What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419657 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 5419657?

Light Switch Covers: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419657?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13811916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419657 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 5419657?

Light Switch Covers: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419657?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13811916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5419657 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419657 — net $1,238.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fibreboard repair	$540.50	Fibreboard repair
Light switch covers	$414.00	Light switch covers
Door repairs	$184.00	Door repairs
Curtain replacement	$100.00	Curtain replacement
Net award	$1,238.50
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,238.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419657 — net $1,238.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fibreboard repair	$540.50	Fibreboard repair
Light switch covers	$414.00	Light switch covers
Door repairs	$184.00	Door repairs
Curtain replacement	$100.00	Curtain replacement
Net award	$1,238.50
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,238.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,238.50 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,238.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,001.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has made a cross application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and exemplary damages.
Both parties have provided considerable documentation, and I confirm I have reviewed and considered these even if there is no direct reference.
Some documents have been provided after the hearing (as approved during the hearing), and issues have also been raised around whether those were correctly served. I have taken these concerns into account where relevant in this decision.
The tenancy commenced in around September 2022 and ended in December 2025. 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. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02.
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 (within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)) 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 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. 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. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. Landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for vacated and exemplary damages. The vacated damages claims (including GST) are: a. Damaged fibreboard requiring repair of $540.50. b. Patching and painting holes in the walls of the lounge and bedroom of $322.00. c. Replacement light switch covers and internals of $414.00. d. Removal of the cracked bathroom vanity basin and installation of new basin of $1,259.25. e. Patching and painting the bottom of a damaged bedroom door of $184.00. f. Replacing two curtains for $184.00.
In the application with the Tribunal, the total amount sought for damages is $2,903.75 (including GST). The landlord says there were several other items and costs they incurred after the tenancy that they have not sought to claim.
Following the hearing I allowed some further information to be provided by both parties. Specifically, this was evidence of before and after the tenancy to support the landlord’s vacated damages claim and letters from the tenant.
However, in the updated submissions provided within this further evidence, the landlord sought to increase the amounts from that recorded in the Tribunal application form to include carpet stains, a carpet tear and one additional day rent.
Although these items were briefly discussed during the course of the hearing, and there is correspondence suggesting agreement between the parties, they were not included in the application form and in the interests of fair process, natural justice and jurisdiction (the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims properly before it), I am not considering these amounts here.
There is nothing preventing the landlord from bringing a further claim with the Tribunal for these amounts.

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. 4
The landlord did not complete a pre-tenancy inspection report and instead has provided listing photographs from prior to the tenancy. Some photographs of damage have also been provided, together with a copy of a repair quote.
The tenant does not dispute the claims for the damaged fibreboard of $540.50; the damaged light switch covers of $414.00, the damage to the bottom of the door of $184.00 and the replacement curtains of $184.00.
The remaining items to consider are the patching and painting of holes in the walls of the lounge and bedroom of $322.00 and the replacement for the cracked vanity basin of $1,259.25.
The listing photographs provided as before photographs do not clearly show the walls in the lounge and the bedroom, nor are there any contemporaneous comments on the condition as would normally be recorded in a pre-tenancy report.
The Tribunal requires clear evidence of the condition of the premises at both the start and end of the tenancy. This usually means a detailed pre-tenancy inspection report (with photographs) and a comparable exit inspection. General 4 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. listing photographs are usually insufficient, especially if they do not provide close ups or clear evidence of the specific items now alleged to be damaged.
As there is insufficient evidence of the condition of the walls and basin at the commencement of the tenancy, I do not consider that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not, that the tenant caused this damage (either carelessly or intentionally) during the tenancy. As a result, the claims for the repairs to holes in the walls and the damaged bathroom basin are dismissed.
I do consider however, that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damaged fibreboard, damaged light switch covers, damaged bottom of door and damaged curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have reduced the amount awarded for the replacement curtains as they were not brand new when the damage occurred and were replaced with new. 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts awarded are therefore, $540.50 for the fibreboard, $414.00 for the light switch covers, $184.00 for door repairs and $100.00 towards the curtains, totalling $1,238.50.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
The landlord says that an issue arose where the landlord was accused of stealing money after WINZ continued to pay rent after the tenancy had ended.
There were said to be several people involved, including those from WINZ, and the landlords say that they were abused and accused of fraud or stealing by the tenant.
The issue was eventually resolved, but the landlord seeks exemplary damages for how they were treated during this process. Documents have been provided in support of this claim.
Exemplary damages under the RTA can only be awarded for specific unlawful acts as set out within the RTA. The RTA does not provide exemplary damages for verbal abuse or rude communication by a tenant or a third party (such as WINZ).
Accordingly, there is no basis in the RTA for awarding exemplary damages in these circumstances and this claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claims
The tenant has requested that her bond be refunded now that the tenancy has ended. She also claims there was a breach of healthy homes standards and seeks exemplary damages for a lack of routine inspections.
The tenant also submitted that she found it difficult to contact the landlord at times, found the relationship with the landlord upsetting and has provided copies of letters from witnesses regarding their observation of that relationship.
I note the landlord’s concerns about not receiving copies of these letters and confirm that the letters have not been relevant to determination of the claims and so any concerns about service of these or a failure to comply with natural justice have also fallen away. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims that the property did not comply with healthy homes standards (HHS).
Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS requirements in several different respects.
For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant says that the key issues were lifting floorboards, excessive moisture, a loose shower and other issues that created dampness within the home.
The tenant says that condensation would run down the windows and that there was mould growth despite efforts to manage and keep the property clean. The tenant says that her youngest son suffered respiratory issues, resulting in hospital visits and causing a loss of work and significant stress and hardship. A letter has been provided by Te Whatu Ora confirming the tenant’s son’s medical condition.
The tenant believes that there were two healthy homes assessments done and that both were failures. The tenant advises that both times the assessors indicated that they would advocate for the tenant, but that this didn’t occur and no improvements were made.
On 12 August 2025 a home performance advisor (from the Bay of Plenty District Health Board) carried out an assessment of the property. A letter from that assessment notes that the front door was very gappy and would be causing draughts, the shower lining was loose (that will be allowing moisture to get in), floor lining was lifting in the kitchen, and various latches around the property where the case cover around the bottom has come off.
The letter also advises the tenant of various steps she can take to keep the property healthy, such as ventilation and keeping on top of condensation on the windows. The letter notes that this is just the writer’s observation to support the whanau to create a warm and healthy home.
No full inspection was done, nor any assessment against HHS requirements, and there is no such assertion within the letter itself.
The landlord says that the insulation was compliant and has provided the insulation statement. They say they never received the Te Whatu Ora document or the August 2025 letter until the application was made to the Tribunal. They say they never received any communication about draughts or other issues, and that as a result they were never given an opportunity to respond in a reasonable manner. In other words, a landlord can’t do anything about an issue they don’t know about.
The tenant submits that this must be considered in the context of difficulties she had in contacting the landlord and that she felt intimidated and distressed when communicating with the landlord. A submission that is strongly disputed by the landlord.
However, there is no evidence that any of these documents or concerns were raised with, or sent to, the landlord at any stage. Nor was any other correspondence provided where the tenant had been alerting the landlord of any HHS issues (for example, mould or condensation).
On review of all evidence provided, I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the property did not comply with healthy homes standards as required by the RTA. I would need to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property did not comply and I do not consider that the evidence before me does that.
This claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks exemplary damages due to a failure by the landlord to carry out routine inspections.
Again, exemplary damages can only be awarded for specific “unlawful acts” as set out in the RTA. Not all breaches of the RTA are unlawful acts, but in any event, there is no section in the RTA that makes it at unlawful act for the landlord not to inspect the property.
Accordingly, no exemplary damages are available and this claim is dismissed. Other matters
As both parties have had some level of success (either in their own claims or reducing claims against them), I have not refunded the filing fee to either party and consider these costs should lie where they fall.
The landlord sought name suppression and provided information to support this. I consider in the circumstances this is appropriate and is so ordered. The tenant did not seek name suppression but has reduced some of the claims against her. In the circumstances, and in consideration of mention of the tenant’s son during this decision, I have on my own accord granted name suppression. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 26 June 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419657 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419657 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions