What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389815 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 5389815?

Cleaning: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $123.62 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389815?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13556325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389815 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 5389815?

Cleaning: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $123.62 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389815?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13556325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

81 Oaktree Avenue, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389815 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389815 — net $1,485.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$391.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Shower glass	$123.62		Cleaning: Shower glass
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$800.00	Loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$1,200.00	Section 45
Total award	$514.62	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,485.38
Bond		$2,380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,485.38

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389815 — net $1,485.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$391.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Shower glass	$123.62		Cleaning: Shower glass
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$800.00	Loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$1,200.00	Section 45
Total award	$514.62	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,485.38
Bond		$2,380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,485.38

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 Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,485.38 immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 5 May 2026. Both the owner and the property manager attended for the landlord. I am told that the property manager represented the landlord from November 2024 until November 2025.
The tenancy began on 1 July 2022 and ended on 10 August 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of bond, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord applied for carpet cleaning, repair of a sensor light, cleaning the shower door, and repair of a broken tile. Tenant application
The tenant referred to maintenance issues at the premises including plumbing and drainage problems, and damaged and broken fence, gate and retaining wall.
The tenant also referred to a leak in the carport and replacement of the bathroom vanity which she had paid for during the tenancy.
In relation to the Healthy Homes standards the tenant referred to drainage issues and mould.
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
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 landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in relation to the drainage and sewerage system and the retaining wall. The landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards in relation to the heating and ventilation. 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 drainage blocked on three occasions during the tenancy (August 2024, April 2024 and January 2023). The landlord also produced invoices for two blockages before the tenancy commenced (November 2018 and 31 July 2020). Three of the invoices include a statement that, “if the drain blocks again within the next 6 months we recommend carrying out a CCTV inspection”. The landlord said that there have been two CCTV inspections, but he could only provide evidence of one such inspection in 2018. While the landlord had acted to unblock the drainage on these occasions there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any investigation as to why the drains were blocking and therefore the cause of the blockages was never identified.
The landlord had referred to a history of drain blockages including in an email to the tenant dated 15 November 2022 where he said “I’ve had pipe blockages at the property in the past and had to get contractors in 3 times in the last 4 years to clear them”. In a text message to the tenant dated 4 August 2024 the landlord said “I realise that’s its probably the drains mostly to blame for the frequent blockages. Though, I’ve had contractors put cameras down a couple of times and not found any obvious or certain drain problems”.
So, the drainage issues were present before this tenancy commenced but nothing was done to adequately investigate the cause of the blockages. The landlord failed to maintain the drainage system to a standard that would prevent regular blockages.
The tenant claims in respect of the landlord not maintaining the fence, gates and retaining wall. The evidence produced clearly shows that the retaining wall was not maintained, whereas it was less clear in respect of the fence and gates.
The photographs produced by the tenant clearly show that the retaining wall was dangerously leaning toward the paved courtyard. The landlord arranged for the retaining wall to be repaired in May 2025, three months before the tenancy ended. While it is not clear when the retaining wall began to fail the landlord did say at the hearing that it was leaning when he bought the property. Therefore, it is likely that the landlord had failed to maintain the retaining wall fof the duration of the tenancy.
In relation to the Healthy Homes standards the landlord failed to comply for the ventilation and heating standards. The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2022 and therefore the Healthy Homes compliance date was 90 days from the start of the tenancy and is therefore 30 September 2022.
The landlord completed a certificate of compliance with the tenancy agreement which states that the premises complies with the healthy homes standards.
When the property management company became involved in 2024 a Healthy Homes assessment was carried out. The assessment report dated 4 December 2024 was prepared by Core Compliance. That report records that the premises did not comply with the standards in relation to ventilation because the rangehood was not externally vented. The report noted that a wall fan or rangehood needed to be installed. A wall fan was installed above the window in January 2025. That means that the premises was non-compliant in relation to ventilation from 30 September 2022 until January 2025.
For the heating, there is a woodburner at the premises. The assessment does not have the heating capacity for the woodburner and the landlord did not provide any evidence in support of this. The woodburner appears old and may have been in the premises since it was constructed in the 1980s.
The fireplace was decommissioned on 26 March 2025 because a contractor said that the top of the flue was rusty, and the fireplace looked old and should be replaced. The landlord said he arranged for a panel heater to be installed with a heating capacity of 2.4kw but no evidence was produced to support this.
A heat pump had been installed in 2024 with a heating capacity of 3.7kw. There is no clear evidence that the premises complied with the required heating capacity of 6.3kw as had been calculated in the assessment. The premises may have been compliant in relation to heating from the date the heat pump was installed or not until the panel heater was installed, however there is no clear evidence of compliance at any stage for heating.
The heating and ventilation is likely to have impacted on the tenant and may have contributed to the mould growth reported by the tenant.
After considering the evidence I consider that exemplary damages of $1,200.00 is reasonable.
The tenant claimed in relation to damage to her belongings that were stored in the carport. There was a leak from the other tenancy which the tenant reported, and the landlord arranged to be repaired.
If the landlord fixed the leak as soon as they became aware of it, then generally the landlord would not be responsible for the damage to the tenant’s belongings.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord’s obligation is to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This includes acting promptly to remedy any issues once they are notified. If the landlord did not know about the leak and repaired it as soon as it was brought to their attention, they have likely met their legal obligations.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal usually finds that the landlord is not liable for damage to the tenant’s property caused by an unforeseeable issue that was fixed promptly once discovered. The tenant is responsible for insuring their own belongings against accidental damage or loss.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the damaged items is dismissed.
The tenant claimed in relation to replacement of the vanity that had been damaged during the tenancy. The tenant had paid for replacement of the vanity but at the hearing queried whether the vanity could have been repaired rather than replaced.
The tenant acknowledged causing the damage to the vanity. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the vanity could have been repaired rather than replaced. At the hearing the landlord said that it was not possible for the vanity to be repaired.
As this is a tenant claim, the onus is on the tenant to prove the claim. Without supporting evidence, the Tribunal is not able to determine whether repair was possible. The tenant’s claim for reimbursement of the replacement cost for the vanity is dismissed.
The tenant claimed for compensation due to loss of amenity.in relation to the sewerage events. I consider that the tenant is entitled to compensation given that the landlord had failed to maintain the drainage system. The tenant had a period where she could not use the toilet, and she estimates that to be 30 hours. A toilet is a basic amenity but because of the landlord’s failure it was not always available for the tenant.
I also consider that the tenant is entitled to compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the retaining wall. The tenant has a young child. The paved area at the back of the house would have been unsafe for a young child and therefore the area could not have been used as the tenant should have been able to use it.
The tenant has paid full rent during the periods where there was loss of amenity. I award compensation for loss of amenity of $800.00. Landlord application
The landlord claims $391.00 for carpet cleaning. The photographs produced by the landlord show that there were stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
In an email dated 15 August 2025 the tenant acknowledged that there were some new stains on the carpet and asked for a quote to clean the carpet so that she could compare it to her own. Later the tenant denied responsibility for the carpet stains based on fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the carpet was not in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy 1 . The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is proved.
The landlord claims for a broken sensor light, cleaning a shower door and repair of a broken tile.
The landlord claims for repair of a broken sensor light. The light is old and rusty. The landlord must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant caused the damage to the sensor light, and that it was not simply the result of age or normal deterioration. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
At the hearing the tenant said that the light had fallen down about a week before the end of the tenancy. She had attempted to re-attach it, but the original screws could not be removed as they had rusted.
On the evidence produced it appears likely that the damage is the result of ordinary use over time and would therefore be considered fair wear and tear rather than tenant damage.
The landlord’s claim for repair of the sensor light is dismissed.
In relation to the shower cleaning, the landlord produced a photograph from the beginning of the tenancy and one from the end. It appears that the shower glass has not been cleaned to a reasonable standard.
The tenant said that she cleaned the shower glass thoroughly but the marks on the glass have built up overtime.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that the shower required further cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I have awarded the landlord $123.62 which is $65.00 plus GST for the shower clean and half the cost of the call out fee (plus GST) as set out in the invoice dated 19 August 2025.
The landlord claims for repair of a broken tile. A quote has been produced for repair of the tile but to date the tile has not been repaired. The landlord said that he intended to have the repair carried out either prior to selling the property in the future or sooner.
The tenant has produced photographs of other cracked tiles in the bathroom. The property inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement records that there was a cracked tile in the doorway. One of the cracked tiles in the tenant’s photograph is next to a faucet but that has not been identified in the inspection report. This suggests that either there were more cracks at the beginning of the tenancy, or several cracks appeared during the tenancy, perhaps suggesting there is an underlying issue due to the age of the tiles.
The tenant denied dropping anything on the tiles.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the tile. The landlord’s claim to repair the tile is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
For the same reason I suppress the names of the tenant and landlord as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389815 — Exemplary damages at 81 Oaktree Avenue, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389815 — Exemplary damages at 81 Oaktree Avenue, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions