600.00	$600.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384822. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Interfering with power and Wi-Fi	$600.00		Interfering with power and Wi-Fi
Carpet Cleaning: Mould on bedroom carpet		$600.00	Carpet Cleaning: Mould on bedroom carpet
Total award	$600.00	$600.00

Order

No suppression orders are made.
Each party is awarded $600 as shown in the table below with the effect that each award sets off the other and neither party owes the other.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (BN-00147454) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Punjabi interpreter also assisted the tenants. Claims
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and: a. Compensation and/or exemplary damages for unlawful entry (including unlawfully turning off power/Wi-Fi; b. Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment; c. Compensation for removing portable induction cooktop; d. Compensation for missing belongings.
The landlord has applied for compensation out of the bond for: a. Cleaning mould; b. Plumbing repairs; c. Replacing damaged sink cabinet; d. Replacing missing induction cooktop. Why additional claims cannot be heard
The matters were heard over the course of two hearings on 21 January and 15 April 2026. The first hearing proceeded as a case conference. Case conference orders were made recording the claims each party advised they were pursuing as above. The orders also directed the parties to email any additional documentary evidence to the Tribunal and the other party by 4 February 2026. An email address for Porirua Registry was given for that purpose.
It was brought to my attention during the hearing on 15 April 2026 that the tenants sent information to Porirua Registry on 2 February 2025. However, this had not been added to the file. The email was retrieved during the hearing. What it shows is that the tenants forwarded an email between themselves dated 2 February 2026 at 12.04am to the Porirua Registry on 2 February at 3.13pm. The subject line of the email sent to the registry simply reads: “Fwd: application additional.” There is no reference to the application number on this email nor any covering note. The body of the email between the tenants is headed: “Tenant Statement for Hearing.” The email is reasonably lengthy. It is not in fact just a “statement” and it raises additional new claims against the landlord. The new claims mentioned are: Unlawful termination of the tenancy; Altering the tenancy agreement; Failing to provide a bond receipt; Failure to provide a Healthy Home; Unfair electricity billing.
As I explained at the hearing, none of these claims were mentioned at the case conference. Furthermore, the tenants did not file a proper amended claim with Tenancy Services. The document they filed did not identify the application number and was not sent to the landlord. Therefore, neither the Tribunal nor the landlord was made aware of these additional claims.
It is important that a party coming to the Tribunal is fully and informed of the claims they are facing. Fresh claims cannot be added at the last minute or raised in passing in evidence/emails produced for the hearing. Therefore, I cannot consider these additional claims against the landlords.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
I set out the background to the tenancy and then deal with each party’s claims. Background
The landlords, the tenants and their families were occupying the same house. The landlords occupied the first floor, comprising of a kitchen/dining area, lounge, 2 bathrooms, a laundry and 4 bedrooms. Entry is gained to the first floor via a stairway from the front door on the ground floor.
The tenants occupied the ground floor to the left of the front door entry. To the right of the front door is the garage. The ground floor flat comprised of a lounge with kitchenette, and a bedroom with en-suite bathroom. The landlord supplied a portable induction cooktop for the kitchenette and a storage cupboard. There was room for the tenant’s fridge. There was no stove and no kitchen sink. At the front of the house outside, there was a porch area with a plastic cover above it with a tap/sink and a water heater unit. The tenants placed their washing machine and dryer in this area.
The tenants rented the ground floor part of the house including the outside porch area, excluding the garage). The parties signed a standard form residential tenancy agreement.
The landlords maintain that the tenants were entitled to share the use of the upstairs kitchen with the landlords, but they chose to use the kitchenette and wash their dishes in the front porch sink. The tenants deny this was the case and say they were only allowed to use the ground floor, not the upstairs kitchen.
A landlord is required to provide a sink and means of cooking by boiling and baking. 1 So, to meet that requirement here, they would have to allow the tenants to use the upstairs kitchen. There is a dispute between the parties about the tenants’ right to use the upstairs kitchen. However, that is not an issue that was raised by the tenants for me to determine.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenancy started on 5 July 2025 for a fixed term expiring on 5 January 2026. The tenants says that the agreement has been altered by the landlord and the fixed term was to run until 5 July 2026. However, again this is not an issue that was raised by the tenants in their application. Therefore, I cannot determine it.
The landlord gave a notice not to renew the tenancy so that it terminated on 5 January 2026. Despite the tenants’ argument that the fixed term was longer and the termination notice was unlawful (which I also cannot determine in these proceedings) they vacated the premises on 20 January 2026.
Prior to the tenancy ending, the tenants were overseas, leaving New Zealand on 2 November 2025 and returning on 17 January 2026.

Have the landlords entered the premises unlawfully?

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs and maintenance. 2
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 3
The landlords sent the tenants a 48-hour notice 4 to inspect the premises on 5 November 2025. The tenants replied that they were away, having travelled to India on 2 November. The landlords advised the tenants that they not need to be present for the inspection and the landlords would report back to the tenants once the inspection was completed.
The landlords conducted the inspection and advised the tenants by email on 6 November of issues with mould growing on the bedroom carpet next to the bathroom; fungus growing on the bathroom walls, living room and window; the bathroom floor flooded with water; and a broken cabinet door in the porch area. They provided photos showing the issues. 1 Regulation 7(2) Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 states that every kitchen or kitchenette must have: (a) an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water; and (b) adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking. 2 Section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 3 Section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A 4 Inspections require 48 hour notice under s48(2)(b) RTA
The tenants complain that the landlord had entered the premises in their absence and dispute the maintenance issues. The tenants also became aware that the security camera they had set up in the lounge had been turned off by the landlord. They say it was turned off on or about 2 November but did not provide any supporting evidence of the time it ceased operating. The tenants claim that the inspection in their absence and the security camera being turned off both amount to unlawful entry for an unlawful purpose.
The tenants also claim that the landlords entering the premises again after the inspection to clean the house was unlawful.
The landlords provided evidence that they gave proper notice before entering the premises on 5 November.
The landlords say that they did not know a security camera had been set up in the lounge and they did not touch it.
The landlords were aware that the tenants intended to go overseas but did not know when. They claim that the parties previously agreed that the tenants would not pay for power and internet while away. Based on that agreement, the landlords disconnected the power on 5 November and the Wi-Fi on 8 November, which automatically disconnected the cameras.
There were email communications between the parties after the inspection in which they essentially traded accusations about what had happened. The landlord asked for permission to enter the property on 8 November to clean the mould and to turn on the bathroom fan to dry out the bathroom. The tenants agreed subject to a friend coming to represent them at the property and they requested that entry only be in her presence. The landlords suggested they meet at 1pm, but no one turned up at the agreed time. The landlord provided evidence of two people entering the premises on earlier in the morning on 8 November. By email dated 11 November, the landlord requested the tenants take steps to address the mould as soon as possible but did not receive any response.
Subsequently, the landlords emailed the tenants on 14 November to advise that a contractor was coming that day and maybe again the next week to address the mould. There was no evidence presented of any further response from the tenants. Discussion and findings
The inspection on 5 November was conducted after a proper 48-hour notice was given by the landlords. While the tenants advised the landlord that they were away, they did not object to the landlord’s email advising that the tenants did not need to be present, and that the inspection would proceed. It is not an unlawful entry.
In relation to the cleaning work done by the landlord on 14 November, arguably the entry was for the purpose of conducting necessary maintenance of, the premises, which means that the landlord was required to give to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry. 5 The cleaning was arranged with less than 24 hours’ notice. This is an unlawful entry and an unlawful act.
The tenant seeks an award of compensation and/or exemplary damages. I find no basis for compensation as it is difficult to see that the tenants suffered a loss because of the unlawful entry. Exemplary damages are the appropriate remedy. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 6 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act intentionally. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the following factors 7 : a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
A landlord cannot generally plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly 5 Section 48(2)(d) RTA 6 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 7 Section 109(3) RTA seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
In this case, I am satisfied that the landlords’ actions in giving less than the required notice for entry to the premises were intentional. However, I consider the breach is at the lower end of the scale. I accept that the landlords were concerned to mitigate the effects of mould present at the premises, and in circumstances where they knew the tenants were away for almost 3 months and the premises were closed-up. An attempt to meet up with a representative acting for the tenants on 8 November to inspect the bathroom did not eventuate so the landlords remained concerned that the mould issue would get worse. They also did not hear from the tenants about any proposal for addressing the mould.
In the circumstances, I consider that the breach was minor, and an award of exemplary damages is not justified. The claim is dismissed.
I deal with the disconnection of the power, Wi-Fi and the security camera as a separate issue below. Disconnection is not an unlawful entry but may be unlawful interference with a service which is a separate breach under the RTA.

Have the landlords interfered with services to the premises?

A landlord must not interfere with the supply of, electricity, telephone or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. 8 .
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 9
Electricity to the premises was not separately metered but power to the ground floor areas could be turned off at the fuse box for the building. The landlord confirmed that they turned off power at the fuse box and turned off Wi-Fi to the 8 Section 45(2) RTA 9 Section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA premises. The landlords said that the parties had reached a verbal agreement earlier in the tenancy, that when the tenants went overseas for an extended holiday, they would not pay for power. So, when they realised that the tenants had left for their holiday, they disconnected the power and Wi-Fi based on this agreement.
When asked why they did not check with the tenants before disconnecting the power, they said that they did not think that was necessary. They also say that had the tenants told them they wanted the power left on, they would have left it on and charged them for it.
The tenants deny that there was any agreement about the power being turned off.
Email exchanges between the parties on 8 November regarding the power and Wi-Fi are as follows: Tenants to Landlord: Did you ask? When you entered you off our security device very smartly and then enter in house our valuable belongings are there. I already made a complaint regarding this shortly you will receive email as well. Landlords to Tenants: I didn’t turn off anything I just turned off internet connection because you did not pay for it.......And if you are not paying the electricity bill you don’t have the right to use my electricity. Ask your friend to come and turn off whatever is on. Otherwise, you have to pay the electricity bill while you are away. Tenants to Landlords: We moved on 7 th July. We already paid till 7 th October to 7 th Nov. You did inspection on 5 th . Landlords to Tenants: That time I turn off electricity.........You paid electricity to 23 Oct. But I can’t keep it off because my side is also turning off. So, you don’t have the right to use free service for the internet and electricity. Discussion and findings
There is no dispute that the landlords disconnected the power and Wi-Fi to the premises. The issue is whether it was done with the tenants’ verbal agreement as claimed by the landlords.
The problem with a verbal agreement is obvious. Where the parties disagree, it is almost impossible to establish the agreed terms. The tenants deny that they agreed to the power being turned off and that stance appears to be supported to an extent by their actions: a. They did not tell the landlords when they were leaving the premises, and they did not remind or ask them to turn off the power; b. They had set up a security camera which requires power and Wi-Fi to operate which would indicate that they expected power and Wi-Fi to remain operating.
Conversely, the emails on 8 September above show that they did not ask the landlord to reinstate the power and internet after it had been turned off nor confirm that they would pay for the power use. However, there is no reference in the 8 September email exchanges to any prior verbal agreement reached.
After carefully considering the evidence, I find no evidence of any clear agreement that the landlord could disconnect the power and Wi-Fi. That being the case, the landlords should not have turned the service off without first checking with the tenants. The RTA is clear that a landlord must not interfere with the services provided. I consider that the landlord should have left the services running. The landlord could then seek reimbursement for power and Wi-Fi from the tenants. Given their absence from the premises for almost 3 months, I would expect that the amount used would be nominal. If the parties could not agree on the amount, either could then have applied to the Tribunal for a determination.
Tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. 10 The difficulty here is that there is no separate meter, and therefore no means for calculating the power that is exclusively attributable to the tenants’ occupation of the premises. However, the District Court 11 has held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings the Tribunal must have regard to section 85(2) RTA which provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.
In summary, I find that the landlord has interfered with power and Wi-Fi to the premises in breach of the RTA which is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered.
Turning off the power was intentional. It is in the interests of tenants and the Public that landlords comply with their obligations. In this case, the impact of the interference was to disconnect security cameras at the premises set up in the tenants’ absence as a protection. They have made other allegations in these proceedings (as have the landlords) about missing belongings and chattels. Had the security cameras been operating, there may have been evidence which helped to establish what happened to those belongings. Taking all matters into account, I award $600 exemplary damages which is 33% of the available maximum. The award is at the lower end of the scale because there is no evidence to suggest the landlords have previously breached the RTA in this manner. 10 Section 39(3) RTA 11 Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 12
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 13
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants complain that the landlords breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them in the following manner; a. Sending them emails constantly about tenancy issues and while they were on holiday which caused stress; b. Frequent noise and gatherings held by the landlords upstairs. The tenants supplied copies of a thread of emails between the parties on 26 September 2025 in which each complains about the other being noisy, playing loud music, banging of furniture and doors.
I find there is insufficient evidence to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment, let alone harassment. The limited emails that were produced in evidence regarding inspection and tenancy issues are not out of the ordinary. The landlords are entitled to raise issues and respond to the tenants. The fact that the parties may disagree over tenancy issues is not enough to form the basis for a claim.
The allegations of noise and disturbances at the premises have been made by each party against the other. It is inevitable that parties living in the same building may at times hear each other making noise. In this case, there was only evidence of one set of complaints made on 26 September 2025 and no other complaints since that date. Therefore, it seems that the matter was resolved. This is not enough to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The claims are not proved and are dismissed. 12 Section 38(2) RTA 13 Section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA

Is the landlord/tenant responsible for missing belongings and chattels?

The tenants allege that when they returned from holiday on 17 January 2026, there were personal belongings missing from the premises including: a handbag and jewellery which they reported stolen to Police. They also allege that the landlord must have taken their copy of the tenancy agreement.
The portable induction cooktop supplied by the landlord was also missing. The landlord confirms that the cooktop was present when they conducted their inspection on 5 November, and they did not remove it. On 8 November, friends of the tenants accessed the premises and on 14 November, the landlord had cleaners at the property. The landlords say they do not know if the cooktop was there after either of those visits and they did not know it was missing until the tenants advised them on 17 January 2026. Each party blames the other for the missing items.
There is insufficient evidence to prove who is responsible for the missing/stolen items. Therefore, I can make no findings and each party’s claims against the other must be dismissed.

Did the tenants 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. 14
The landlord says that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy with mould present at the premises on the carpet between the bedroom and ensuite bathroom.
When the landlords inspected the premises on 5 November 2025, they found mould on the bathroom walls and on the carpet between the bedroom and bathroom, and a pool of water on the bathroom floor as shown in photos they took at the time. They engaged a mould contractor to assess and give an estimate to remedy the issue. The estimate dated 14 November 2025 was $1,725. The landlord said that the cleaning they had done on 14 November 2025 (in the tenant’s absence) did not fully address the issues and they arranged for the mould contractor to complete the work required as per the estimate after the tenancy ended. They were then invoiced the same amount of $1,725 for this work on 2 February 2026.
The estimate and final invoice covered the following work: 14 Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA Hot water steam clean of affected carpet area; Mould treatment of affected carpet with GM2000; Visible mould removal of bathroom ceiling & walls with GM 6000. Fogging of entire unit with non-mechanical air scrubber GM 2000; Drying of walls and carpet with 2x air movers +1x80L dehumidifier.
The landlords say that their mould contractor advised them that there was a lot of water present with the wooden flooring retaining the moisture which caused the mould. For this reason, they recommended spraying and wiping down the visible mould and then using a fogging solution which is designed to kill microscopic mould spores in the air and prevent returning mould. The landlord did not have any report from the mould contractor or other suitably qualified expert as to the cause of the mould and need for this extensive treatment.
The landlords also stated at the hearing that the contractor did not fog the entire unit as indicated in the invoice but the bedroom and bathroom areas only.
The photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy were limited. However, there were no photos showing the condition of the bathroom walls and ceilings and the only photo of the carpet area between the bedroom and bathroom shows some discolouration and a bare patch. There is no sign of obvious mould. The photos taken on 5 November show whitish coloured mould on the carpet and mould spots on the walls and ceilings in the bathroom. These areas were obviously cleaned.
The tenants confirm that the premises were cleaned in their absence as they looked cleaner on their return than the photos sent to them on 5 November.
The tenants say that they cleaned the premises properly before vacating. They maintain that there was a mould problem because there was no window in the bathroom. They produced photos they took on 19 January 2026 (the day before they vacated) to show that the bathroom and bedroom were reasonably clean and tidy. I find that the tenants’ photo of the carpet between the bedroom and bathroom shows a very dark patch of carpet that may be indicative of mould/staining in the area. The bathroom walls and ceilings look reasonably clean in the photos the tenants produced.
I accept that there was mould and moisture in the bathroom at the inspection on 5 November which the landlord arranged to have cleaned on 14 November. The extent of the cleaning is not clear, but it was not the extensive work completed by the mould contractor after the tenancy ended. The landlord arranged cleaning without the specific agreement of the tenants. Where cleaning issues arise during the tenancy, the landlord would usually ask the tenants to fix the problem and serve a 14-day notice, if necessary. 15 While the landlords asked 15 See section 56(1)(b) RTA for terminating a tenancy for a breach. In the case of a breach capable of remedy, notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days must be served. the tenants to address the problem, they did not give them a 14-day notice. The landlords then went ahead and cleaned without the tenants’ explicit agreement and less than 14 days after they raised the issue.
On one hand, the landlord should be compensated for the cleaning work on 14 November, in circumstances where the tenants were overseas and had not responded to the landlord’s request that they clean the mould. On the other hand, they have not given the tenants a reasonable opportunity to remedy the matter. Therefore, the tenants, might reasonably argue that they should not be liable for the 14 November cleaning costs in those circumstances.
At the end of the tenancy there is no evidence of mould on the bathroom walls and ceilings, but some evidence of mould on the carpet. There is no evidence to establish excessive moisture in the floorboards such as photos or a report from the mould contractor or even moisture readings. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the extensive cleaning done was proved necessary.
I must determine this issue with regard to section 85(2) RTA which provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.
Standing back and assessing the substantial merits of the case, I consider the landlord should be compensated to an extent for the mould it cleaned during, and at the end, of the tenancy. Had the landlord done nothing in November, the problem would likely have got worse while the tenants were overseas.
I award the landlords $600, being just over a third of the costs incurred which I consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

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. 16 Sink cabinet
The landlord provided photos of the cabinet under the sink in the porch area. A photo taken at an inspection on 14 September 2025 shows the inside of the cupboard door is intact. A photo taken on 5 November shows a large split inside the cupboard door. The landlords think this was caused by the tenants washing dishes in the sink and splashing water over the door. When I asked the landlord if they expected the tenants to do their dishes in this sink, they replied yes. The 16 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA cabinet appears to be made of an MDF product or similar. The landlords installed the cupboard (which they already owed) when they purchased the property in May 2025. They could not say how old it was. They seek the replacement cost of $155 plus GST.
The tenants dispute causing the damage. They note that the cabinet was in an unsuitable outside porch area exposed to the weather which likely caused the deterioration. They also say that the pre-damage photo shows that the edges of the cupboard are already old and worn and starting to split.
I accept that the cabinet looks worn and is also not suitable for an outdoor area. I find that the landlord has not proved that the tenants caused the damage, other than though fair wear and tear, or that the damage was not caused through exposure to the outdoors. Even If I am wrong, there is no evidence to establish the age of the cabinet, so that the cost of a replacement cabinet should be fully depreciated. For those reasons, the claim is dismissed. Plumbing work
The tenants installed a bidet at the premises connected to the toilet which they removed at the end of the tenancy. In doing so, the landlord alleges that they removed a hose, and a plumber was engaged to repair the issue. They claim the plumber’s costs of $192.35 plus GST. The landlords did not have a photo taken at the end of the tenancy to show the hose missing.
The tenants say that they removed the bidet, but they did not take the hose. They supplied a photo they took on the evening of 19 January 2026 (the day before the tenancy ended) showing the bidet gone and the toilet hose still in place.
I am not satisfied that the landlords have proved the claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The tenants applied for suppression orders. However, I find that they have not substantially succeeded in the proceedings. Therefore, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee and no suppressions orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384822 — Mould & damp at 5 Mohua Street, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384822 — Mould & damp at 5 Mohua Street, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the landlords entered the premises unlawfully?

Have the landlords interfered with services to the premises?

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

Is the landlord/tenant responsible for missing belongings and chattels?

Did the tenants 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

Have the landlords entered the premises unlawfully?

Have the landlords interfered with services to the premises?

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

Is the landlord/tenant responsible for missing belongings and chattels?

Did the tenants 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