What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395367 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5395367?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Door Opener: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5395367 D…: $12,450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $110.50 awarded to landlord; Cupboard Handles: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Wallpaper: $340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395367?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395367?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13600741-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395367 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5395367?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Door Opener: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5395367 D…: $12,450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $110.50 awarded to landlord; Cupboard Handles: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Wallpaper: $340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395367?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395367?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13600741-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 Graham Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395367 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395367 — net $11,860.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5395367 dated 12/03/2026	$12,450.00		Previous order application 5395367 dated 12/03/2026
Cleaning	$180.00		Cleaning
Garage door opener	$130.00		Garage door opener
Repairs: garage door	$1,400.00		Repairs: garage door
Repairs: cupboard handles	$150.00		Repairs: cupboard handles
Window repairs	$110.50		Window repairs
Repairs: wallpaper	$340.00		Repairs: wallpaper
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$400.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: HHS noncompliance		$2,500.00	HHS noncompliance
Total award	$14,760.50	$2,900.00
Net award	$11,860.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,860.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord’s application was for compensation for: a. Cleaning at the end of the tenancy. b. Repairs at the end of the tenancy. c. Replacement of a garage door opener and the replacement of keys. d. Exemplary damages for the tenant subletting the premises.

The tenant’s application was for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. The landlord’s unlawful entry into the premises. b. Breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and harassment. c. The landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) in relation to moisture and drainage, and ventilation. d. The landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.

By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that there were some areas that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: the venetian blinds, the oven, the fan and some kitchen cupboards and drawers.

The amount claimed is modest. The Tribunal accepts that the blinds, oven and fan required cleaning and awards the amount claimed by the landlord as it is in keeping with invoices which it regularly sees for such services.

The tenant did not return the garage door remote and accepted liability for the replacement.

The landlord decided to change the locks at the end of the tenancy but accepted that the tenant had returned the keys. The tenant is not liable for the landlord’s cost in changing the locks as her obligation was completed by returning the keys. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Some handles from the kitchen cupboard doors were missing. b. The side door to the garage had been forcibly opened breaking the lock, the door and the door frame. c. A window was broken in a shed. d. There was a tear to the wallpaper in the hallway.

The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The damage to the door was intentional and so the tenant is liable for the full repair. The damage to the door handles, the window and the wallpaper was careless and so the tenant is liable up to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess which is $750.00.

The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, it is appropriate to consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord’s invoice for the door handle and garage door replacement does not differentiate between the two jobs. The landlord has gained a brand-new garage door to replace a door that was over 40 years’ old by the landlord’s reckoning. It is appropriate to award a sum less than that claimed by the landlord to reflect this and that the kitchen handles were at the end of their useful life.

The landlord’s only evidence of the cost of repairing the wallpaper was an email from the contractor, not a GST invoice. The amount claimed included GST. As the invoice was not provided, there was no evidence that the contractor was entitled to claim GST. The sum awarded by the Tribunal is commensurate with other invoices which the Tribunal sees for similar work in this area.

The amounts ordered are proved. Landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for subletting

The landlord explained that the alleged subletting occurred for a period in the latter half of 2022.

As the landlord’s application was filed more than twelve months after the alleged unlawful act occurred, the Tribunal has no ability to award exemplary damages and so must dismiss the landlord’s claim. See section 109(2)(b) RTA. Tenant’s claim for unlawful entry

The tenant gave evidence that on 29 September 2025 at around 1 pm the landlord came to the backdoor of the property and went inside without giving any required notice.

The landlord explained that she was exasperated by the tenant’s failure to return calls or communicate with her about the substantial amount of rent arrears which had accrued. She gave evidence that she tried knocking on the front door first and, when she was aware that there was somebody inside, she entered the premises through the back door. She advised that she did not go any further into the property than the mat inside the back door and that she believed she was allowed to enter the premises under section 48(2)(a) RTA as it was an emergency.

The accrual of substantial arrears does not amount to an emergency. That term refers to situations such as a fire or a flood within the premises when the tenant cannot be located and which requires urgent or immediate attention. Where a tenant does not respond to a landlord’s attempts at communication over rent arrears, the appropriate action is to apply to the Tribunal for termination.

To enter the premises, the landlord was required to serve notice in accordance with section 136 RTA. That is a straightforward matter. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the landlord did not serve notice and nor did she have consent to enter. She has intentionally committed an unlawful act.

Entering the premises in breach of the requirements of section 48 RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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) RTA.

Tenants are entitled to live in their homes without the intrusion of their landlord. The notice and service provisions of the RTA are designed to fairly regulate the tenant’s and landlord’s requirements. It is in the public interest that landlords be deterred from entering premises without giving the required notice. The impact on a tenant of having an irate landlord come into their home is an unwarranted intrusion. However, the Tribunal accepts that the landlord did not venture further into the premises and remained just inside the back door. It is appropriate in these circumstances to award a sum of $400.00 in exemplary damages.

The breach occasioned by the landlord’s entry is best served by this award of exemplary damages and the Tribunal declines to award any amount in compensation. Tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.

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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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". See MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The tenant claimed that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment and harassed her by ringing her repeatedly about the accumulating rent arrears, waiting outside her property after the unlawful entry and shouting at her son about the rent arrears.

The landlord provided copies of all text, email and message communication with the tenant during the tenancy. These do not disclose anything other than a concerned landlord responding to routine correspondence from a tenant, arranging visits to the premises by her and her contractors, together with not unreasonable enquiries regarding nonpayment of rent.

The landlord advised that there was a period of three weeks towards the end of the tenancy when she kept trying to contact the tenant to discuss the large and mounting rent arrears. She became frustrated because the tenant did not return her calls, texts or messages. Having assisted the tenant in reconciling the amount owing in rent arrears, the landlord had tried to work with the tenant on a payment plan but, despite agreeing, the tenant failed to address the accumulating arrears. The landlord gave evidence that she did not wait outside the premises but returned later to discuss the issue with the tenant upon her return.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has harassed the tenant by repeatedly trying to contact the tenant to discuss her significant and rising rent arrears. The landlord’s contact was not excessive nor unwarranted. The tenant could have simply contacted the landlord and answered her concerns.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises

The tenant claimed that the landlord did not regularly check that the smoke alarms were working. As the tenant provided no evidence that the smoke alarms did not work and as there is no legal obligation in the RTA nor in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 for regular inspections by a landlord, the tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to maintain the smoke alarms. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant’s application also contained claims that the landlord had failed to maintain a hot water tap and a pipe under the kitchen sink. At the hearing she confirmed that these matters were fixed by the landlord without an untimely delay. For completeness’ sake, the Tribunal records that these claims are dismissed.

The tenant also claimed that the landlord had failed to address a borer issue present in the property. The tenant provided no evidence that she had notified the landlord of the issue and the tenant’s photographic evidence was insufficient to prove there was any significant problem. The landlord denied that there was a borer issue in the premises.

The tenant has failed to persuade the Tribunal that there was a borer infestation of which the tenant had notified the landlord. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim that the landlord did not comply with the HHS

The tenant claimed that the landlord breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard and the moisture ingress and drainage standard. See standards 23, 27 and 28 HHS. Breaching this obligation 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 RTA.

The tenancy started on 3 July 2021. The landlord had 90-days from that date to comply with the HHS. Her HHS Statement supplied with the tenancy agreement confirmed that a ground moisture barrier would be installed within 90-days of occupancy and that extractor fans were installed in the kitchen and bathroom “that vents to the outside”.

The landlord accepted that the moisture barrier was not installed during the tenancy and that the premises did not comply with HHS regulation 28. Despite signing the HHS certificate of compliance confirming that the bathroom had an extractor fan that vents outside, she confirmed that it vented into the ceiling cavity.

The tenant claimed that there was a downpipe that did not empty into the stormwater system but instead flowed onto the lawn. The landlord advised that it was acceptable under the local council’s requirements if the discharge was to the lawn. Neither party provided any proof either way. The onus of proof is on the tenant to prove that the discharge was not authorised and this onus has not been discharged. The tenant’s claim in relation to the downpipe discharge is dismissed.

At the hearing it became clear that the tenant’s claim that the landlord had failed to comply with the HHS in relation to moisture and drainage and ventilation were included her claim that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises. The tenant’s claim in relation to these matters is more accurately considered as a breach of the HHS rather than a failure to maintain by the landlord.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached her obligation to comply with the HHS and did not comply with regulations 23 and 28 during the tenancy by failing to provide a ground moisture barrier and a ventilation fan in the bathroom that extracted air to the outdoors. See the definition of “qualifying ventilation” in regulation 3 HHS.

The landlord has committed unlawful acts.

The tenant claimed that these failures caused the premises to be cold and damp causing a mould problem. She also claimed without supplying evidence that the roof had leaks which contributed to the HRV system operating inadequately and that this contributed to the problem. The tenant supplied photographs of mould in the bathroom toilet, a wardrobe and on windowsills. She explained that she was regularly wiping away mould despite regularly airing the property and employing a dehumidifier. She also provided evidence from her doctor of health issues in her family living at the premises which she claimed were exacerbated by living in the damp premises.

As the tenant has not supplied any evidence which supports her belief that the roof was not weathertight (apart from an email from a neighbour), the Tribunal dismisses that claim.

The tenant’s evidence does not show a significant mould problem that could not be fixed by regular cleaning. Nor was there evidence of the tenant repeatedly complaining of a mould issue to the landlord. The landlord cannot be expected to fix an issue of which she has no notice. Nonetheless, the landlord had an ongoing obligation to the end of the tenancy to comply with the HHS and the tenant had no obligation to remind her that she had failed to do so. Because these breaches continued to the end of the tenancy on 24 October 2025, the tenant was entitled to claim exemplary damages in her application filed on 6 March 2026 which is within the one-year time limit in section 109(2) RTA.

It is reasonable to assume that the landlord’s failure to comply will have contributed to the perceived dampness and coldness of the premises. Rather than guessing at a sum in compensation, it is more appropriate that the tenant be awarded a sum of exemplary damages.

The landlord is in the business of a residential landlord. She is required to have made herself fully conversant with the legal requirements for compliance with the HHS, especially as she completed the HHS Compliance Certificate. If she did not know the requirements and was not competent in this area then it would have been prudent to employ a professional who can ensure the landlord’s compliance.

The HHS were enacted to make sure that residential rental premises met a minimum standard. It is in the public interest that landlords be dissuaded from ignoring or delaying their obligations. Failure to meet the standards is reasonable evidence that the premises were colder and damper than they would have been had the landlord complied.

Having considered these factors, the Tribunal has determined that a sum of $2,500.00 is an appropriate level of exemplary damages for a first breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA by the landlord. No uplift is required because there are two breaches of the HHS. Suppression and filing fee

As both parties have been substantially successful in their applications it is appropriate that their names be suppressed and each meet their own filing fees.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395367 — net $11,860.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5395367 dated 12/03/2026	$12,450.00		Previous order application 5395367 dated 12/03/2026
Cleaning	$180.00		Cleaning
Garage door opener	$130.00		Garage door opener
Repairs: garage door	$1,400.00		Repairs: garage door
Repairs: cupboard handles	$150.00		Repairs: cupboard handles
Window repairs	$110.50		Window repairs
Repairs: wallpaper	$340.00		Repairs: wallpaper
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$400.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: HHS noncompliance		$2,500.00	HHS noncompliance
Total award	$14,760.50	$2,900.00
Net award	$11,860.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,860.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.

The tenant did not return the garage door remote and accepted liability for the replacement.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The amounts ordered are proved. Landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for subletting

The landlord explained that the alleged subletting occurred for a period in the latter half of 2022.

The tenant gave evidence that on 29 September 2025 at around 1 pm the landlord came to the backdoor of the property and went inside without giving any required notice.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.

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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises

The landlord has committed unlawful acts.

As the tenant has not supplied any evidence which supports her belief that the roof was not weathertight (apart from an email from a neighbour), the Tribunal dismisses that claim.

As both parties have been substantially successful in their applications it is appropriate that their names be suppressed and each meet their own filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395367 — Property damage at 53 Graham Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395367 — Property damage at 53 Graham Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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

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