What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386385 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 5386385?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; To Benchtop: $517.50 awarded to landlord; To Dimmer Switch: $114.23 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Net Curtains: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,142.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386385?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13387936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386385 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 5386385?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; To Benchtop: $517.50 awarded to landlord; To Dimmer Switch: $114.23 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Net Curtains: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,142.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386385?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13387936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5386385 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5386385 — net $3,042.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
s Repairs: to screen doors	$2,142.59	s Repairs: to screen doors
Repairs: to benchtop	$517.50	Repairs: to benchtop
Oven cleaning	$80.00	Oven cleaning
Minor damage	$75.00	Minor damage
Replace furnishings: net curtains	$60.00	Replace furnishings: net curtains
Repairs: to dimmer switch	$114.23	Repairs: to dimmer switch
Cleaning: garage floor	$25.00	Cleaning: garage floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,042.32
Bond	$4,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,042.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed.
Kelly-Marie Broadbent and Aaron Broadbent are to pay the landlord $3,042.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The landlord: $3,042.32 Kelly-Marie Broadbent and Aaron Broadbent: $1,557.68

Reasons

Aaron Broadbent appeared for the tenants. He represented Kelly-Marie Broadbent. The landlord was represented at the hearing.
The tenants have applied for $1500.00 compensation for stress and exemplary damages for unlawful entry, failing to maintain a broken shower head, harassment by the landlord and a bond deduction without an inspection.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. A. The tenants’ claims. Unlawful entry
The tenants claim that the landlord unlawfully entered the property when showing the property to a prospective tenant. Aaron said that there were sick children in the home at the time and this unlawful entry caused stress. In response the landlord submitted that Kelly had given permission for viewings that day with sick children at home. The expectation was that viewings would be completed by 4pm however one person was delayed because trains were cancelled. Kelly gave permission for the person who was late to see the property after 4pm. At about 4:11pm Aaron arrived home. He expressed that he was not happy that a viewing was taking place after 4pm. The last person did view the property without the tenants asking the landlord and prospective tenant to leave the premises.
Lawful entry includes entry to the premises with the consent of the tenant immediately before the entry. (s.48(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986) (RTA).
I am satisfied that permission had been given by Kelly and was not revoked by Aaron or both tenants prior to the last visitor to the property. Aaron may have been annoyed that visits were still occurring after 4pm but that is not withdrawing consent. Stress resulting from a fifteen-minute delay of a notified event is not quantifiable. The landlord did not commit an unlawful act because permission was given by a tenant and not withdrawn. Therefore, the claim for compensation and exemplary damages must be dismissed. Failure to maintain.
The tenants claimed compensation and exemplary damages for a failure to maintain the premises. (s45(1)(b) RTA. The failure was a defective shower head in the main bathroom. The landlord was notified of the failure on 10 October 2025, just over three weeks before the end of the tenancy. It was not repaired.
The landlord agreed that the tenant informed the company that there was a shower head that needed repair in one bathroom. The landlord stated that she expected to inspect the shower head on 13 October 2025 when she visited the property with prospective tenants but forgot when the visits extended beyond 4pm and she was aware that Aaron was angry about that.
For the Tribunal to make orders regarding compensation and exemplary damages, it must take into account the intention of the landlord, the nature and extent of the problem and the likely effect on the tenants resulting from the problem.
The tenants were not left without the ability to shower at the premises. There were two other showers at the premises that could be used. The problem arose only weeks before the end of the tenancy. There was not an extended period where the third shower was not able to be used. The tenants did not mention the broken shower after 13 October which is consistent with them deciding to make do with two showers not three. And regarding the intention of the landlord, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord turned their mind to making sure the shower head was not replaced.
For these reasons the tenants’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages does not meet the level necessary for an order to be made. Breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment
The tenants have claimed that they were harassed by the landlord towards the end of the tenancy with emails and calls requesting a decision about whether the tenants were going to continue the tenancy. The fixed term was ending. The landlord was willing for the tenancy to continue but the tenants did not respond to requests to state whether they were ending their tenancy.
The RTA reads as follows regarding decisions to be made at the end of a fixed term: 60A Fixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless contrary notice given (1) On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2) However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if,— (a) before the expiry, the parties renew or extend the existing tenancy agreement; or (b) before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy; or (c) within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy; or (d) before the expiry, a party gives notice as specified in any of section 50(1)(a) to (ac) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry. (2A) The effective period is the period that starts on the 90th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21st day before that date.
Because of this section it is reasonable for parties to a tenancy to communicate with each other regarding their options and plans for a future tenancy. Communicating assists parties to determine whether a tenancy will continue or come to an end and to decide if there their fixed term will be extended or become periodic.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s claim that the landlord harassed them for a decision regarding their plans for a tenancy is without merit. The landlord was well intentioned in giving an opportunity to extend or end the tenancy. It was reasonable to follow up to get a response from the tenants when they did not answer.
For these reasons the tenants’’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this issue is dismissed. Bond deduction without an inspection
In their application the tenants claimed that the landlord made a bond deduction without an inspection. They have referred to section 2(2)(1) RTA. There is no section 2(2)(1) in the RTA. There is also no restriction on a landlord making a claim against the bond. If the parties disagree and cannot resolve their disagreement they may apply to the Tribunal as has happened in this case.
The claim for a landlord breach regarding a bond deduction is dismissed. The Landlord’s claim

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.
The landlord has claimed that the property was not left reasonably clean. However having considered the evidence I am satisfied that except for the condition of the oven, a stain on the carpet and oil on the garage floor, the property was left reasonably clean.
The amounts claimed for that cleaning has been proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants have claimed that during the tenancy the tenants damaged the screen doors, a benchtop, net curtains, walls and a dimmer switch.
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 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.
I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The entry condition report at the start of the tenancy confirms that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Although the tenants stated that they did not receive an entry inspection report, the evidence from the initial property manager proves that they were emailed that report.
The amounts claimed for damage are proved. The amount for the fly screens is less than the cost if the landlord had lodged an insurance claim for that damage. The cost to repair the bench is proved. The amount claimed for the touch up work on walls is reasonable. The compensation for net curtains accounts for the age of the curtains. The dimmer switch that was missing and required an electrician to repair it. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.
The tenants did not apply for suppression and have not substantially succeeded with their claim and therefore name suppression is not granted to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5386385 — net $3,042.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
s Repairs: to screen doors	$2,142.59	s Repairs: to screen doors
Repairs: to benchtop	$517.50	Repairs: to benchtop
Oven cleaning	$80.00	Oven cleaning
Minor damage	$75.00	Minor damage
Replace furnishings: net curtains	$60.00	Replace furnishings: net curtains
Repairs: to dimmer switch	$114.23	Repairs: to dimmer switch
Cleaning: garage floor	$25.00	Cleaning: garage floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,042.32
Bond	$4,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,042.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed.
Kelly-Marie Broadbent and Aaron Broadbent are to pay the landlord $3,042.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The landlord: $3,042.32 Kelly-Marie Broadbent and Aaron Broadbent: $1,557.68

Reasons

Aaron Broadbent appeared for the tenants. He represented Kelly-Marie Broadbent. The landlord was represented at the hearing.
The tenants have applied for $1500.00 compensation for stress and exemplary damages for unlawful entry, failing to maintain a broken shower head, harassment by the landlord and a bond deduction without an inspection.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. A. The tenants’ claims. Unlawful entry
The tenants claim that the landlord unlawfully entered the property when showing the property to a prospective tenant. Aaron said that there were sick children in the home at the time and this unlawful entry caused stress. In response the landlord submitted that Kelly had given permission for viewings that day with sick children at home. The expectation was that viewings would be completed by 4pm however one person was delayed because trains were cancelled. Kelly gave permission for the person who was late to see the property after 4pm. At about 4:11pm Aaron arrived home. He expressed that he was not happy that a viewing was taking place after 4pm. The last person did view the property without the tenants asking the landlord and prospective tenant to leave the premises.
Lawful entry includes entry to the premises with the consent of the tenant immediately before the entry. (s.48(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986) (RTA).
I am satisfied that permission had been given by Kelly and was not revoked by Aaron or both tenants prior to the last visitor to the property. Aaron may have been annoyed that visits were still occurring after 4pm but that is not withdrawing consent. Stress resulting from a fifteen-minute delay of a notified event is not quantifiable. The landlord did not commit an unlawful act because permission was given by a tenant and not withdrawn. Therefore, the claim for compensation and exemplary damages must be dismissed. Failure to maintain.
The tenants claimed compensation and exemplary damages for a failure to maintain the premises. (s45(1)(b) RTA. The failure was a defective shower head in the main bathroom. The landlord was notified of the failure on 10 October 2025, just over three weeks before the end of the tenancy. It was not repaired.
The landlord agreed that the tenant informed the company that there was a shower head that needed repair in one bathroom. The landlord stated that she expected to inspect the shower head on 13 October 2025 when she visited the property with prospective tenants but forgot when the visits extended beyond 4pm and she was aware that Aaron was angry about that.
For the Tribunal to make orders regarding compensation and exemplary damages, it must take into account the intention of the landlord, the nature and extent of the problem and the likely effect on the tenants resulting from the problem.
The tenants were not left without the ability to shower at the premises. There were two other showers at the premises that could be used. The problem arose only weeks before the end of the tenancy. There was not an extended period where the third shower was not able to be used. The tenants did not mention the broken shower after 13 October which is consistent with them deciding to make do with two showers not three. And regarding the intention of the landlord, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord turned their mind to making sure the shower head was not replaced.
For these reasons the tenants’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages does not meet the level necessary for an order to be made. Breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment
The tenants have claimed that they were harassed by the landlord towards the end of the tenancy with emails and calls requesting a decision about whether the tenants were going to continue the tenancy. The fixed term was ending. The landlord was willing for the tenancy to continue but the tenants did not respond to requests to state whether they were ending their tenancy.
The RTA reads as follows regarding decisions to be made at the end of a fixed term: 60A Fixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless contrary notice given (1) On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2) However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if,— (a) before the expiry, the parties renew or extend the existing tenancy agreement; or (b) before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy; or (c) within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy; or (d) before the expiry, a party gives notice as specified in any of section 50(1)(a) to (ac) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry. (2A) The effective period is the period that starts on the 90th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21st day before that date.
Because of this section it is reasonable for parties to a tenancy to communicate with each other regarding their options and plans for a future tenancy. Communicating assists parties to determine whether a tenancy will continue or come to an end and to decide if there their fixed term will be extended or become periodic.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s claim that the landlord harassed them for a decision regarding their plans for a tenancy is without merit. The landlord was well intentioned in giving an opportunity to extend or end the tenancy. It was reasonable to follow up to get a response from the tenants when they did not answer.
For these reasons the tenants’’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this issue is dismissed. Bond deduction without an inspection
In their application the tenants claimed that the landlord made a bond deduction without an inspection. They have referred to section 2(2)(1) RTA. There is no section 2(2)(1) in the RTA. There is also no restriction on a landlord making a claim against the bond. If the parties disagree and cannot resolve their disagreement they may apply to the Tribunal as has happened in this case.
The claim for a landlord breach regarding a bond deduction is dismissed. The Landlord’s claim

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.
The landlord has claimed that the property was not left reasonably clean. However having considered the evidence I am satisfied that except for the condition of the oven, a stain on the carpet and oil on the garage floor, the property was left reasonably clean.
The amounts claimed for that cleaning has been proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants have claimed that during the tenancy the tenants damaged the screen doors, a benchtop, net curtains, walls and a dimmer switch.
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 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.
I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The entry condition report at the start of the tenancy confirms that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Although the tenants stated that they did not receive an entry inspection report, the evidence from the initial property manager proves that they were emailed that report.
The amounts claimed for damage are proved. The amount for the fly screens is less than the cost if the landlord had lodged an insurance claim for that damage. The cost to repair the bench is proved. The amount claimed for the touch up work on walls is reasonable. The compensation for net curtains accounts for the age of the curtains. The dimmer switch that was missing and required an electrician to repair it. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.
The tenants did not apply for suppression and have not substantially succeeded with their claim and therefore name suppression is not granted to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386385 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386385 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions