What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424708 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 5424708?

Compensation: loss of utility stove/…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; December 2025: $87.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424708?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13525014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424708 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 5424708?

Compensation: loss of utility stove/…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; December 2025: $87.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424708?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13525014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 203 Marua Road, Mount Wellington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424708 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424708 — net $1,563.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
December 2025	$87.00		December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of utility stove/plug		$650.00	loss of utility stove/plug
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$115.00	$1,678.00
Net award		$1,563.00
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,563.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Richard Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $563.00 immediately, for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to Rohith Goud Anuganti and Ramyasri Kunta.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a tenant application. However, the landlord had also filed an application (5495888) which both parties agreed to have dealt with the tenant’s application. This order is the full and final resolution of all claims regarding this tenancy.
The tenants are claiming a full refund of their bond, that the landlord failed to maintain the property, and to dispute the cleaning and repair costs claimed by the landlord, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 16 October 2023 and ended on 29 December 2025 after the tenants gave notice. The tenancy ended during the public holidays between Christmas and New Year. As a result of the time of year the tenants asked for an extra day to return the keys after cleaning the property. The tenants were trying to return the keys on 30 th December 2025. The landlord was not available due to family commitments and asked the tenants to hold the keys until 2 January 2026.
The landlord does not seek rent until 2 January 2026 but one extra day’s rent till 30 December 2025.
The tenants do not oppose paying the landlord an extra day’s rent. By consent of the parties the tenants will pay one days rent of $87.00 up to the 30 th of December 2025. The tenants are not liable for any additional rent after 30 December 2025.
The tenants took photos on 30 th December 2025 of the property after their commercial cleaners had left the property and have provided them to the Tribunal. The landlord took photos of the property on 9 January 2026 to support their claim that the property was not reasonable clean and tidy and to highlight repairs that needed to be carried out after the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Both parties have provided the Tribunal with photos of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices from their respective cleaning companies.
The tenant’s cleaning invoice was dated 30 December 2025, and the landlord cleaning and carpet cleaning invoices were dated 9 January 2026 and 26 February 2026. I am not accepting the carpet cleaning costs for $200.00 for work carried out on 26 February 2026 which is two months after the end of the tenancy. Standard of Cleaning Required
Under section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), tenants are required, at the end of the tenancy, to leave the premises “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.” The standard is not absolute cleanliness or perfection, but what a reasonable person would consider to be clean and tidy in the circumstances. Minor wear, marks, or imperfections that arise from normal use are not a breach of this obligation. Assessment of Evidence
In this case, both parties have provided photographs and invoices from their respective cleaners. The tenants’ photographs show a premises that appears clean and tidy overall. The landlord’s photographs show some marks, but these are not clear or do not demonstrate a failure to meet the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. Where there is conflicting evidence, the Tribunal must weigh the credibility and clarity of the evidence provided.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenants have met their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s evidence does not clearly establish that the premises were left in a condition below the required standard. Accordingly, no order is made for further cleaning costs.

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 [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Smoke marks on the walls and ceilings.
The landlord produced several photos which he says show black marks on the walls and ceilings consistent with smoke from the tenant’s incense sticks used at their home.
The landlord provided receipts from Bunnings for products needed to paint walls and ceilings such as brushes, sandpaper, undercoat, paint, sugar soap. Furthermore, an invoice from Shablam4me Painting Services for $600.00.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the marks are than what would be considered fair wear and tear. In this case, the landlord claims for the cost of repainting due to smoke marks allegedly caused by the tenant’s use of incense. The tenant denies that the premises required repainting and has provided photographs showing the premises in a clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. If the marks appear superficial and could be removed by cleaning, then repainting may not be justified.
The landlord’s photographs are of poor quality and do not clearly establish the presence or extent of any smoke marks and are inconsistent with the photos provided by the tenants.
The landlord claims that the property was painted approximately three and a half years ago. The property is a 1970/80’s build and the walls are painted block walls. The photos show that the walls were in a serviceable condition and not of an unblemished and pristine nature.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises required repainting as a result of the tenant’s actions.
The use of incense as part of the tenant’s religious practice does not, in itself, amount to damage. For a claim of damage to succeed, the landlord must show that the tenant’s actions caused more than what could be remedied by cleaning, and that the premises were left in a condition below the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. That threshold has not been met on the evidence provided.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for repainting is dismissed. Tenants claim – Failure to Maintain the property:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property in the following ways: -One of the four stove elements were broken and the tray under the element was rusted out. The landlord was advised and viewed the element but did not remedy the element during the tenancy. The element was not working for two years. -A wall plug was broken and appeared “burnt” out. The landlord viewed the burnt plug and failed to repair it, saying there are other plugs that could be used. The plug was not repaired in the two years of the tenancy. -Tenants claim that there was moisture in the carpet in the spare bedroom, which was never repaired.
The landlord said in the hearing that the tenants had three other elements to use so they were not disadvantaged. Furthermore, that he was seeking to replace the oven with a second-hand glass top oven once he located one on trade me.
The landlord said the there were other plugs the tenants could have used, and it was not a disservice to the tenants to use the other plugs. The tenants talked about safety issues and electrical sockets and elements being burnt and sparking.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and compensation for loss of utility for the plug and element. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord was required under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The evidence establishes that a stove element and a kitchen power socket were not repaired for a period of two years. While the landlord submits that other elements and sockets were available, this does not excuse the failure to repair, as tenants are entitled to the full use of all facilities provided under the tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b). The failure to repair persisted for an extended period, despite the landlord being aware of the issue. This amounts to an intentional breach and is therefore an unlawful act under section 45(1A).
In considering whether exemplary damages should be awarded, I have had regard to the factors in section 109(3) RTA:
The landlord was aware of the need for repair and chose not to act.
The effect on the tenants was a loss of utility and inconvenience over a significant period.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their repair obligations.
It is just to make an award in this case.
Accordingly, I award exemplary damages of $1000.00 the for the landlord’s unlawful act.
In addition, I award compensation of $650.00 for the tenants’ loss of utility and amenity, reflecting the inconvenience and reduced enjoyment of the premises over the two-year period. Filing Fee/Bond/Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the tenants immediately.
The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424708 — net $1,563.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
December 2025	$87.00		December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of utility stove/plug		$650.00	loss of utility stove/plug
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$115.00	$1,678.00
Net award		$1,563.00
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,563.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Richard Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $563.00 immediately, for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to Rohith Goud Anuganti and Ramyasri Kunta.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a tenant application. However, the landlord had also filed an application (5495888) which both parties agreed to have dealt with the tenant’s application. This order is the full and final resolution of all claims regarding this tenancy.
The tenants are claiming a full refund of their bond, that the landlord failed to maintain the property, and to dispute the cleaning and repair costs claimed by the landlord, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 16 October 2023 and ended on 29 December 2025 after the tenants gave notice. The tenancy ended during the public holidays between Christmas and New Year. As a result of the time of year the tenants asked for an extra day to return the keys after cleaning the property. The tenants were trying to return the keys on 30 th December 2025. The landlord was not available due to family commitments and asked the tenants to hold the keys until 2 January 2026.
The landlord does not seek rent until 2 January 2026 but one extra day’s rent till 30 December 2025.
The tenants do not oppose paying the landlord an extra day’s rent. By consent of the parties the tenants will pay one days rent of $87.00 up to the 30 th of December 2025. The tenants are not liable for any additional rent after 30 December 2025.
The tenants took photos on 30 th December 2025 of the property after their commercial cleaners had left the property and have provided them to the Tribunal. The landlord took photos of the property on 9 January 2026 to support their claim that the property was not reasonable clean and tidy and to highlight repairs that needed to be carried out after the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Both parties have provided the Tribunal with photos of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices from their respective cleaning companies.
The tenant’s cleaning invoice was dated 30 December 2025, and the landlord cleaning and carpet cleaning invoices were dated 9 January 2026 and 26 February 2026. I am not accepting the carpet cleaning costs for $200.00 for work carried out on 26 February 2026 which is two months after the end of the tenancy. Standard of Cleaning Required
Under section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), tenants are required, at the end of the tenancy, to leave the premises “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.” The standard is not absolute cleanliness or perfection, but what a reasonable person would consider to be clean and tidy in the circumstances. Minor wear, marks, or imperfections that arise from normal use are not a breach of this obligation. Assessment of Evidence
In this case, both parties have provided photographs and invoices from their respective cleaners. The tenants’ photographs show a premises that appears clean and tidy overall. The landlord’s photographs show some marks, but these are not clear or do not demonstrate a failure to meet the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. Where there is conflicting evidence, the Tribunal must weigh the credibility and clarity of the evidence provided.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenants have met their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s evidence does not clearly establish that the premises were left in a condition below the required standard. Accordingly, no order is made for further cleaning costs.

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 [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Smoke marks on the walls and ceilings.
The landlord produced several photos which he says show black marks on the walls and ceilings consistent with smoke from the tenant’s incense sticks used at their home.
The landlord provided receipts from Bunnings for products needed to paint walls and ceilings such as brushes, sandpaper, undercoat, paint, sugar soap. Furthermore, an invoice from Shablam4me Painting Services for $600.00.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the marks are than what would be considered fair wear and tear. In this case, the landlord claims for the cost of repainting due to smoke marks allegedly caused by the tenant’s use of incense. The tenant denies that the premises required repainting and has provided photographs showing the premises in a clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. If the marks appear superficial and could be removed by cleaning, then repainting may not be justified.
The landlord’s photographs are of poor quality and do not clearly establish the presence or extent of any smoke marks and are inconsistent with the photos provided by the tenants.
The landlord claims that the property was painted approximately three and a half years ago. The property is a 1970/80’s build and the walls are painted block walls. The photos show that the walls were in a serviceable condition and not of an unblemished and pristine nature.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises required repainting as a result of the tenant’s actions.
The use of incense as part of the tenant’s religious practice does not, in itself, amount to damage. For a claim of damage to succeed, the landlord must show that the tenant’s actions caused more than what could be remedied by cleaning, and that the premises were left in a condition below the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. That threshold has not been met on the evidence provided.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for repainting is dismissed. Tenants claim – Failure to Maintain the property:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property in the following ways: -One of the four stove elements were broken and the tray under the element was rusted out. The landlord was advised and viewed the element but did not remedy the element during the tenancy. The element was not working for two years. -A wall plug was broken and appeared “burnt” out. The landlord viewed the burnt plug and failed to repair it, saying there are other plugs that could be used. The plug was not repaired in the two years of the tenancy. -Tenants claim that there was moisture in the carpet in the spare bedroom, which was never repaired.
The landlord said in the hearing that the tenants had three other elements to use so they were not disadvantaged. Furthermore, that he was seeking to replace the oven with a second-hand glass top oven once he located one on trade me.
The landlord said the there were other plugs the tenants could have used, and it was not a disservice to the tenants to use the other plugs. The tenants talked about safety issues and electrical sockets and elements being burnt and sparking.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and compensation for loss of utility for the plug and element. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord was required under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The evidence establishes that a stove element and a kitchen power socket were not repaired for a period of two years. While the landlord submits that other elements and sockets were available, this does not excuse the failure to repair, as tenants are entitled to the full use of all facilities provided under the tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b). The failure to repair persisted for an extended period, despite the landlord being aware of the issue. This amounts to an intentional breach and is therefore an unlawful act under section 45(1A).
In considering whether exemplary damages should be awarded, I have had regard to the factors in section 109(3) RTA:
The landlord was aware of the need for repair and chose not to act.
The effect on the tenants was a loss of utility and inconvenience over a significant period.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their repair obligations.
It is just to make an award in this case.
Accordingly, I award exemplary damages of $1000.00 the for the landlord’s unlawful act.
In addition, I award compensation of $650.00 for the tenants’ loss of utility and amenity, reflecting the inconvenience and reduced enjoyment of the premises over the two-year period. Filing Fee/Bond/Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the tenants immediately.
The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424708 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 203 Marua Road, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424708 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 203 Marua Road, Mount Wellington,

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