What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5398071?

The tribunal order states: Jamie Neil MacLeod and Rachel Victoria MacLeod must pay Jeffrey Wright and

How much money was awarded in case 5398071?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.41 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $384.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398071?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13527005-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5398071?

The tribunal order states: Jamie Neil MacLeod and Rachel Victoria MacLeod must pay Jeffrey Wright and

How much money was awarded in case 5398071?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.41 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $384.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398071?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13527005-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

60B Wilson Road South, RD 9, Paengaroa 3189 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5398071 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398071 — net $624.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$40.41	Rubbish removal
Water rates and power to 19 December 2025	$384.00	Water rates and power to 19 December 2025
Net award	$624.41
Bond	$3,340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$624.41

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398071 — net $624.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$40.41	Rubbish removal
Water rates and power to 19 December 2025	$384.00	Water rates and power to 19 December 2025
Net award	$624.41
Bond	$3,340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$624.41

Order

Jamie Neil MacLeod and Rachel Victoria MacLeod must pay Jeffrey Wright and Axcelle Robinson $624.41 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,340.00 (BN-00023146) immediately apportioned as follows: Jeffrey Wright and Axcelle Robinson: $624.41 Jamie Neil MacLeod and Rachel Victoria MacLeod: $2,715.59
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for compensation, exemplary damages for landlord breaches, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided significant evidence, and I confirm I have reviewed and considered this, even if there is no direct reference. Background
The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2025 and ended on 19 December 2025. The house was recently built and was around two years old at the tenancy’s commencement.
The tenancy was for the upstairs of a property, and garage downstairs. There was a self-contained unit downstairs that had its own access and was to be retained by the landlord. The tenants say that they were told it would be used occasionally by the landlords as part of work travel. The tenancy agreement records: “This agreement is to rent the 3 bedroom 2 garage house excludining [sic] the single garage and downstairs unit (this can be booked/rented for additional charge if free for family/friend purposes)”.
Access by the landlords to the downstairs unit required entry down the shared driveway and yard. There was also a granny flat on the property however, it had a different access point and was completely self-contained. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Exemplary damages
Both parties have sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 [1986] NZLR 732. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. Landlords’ claims
I now turn to deal with each of the parties’ claims. The landlords claim for: a. Outstanding water rates and power. b. Compensation for vacated costs and damages. c. Exemplary damages.

How much is owed for water rates and power?

As there were three properties onsite, the agreement was for water rates and power bills to be divided by three. The water meter was read prior to this tenancy commencing.
The landlords provided water rates and power bills records and readings which prove the amount owing of $384.00 at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlords say that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy (including the lawns) and did not remove all rubbish. They say the property was pristine prior to the tenancy and that at the end of the tenancy it 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. was very dirty and required two days of cleaning before new tenants could take possession.
They also say that the tenancy agreement required professional carpet cleaning and this was not carried out. The landlords claim $1,095.00 for cleaning, $85.00 for required lawn works and $40.41 for rubbish removal. Photographs and invoices have been provided in support of these claims.
The tenants dispute these claims and say that the property was left in a clean and reasonable state, significant time was spent cleaning, and they had used a Vax carpet cleaner. The tenants provided their own photographs from the end of the tenancy. They submit that the standard is not a professional clean, or cleaning ready for new tenants, just that it is left in a reasonably clean condition. They therefore say that any further cleaning required reflected the landlords’ standard rather than the statutory standard.
There is no requirement for a tenant to professionally clean the carpet at the end of a tenancy, the standard is simply that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy. This is regardless of whether the tenancy agreement included such an obligation, as tenancy agreements cannot go further than the provisions in the RTA. 4
The landlords have provided photographs of specific items they say required cleaning, including behind the rubbish bin, inside the dishwasher, the stove, inside the oven and inside drawers and cupboards.
On review, the tenants did clean the property, and most was left reasonably clean and tidy, however I accept that some minor additional cleaning was required in specific locations. I don’t think the claimed amount accurately reflects what was required to meet the statutory standard and as a result I award the landlord $200.00 towards these costs, as well as awarding $40.41 for the small amount of rubbish removal. The standard is reasonably clean and tidy, not the standard at the start of the tenancy or the standard required for new occupants or perfection.
In respect of the gardening. Tenants are not required to return outdoor areas to a “like new” condition. It is not clear from the photographs where the dog damage is, and I note the tenants’ submissions that other dogs were at the property at times. I consider with respect to this claim; the landlords have not met the required burden of proof.
The claim for lawns works is dismissed.
The amounts ordered for the cleaning contribution and rubbish removal are proved. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s11.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 5 [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims $40.95 for a missing shower rubber (usually at the bottom of the shower glass), $120.00 for the hire of a water blaster to clean a rust/pot plant stain off the patio, and $175.00 for the cost of a chemical wash for the driveway.
The landlord also says that there was other damage at the property, such as nail holes in the walls and damage to the pool cover, however no quantum was provided and these claims were not pursued at the hearing.
Tenants are not required to return outdoor areas to a “like new” condition or to undertake specialist cleaning such as water blasting or scrubbing of patios unless there is an unusual or excessive mess caused by the tenant. On review 5 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. of the photographs, there is no major mess, and any grime appears to be normal usage. Placing pot plants on patios is a common and reasonable use of outdoor areas in a residential area. Rust rings can develop over time due to water and metal contact, and are a foreseeable result of ordinary use, not a result of carelessness or neglect. I note, when requested by the landlord, the tenants purchased a riser to lift the pot plant off the patio. Careless damage would require evidence that the tenants acted without reasonable care, for example, by causing significant staining or damage through neglect or misuse beyond what is expected in normal living, and I am not satisfied that the evidence reflects this.
Similarly, outdoor surfaces like driveways are expected to show some signs of use over time, including minor marks from normal activities such as riding bikes. Resulting tyre marks are typical or ordinary use, and do not amount to a breach of the tenants’ obligations. I understand that others also had access to the driveway, so it would also be difficult to be certain enough that the damage was only attributable to the tenants.
The landlords also claim $1,500.00 for damage to the exterior walls they say was caused due to a bicycle being leaned against the walls around the garage door and the cost sought relates to a replaster and repaint. The tenants dispute this claim.
I do not consider I have sufficient evidence to prove how this damage was caused, however, even if I did – I consider that this would be fair wear and tear and not the result of any careless of intentional damage by the tenants. Leaning a bicycle against a wall beside a garage is, in my view, entirely ordinary use of a property.
In respect of the shower rubber, I do not have sufficient evidence to show that this was present at the commencement of tenancy, so I cannot be sure enough that it was removed during the tenancy to award its replacement.
The claims for vacated damages are therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages
The landlords claim exemplary damages due to believing that the poor state of the property at the end of the tenancy felt like a direct retaliation to the breakdown in the relationship between the parties.
Exemplary damages are only available under the RTA in specific circumstances.
No sections have been identified here and there is no section that I am aware of that is relevant here.
This claim is dismissed. Tenants’ claims
The tenants claim for: a. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry. b. Exemplary damage for tenancy agreement failures. Entering the premises without consent and breach of quiet enjoyment The law
The tenants claim the landlords have entered the premises without consent or notice and that their quiet enjoyment has been affected by the landlords’ constant use of the downstairs premises during the tenancy.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation 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.
A landlord must also 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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
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. Discussion
The tenants say that their understanding was that the downstairs unit would only be accessed occasionally, however, during the tenancy the property was frequented far more often than expected, impacting both their use and quiet enjoyment. There were some discussions between the parties about the tenants being able to use the downstairs unit for family/friends, or for themselves, however for various reasons this did not eventuate. The tenants say that one of the landlords was staying was most weeks and that this far exceeded the occasional use that had been represented to them. They say this pattern continued throughout the tenancy, causing disruption and interfering with their use, and at times it felt likely they were walking on eggshells.
The tenants say that eventually, due to the circumstances becoming untenable for them, they ended the tenancy.
The landlords acknowledged that the use of the downstairs unit had, at times, been more than originally anticipated but they disputed it was every week and maintained that the tenancy agreement did allow them to continue to use the downstairs unit.
Under section 38(3) of the RTA, exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment can only be awarded where the breach amounts to harassment. If the landlords’ conduct does not reach the threshold of harassment, exemplary damages are not available although compensation may still be considered for any loss suffered by the tenant.
The tenancy agreement provided that the tenancy was for the upstairs of the property, with the downstairs reserved for the landlords’ occasional use.
Although I have no reason to doubt the tenants’ submission that the landlord used the downstairs more than occasionally, I have no contemporaneous evidence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, the extent of the landlords’ use.
Section 38(2) of the RTA requires the landlord not to interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. The Tribunal must be satisfied, that the use of downstairs was so frequent or intrusive as to breach this obligation. In the absence of clear evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the landlords’ use exceeded what was agreed or amounted to a breach.
There is also insufficient evidence that the landlord entered the upstairs unit (the tenancy) without consent or proper notice. Unlawful entry usually requires evidence that a landlord has entered the premises in contravention of section 48 of the RTA. Entry to the downstairs ‘landlord’ area or the exterior of the property does not, on its own, amount to an unlawful entry.
The claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. Tenancy agreement failures
The tenants claims the landlord did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord accepted that they failed to sign the tenancy agreement and return it before the tenancy commenced. 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 that 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.
The law is well established, and landlords are expected to be aware of their legal obligations, and so any such breach must be considered intentional.
However, in this case, there is no evidence that the tenants suffered any disadvantage or loss as a result of the landlords’ failure to sign the agreement. The tenancy proceeded as normal, and the tenants had a written copy of the agreement. There is no indication of bad faith or an attempt to avoid the requirements of the RTA, or to change the terms of the agreement.
Having considered all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages in this case.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have had some level of success, including the tenants to the extent of reducing the claims against them, I have not refunded the filing fee to either party and consider these costs should lie where they fall. R Harvey-Lane 29 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398071 — Cleanliness at 60B Wilson Road South, RD 9, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398071 — Cleanliness at 60B Wilson Road South, RD 9, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates and power?

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

How much is owed for water rates and power?

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