What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390501 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 5390501?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $925.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide ins…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Hedge Trimming: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Walls and Doors: $1,125.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390501?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13590872-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390501 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 5390501?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $925.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide ins…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Hedge Trimming: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Walls and Doors: $1,125.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390501?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13590872-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390501 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390501 — net $1,150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Less Bond received	$1,125.00		Less Bond received
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$925.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Hedge trimming		$75.00	Hedge trimming
Compensation: Failure to provide insulation information		$150.00	Failure to provide insulation information
Repairs: Walls and doors-plaster, sand and paint		$1,125.00	Repairs: Walls and doors-plaster, sand and paint
Total award	$1,125.00	$2,275.00
Net award		$1,150.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,150.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390501 — net $1,150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Less Bond received	$1,125.00		Less Bond received
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$925.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Hedge trimming		$75.00	Hedge trimming
Compensation: Failure to provide insulation information		$150.00	Failure to provide insulation information
Repairs: Walls and doors-plaster, sand and paint		$1,125.00	Repairs: Walls and doors-plaster, sand and paint
Total award	$1,125.00	$2,275.00
Net award		$1,150.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,150.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,150.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal Order dated 10 March 2026.
The applicant tenant‘s representative present at the hearing is referred to as Ms R. The landlord present at the hearing is referred to as Mr M. The tenant named on the tenancy agreement (now deceased) is referred to as Mr S. Claims
Ms R has confirmed that the estate seeks compensation in relation to the following claims against the landlord: a. Stove not fixed; b. Kitchen hot water tap not working; c. Non-compliant ceiling insulation; d. Reimbursement of water blasting and hedge maintenance costs; e. Failing to provide Healthy Homes report and information.
Ms R withdrew claims for unlawful entry and breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy at the hearing. As those claims relate to the personal impact on the deceased tenant, I would likely have found that those claims could not be pursued by Ms R anyway. 1
The landlord has confirmed that he seeks compensation in relation to the following claims against the estate: a. Holes and marks on surfaces throughout the premises; b. Missing ceiling batts.
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.
Both parties provided written and oral submissions, copies of their correspondence with each other and photos. I confirm that I have reviewed all the material submitted before writing this decision. 1 The Tribunal indicated in Tenant v Colliers International Property Management (Wgtn) Limited [2025] NZTT 5006141 that an estate may not be able to pursue claims which relate to something personal to the deceased such as breach of quiet enjoyment.

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 2
The obligation of the landlord is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. 3 Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects. 4 Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The evidence establishes that the tenant reported two maintenance issues to the landlord on 20 August 2024. First, the hot water tap in the kitchen could not be turned on as it continuously dripped with the hot water cylinder having to constantly refill, thereby wasting power. The tenants tied a shoelace around the tap to stop it from running. Second, the oven stove top elements were automatically defaulting to maximum heat and could not be lowered. The landlord sent a message confirming that he would do his best to resolve both issues that week.
The landlord purchased a new faucet and a replacement oven in August 2024 which he delivered to the property but did not install. At the time, the tenant was in significant arrears. It appears that the tenant offered to pay for the installation of the faucet and the oven provided the installation costs could be taken off the arrears. The landlord rejected the offer advising on 8 November 2024: “Thank you for the offer to pay & take it off the rent arrears (or rent). No, I don’t want you to do that. The rent & arrears payments are complicated enough as it is. (I want to keep things separate). Once all the arrears have been paid in full, I’m happy to cover the cost of both trades people direct. Or if you prefer, you can get them installed in the meantime & pay the installation costs. I will reimburse you once all the arrears are paid in full....”
The oven was installed by the landlord on 5 December 2024 and the new faucet was installed on 18 January 2025. The tenant complains that the landlord refused to install the items sooner and in a reasonable time. The lack of a 2 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 Section 40(1)(d) RTA properly working hot water tap and stove top caused considerable inconvenience, for which the tenant seeks compensation.
The landlord says he gave Mr S four options regarding the oven: to have the stove repaired; buy a second-hand replacement stove; buy a new stove; or buy a ceramic cooktop. The landlord says he and Mr S agreed that if the landlord purchased a new oven and tap Mr S would arrange for his son (who was a builder) to install the items. The landlord says he would not have purchased new items at a cost of over $2,000 otherwise. He also refers to text messages between them in August 2024. Mr M asked Mr S on 26 August 2024 what stove he would prefer. Mr S replied on 27 August 2024 with: “just go ahead and buy whatever model you want.”
However, these messages fall short of an agreement that the tenant was to be responsible for installation and there is no other documentary evidence of an agreement.
Later in September 2024, the landlord asked Mr S why his son had not yet installed the items. He says that Mr S says Ms R complained about this. When it became apparent that the tenant was not going to install the items, the landlord then arranged to have the work done.
The landlord maintains that neither the oven nor the tap needed replacing but he did it anyway.
The landlord has been storing the old stove and had it examined in January 2026 by a service technician. The assessment report submitted in evidence concluded that 2 out of the 4 elements were working correctly.
In relation to the tap, the landlord called a witness Mr D (a friend who is a fitter& turner/mechanical engineer). Mr D confirmed that he had a look at the tap as a favour to the landlord. He says that both taps were working but one was very hard to turn on. He thinks the issue could have been fixed by replacing the washer. However, the landlord had already purchased a new replacement faucet which he asked Mr D to install.
The landlord argues that there is no basis for finding that he breached his obligations to repair the items or to award compensation for the installation delays, given the above evidence.
After carefully considering the available evidence, I find that the landlord failed to repair the hot water tap and the stove top in a reasonable time which is a breach of his obligations under the RTA. The following factors are persuasive; a. The landlord did not have the tap, and the stove top assessed by an appropriate expert prior to purchasing replacements. The fact that the landlord later obtained advice that replacement items may have been unnecessary is irrelevant and not the tenant’s concern. He could have obtained those assessments when the problems were first reported, but he chose not to do so. Having decided to fix the problems by installing replacements, the landlord was obliged to follow through and have the work done in a timely manner. He did not; b. There is no documentary evidence of any agreement with the tenant to take responsibility for installation of the items. To the contrary, the landlord’s message on 8 November 2024 confirms that he is responsible for installation, but he did not wish to incur those costs when rent was in arrears; c. It is the landlord’s obligation to fix faulty items, unless there is proof that the problem has been caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant and there is no such proof in this case 5 ; d. Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by the RTA is of no effect. 6 In other words, a tenant cannot agree that a landlord doesn’t have to fix something which is their responsibility under the RTA; e. A landlord is not entitled to withhold repairs when rent is in arrears just as a a tenant is not entitled to withhold rent pending repairs; f. The time taken to install the replacement faucet (approximately 22 weeks), and oven (approximately 15 weeks) was unreasonable.
The tenant is entitled to some compensation for the landlord’s breach. It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
While the stove top operated on maximum heat, it was still useable, although inconvenient. The lack of a hot water tap in the kitchen was more inconvenient with the tenant having to use the wash house tap for hot water.
I award the tenant $550 for the oven and $375 for the tap. To give some guidance the amounts equate to a weekly rent reduction of $25/item for each week that the items were not fixed. The total award is $925 which I consider is fair and reasonable.

Is the landlord liable for hedge trimming and water blasting costs?

The tenancy agreement records that the tenant is responsible to trim the hedges and wash the exterior house every 9 months. Ms R says that she and Mr S trimmed the hedges and paid $150 cash to the landlord’s brother for water 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 6 Section 11(3) RTA blasting the house. Ms R seeks to recover these costs as she argues that they are not the tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord denies that his brother received any money for water blasting the house. He conceded that the tenant likely did trim the hedges once.
The tenant’s obligation is to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, and this includes any surrounding land for their exclusive use. 7 Mowing lawns and tidying gardens (by weeding) are accepted as tasks covered by this obligation. However, matters such as trimming hedges, pruning trees and washing the exterior of a house are not. The tenant cannot agree to more extensive obligations in the tenancy agreement than those imposed by the RTA. 8
Ms R could not provide proof that the tenant had paid for water blasting the house with no receipt or other evidence for the cash payment. However, I am satisfied (as accepted by the landlord) that they trimmed the large hedge at the front of the property, which is not their responsibility.
I make a nominal award of $75 compensation for the tenant’s time spent trimming the hedge.

Has the landlord provided compliant ceiling insulation?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligation to insulate the premises. 9
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in the lower North Island zone.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant says the ceiling insulation must not have complied with Healthy Homes Standards because the landlord only had ceiling insulation installed on 18 July 2025.
The landlord provided evidence that he installed ceiling insulation with an R- value of 2.9 on 27 June 2016. Then in June 2025, he says that he discovered 7 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 8 See section 11 RTA 9 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA—See also Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 some of the batts had been removed (which he blames on Ms R ), and he had additional insulation installed. The healthy homes assessment report commissioned by the landlord and dated 14 August 2025 confirms that the ceiling insulation complies with HHS and has an R-value of 4.1, in excess of the requirement.
There is insufficient evidence provided by the tenant to prove that the ceiling insulation did not comply with the requirements at the start of the tenancy and/or that the landlord failed to maintain the insulation in a reasonable timeframe after discovering it needed replacement. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord provided healthy homes information when requested?

A landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request. 10
Landlords were required to comply with the Residential Standards (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) by a certain date depending on the tenancy. This tenancy was periodic and started on 7 October 2016. At no time was the tenancy renewed or a new tenancy signed by the parties. Therefore, the HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025 for the following healthy homes standards: Heating; Draught stopping; Ventilation; and Drainage and Moisture Ingress.
However, the compliance date for the insulation standard was different as set out above [at 31] with insulation requirements introduced from 1 July 2016. 11 For all tenancies commencing after 1 July 2016, a landlord is also required to include in the tenancy agreement a statement signed by the landlord disclosing: a. whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed at the premises; and b. details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed at the premises. 12
On 27 January 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a request for a copy of the healthy homes report for the premises. The tenant was under the impression that someone had come to assess the premises for compliance with HHS a few months prior. On 6 September 2025, the tenant again wrote to the landlord recording that he had made repeated requests for HHS compliance information and asked the landlord to respond again. The tenant says the landlord never 10 Section 45(1AC) RTA 11 See n9 above 12 Section 13A(1A) RTA responded until a copy of the HHS report dated 14 August 2025 was supplied as part of these proceedings.
The landlord says that no-one came to assess the premises for HHS compliance until late May 2025, and he is unaware of the first request for information in January 2025. The landlord says he obtained the HHS assessment in anticipation of the HHS compliance date for this tenancy of 1 July 2025. A full HHS report was not completed until 14 August 2025. Mr M provided a copy of an email sent to Mr S on 7 September 2025, enclosing a copy of this report in response to the tenant’s request on 6 September 2025.
Ms R says the email address used by the landlord to send the HHS report was no longer valid. However, I there is evidence of Mr S using that email address to communicate with the landlord in November 2025. Therefore, I accept that the landlord provided the information to the tenant when it became available.
The landlord therefore argues that he complied with the HHS information request.
However, I note that the requirements regarding insulation have been in force since 1 July 2016. The tenancy agreement signed by the parties in this case does not include an insulation statement as required under s13A(1A) RTA. When the tenant asked the landlord to supply HHS information in January 2025, I consider that he was required to disclose the information in his possession regarding compliance with the insulation standard. However, he did not do so. This is a breach of s45(1AC) RTA.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the breach. The introduction of the HHS has been a major and vital piece of legislation designed to improve the quality of rental homes, ensuring that they are warmer, dryer and promote better health outcomes for tenants. The purpose of an insulation statement is to provide transparency for tenants regarding the condition of rental properties and their level of compliance with HHS. Therefore, I award the tenant nominal compensation of $150 for the breach.

Is the tenant liable for removing insulation?

The landlord alleges that the tenants removed ceiling insulation, which he discovered in or about June 2025. He was therefore forced to top up the insulation in this area and seeks compensation from the tenant. He produced a photo of an area of the ceiling without insulation. However, the landlord had no pre-tenancy photos to show the insulation in place, and nor was there an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement to record the insulation present.
I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant removed ceiling insulation as alleged by the landlord. The claim is dismissed.

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 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.
Where damage is proved, and items require replacement (including repainting) I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damaged walls and doors
The landlord claims that the tenant caused extensive damage to walls and doors during the tenancy. He seeks a 30% contribution to a quote he obtained of $5,094.50 to carry out repairs including plastering, sanding and painting of the kitchen/lounge door, the walls in four bedrooms, the hallway walls and the entrance wall. The painting work had not been completed by the hearing date, but the landlord says that the quote amount is still valid. The pre-tenancy inspection report records a dent in the kitchen/lounge door and that one of the bedrooms needs painting (to be done before the tenants moved in). Otherwise, the premises were recorded to be in acceptable condition. By comparison, the landlord provided photos taken at the end of the tenancy to show the damaged walls and doors. The premises were last painted in 2016, before the tenancy started.
Ms R acknowledged some of the damage and notes that the tenant patched some of the areas. The tenant also intended to paint the affected areas, but the landlord insisted that damage to one wall, would require all the walls in that room to be painted. The tenant disagreed.
There is evidence of the parties discussing this and other damage. In any event, on 29 October 2025 (date confirmed by the Bond Centre) Mr S and Mr M signed a bond refund form refunding the entire bond to the landlord. The landlord says the tenant accepted that the bond amount might not cover everything, but it would come close.
On 16 November 2025, the tenant sent the landlord an email stating; I thought the only room that needed doing was Paddy’s room and a couple of areas in the hallway between the kitchen and wash house, and a couple of spots that had been repaired....can you please send me what the Bond money has been allocated to so far.”
There is no documentary evidence of any final agreement between the parties as to the amounts claimed by the landlord and accepted by the tenant, over and above the bond.
If I accept that all the walls required painting as per the quote, I consider that the landlord is not entitled to 30% after depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that painted walls in a bedroom should last 12 years and painted walls in living areas should last 10 years. In this case, the walls were painted 9 years before the tenancy ended. Therefore, I consider the repainting costs should be reduced for depreciation by 75-90%. In other words, the landlord would only be entitled to 10-25% of the repainting costs.
The landlord says that the tenant also agreed to other costs for broken windows; a new toilet seat; a new cat door, and other minor matters. However, at the hearing held on 17 February 2025, I asked both parties to clarify their final claims against each other and the landlord did not raise these matters. In any event, there is no agreement in writing between the parties about these other claims.
In the end, the tenant agreed to release the bond of $1,125 to the landlord. I consider that is reasonable and in the absence of any agreement as to what the bond covered, I am not inclined to disturb the bond refund agreed and signed by the parties. Therefore, I find that payment of the bond to the landlord was fair compensation for the damages claims.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have succeeded to some extent, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.
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. 13
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 14
In this case, neither party has substantially succeeded and the outcome for both has been about even. However, given that the tenant is now deceased, I find that there is no public interest in publication of his details. It follows that Ms R’s identity should also not be published given that she is acting in a representative capacity for the estate. I am also conscious that allegations concerning her are referenced in the earlier Tribunal order and it would be unfair for those allegations to be disclosed.
I also consider that because the result for both parties is essentially even, it is fair in the circumstances to also grant the landlord suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390501 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390501 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Is the landlord liable for hedge trimming and water blasting costs?

Has the landlord provided compliant ceiling insulation?

Has the landlord provided healthy homes information when requested?

Is the tenant liable for removing insulation?

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

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Is the landlord liable for hedge trimming and water blasting costs?

Has the landlord provided compliant ceiling insulation?

Has the landlord provided healthy homes information when requested?

Is the tenant liable for removing insulation?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions