Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5427348 — Property damage
Decided 15 May 2026 · Published 15 May 2026 · Application 5427348
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,102.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Bottle Stop Rentals Limited as Agent for D & C Gilbert Holdings Ltd and D & C Gilbert Holdings Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,098.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The tenant appeared. Mr Standen and Mr Monoyoudys appeared for the landlord.
- The tenancy commenced on 08 November 2022 and ended on 21 January 2026.
- On 17 January 2026, the tenant filed a claim as follows: i. Refund of the bond ii. Repayment of overpaid rent iii. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards
- Draught stopping
- Heating
- Drainage and moisture ingress
- Ventilation iv. Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, particularly dampness, v. Failed to provide a security light.
- The tenant is seeking an order that the landlord complete an HHS review of the property, and work orders to benefit any new tenants.
- Apart from the rent overpayment, and the refund of the bond, the tenant does not seek any monetary compensation.
- As the tenancy has ended, the Tribunal cannot make any work orders.
- At the commencement of the hearing, the landlord advised that they opposed the claims, including the refund of the bond. However, the landlord had not filed a counterclaim and believed that the Tribunal could consider their claims without one, adding that the Tribunal had done so in the past.
- Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) states that if the tenant applies to the Tribunal for the release of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file a counterclaim.
- Neither party wished to delay the matter, and both were keen to deal with all matters arising from the tenancy at the hearing. The tenant stated they would not seek an adjournment and were prepared to proceed with the landlord’s claims. I therefore briefly adjourned the hearing, directing that the landlord file their counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
- The landlord’s claims are as follows: i. Damage:
- Heat pump remote.
- Walls and doors
- Carpet
- The landlord seeks compensation. Tenant’s claims Rent overpayment.
- The tenant claims that they have made a rent overpayment of $78.57. The landlord accepts this claim. I award the amount sought. Dampness
- The tenant has provided photographs of walls in bedrooms taken on 3 September 2024 and 19 December 2025, as well as photographs taken during the tenancy showing condensation forming on the inside of several windows throughout the house. They stated that the photographs are evidence the property suffered from excessive moisture and dampness. The tenant stated they raised this issue verbally with the property manager, who said that condensation forming on the inside of windows in houses of this age was not unusual and suggested that the tenant wipe the mould off. The tenant stated they wiped the surfaces, but the mould returned. Despite raising it again, there was no response. The tenant referred to two photographs in the landlord’s bundle of evidence taken at the end of the tenancy showing mould forming on a door frame and another taken during the tenancy of mould forming on a wall in a bedroom.
- The landlord denies that the substance on the door frame is mould and that the other photograph in facts shows any substance on the wall. The landlord confirmed that when raised they had given the tenant advice to clean any affected areas. The landlord states that mould continuing to form on the bedroom wall was not raised as an ongoing issue during the tenancy.
- The landlord produced an HHS report dated 16 December 2020. They stated that the house was built in the 1950s and that, despite being HHS compliant, it is not unusual in older houses for condensation to form on the insides of windows. The landlord stated there were several factors which may contribute to moisture and condensation and that they provided advice to tenants with the agreement on how to mitigate this occurring. The landlord also suggested that during inspections they had noted that curtains were closed, and windows were shut, and on one occasion washing was discovered being dried inside, raising a doubt as to whether the tenant had properly ventilated the property, which they stated could also be a factor.
- The tenant denied that they had failed to properly ventilate the property or had regularly dried clothing inside, and stated that they had used a dehumidifier, but accepted that they had only raised the issue verbally and had not issued any 14- day notices. Apart from the photographs provided, there was no documentary evidence supporting their claim.
- The tenant stated that mould had also formed on their personal possessions, although they had been unaware of this until they moved out in January 2026 and had not taken any photographs. They also stated that they had suffered from respiratory illness which a doctor had told them was caused by moisture and mould but were unable to provide medical evidence. HHS draught
- The tenant claims that the windows throughout the house did not seal properly, resulting in draughts. The tenant referred to one photograph showing what they claim is at least a 3 cm gap under an external door. The tenant stated rain would enter through the gap and believed they had raised the matter verbally. There are no other photographs of gaps around windows or doors. The tenant stated that although there were gaps, they could not be seen in photographs.
- The landlord denied that any draught issues had been raised during the tenancy. The landlord disputed that the door in question was an external door, as there was another door between it and the kitchen.
- Both parties provided a diagram showing the location of the door. HHS drainage
- The tenant states that each time there was moderate to heavy rainfall, the back part of the section would flood. The tenant produced a photograph taken during the tenancy showing flooding near where the rubbish and recycling bins are kept. The tenant recalled raising the issue verbally with the property manager “a few times,” but it was never investigated.
- The landlord states they have no record of the matter being raised as an issue during the tenancy. They stated that one photograph taken during heavy rain of some surface flooding did not mean that the drainage was defective. They also referred to the HHS report, which stated that the property met the Healthy Homes drainage standards. HHS heating
- The tenant claims that the heat pump was not sufficiently adequate to heat the main living room, and that the property probably required a heat exchange system. The tenant stated that they had not raised the issue during the tenancy.
- The landlord denied the claim, referring to the HHS report which recorded that the property complied with the HH heating standard. Security light
- The tenant stated that they had issues with a neighbour and, during the tenancy, requested that a security light be installed at the back door. They stated that they had raised this verbally with the property manager on at least one occasion.
- The landlord acknowledged the request and stated that it was declined, although the tenant was given permission to install their own light. Law
- Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
- Tenancies started or renewed between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 were required to complied with the HHS within 90 days.
- Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.
- The HHS heating standard requires that the main living room in every rental property must have a fixed heating device that can heat the room to at least 18°C. The heater must be efficient, safe, and not an open fire or an un-flued gas heater.
- The HHS drainage standard requires that all rental properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water. This includes having appropriate gutters, downpipes, and drains to prevent water from pooling around or under the house.
- Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.
- Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.
- During the tenancy, the property was also subject to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which set out requirements for residential properties. The HHS obligations are additional to HIR, and generally more stringent.
- Section 45(1)(c) of the Act requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety that apply to the premises. This means landlords must ensure the property meets all relevant building codes, health regulations, and safety standards throughout the tenancy.
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
- To establish a breach under section 45(1), the tenant must prove: i. The nature of the defect or failure to comply with the relevant provision, ii. When the issue was first brought to the attention of the landlord (unless it was an issue that should have been obvious to a reasonable person during a routine inspection), iii. Whether the landlord failed to investigate and, if required, remedy any issue within a reasonable time in the circumstances.
- Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Analysis and decision
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act.
- In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Dampness
- The issue in this case is whether the matter had been raised as an ongoing issue during the tenancy, or if it was a state of affairs that would have been obvious during inspections. There are no emails or text messages recording the matter being raised as an ongoing issue, and no 14-day breach notices. The photographs do not establish that the property suffered from excessive moisture or dampness. The property was HHS compliant. I accept the landlord’s submission that condensation forming on the insides of windows is not unusual in a house of this age and does not, on its own, mean the property is defective. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. The claim as it relates to moisture ingress and dampness is dismissed. HHS draught
- The HHS standards for this tenancy came into effect on 09 November 2022, being 90 days after the tenancy commenced.
- There is insufficient evidence to establish the claim. There is no documentary evidence supporting the tenant’s claim that they raised it as an issue. Apart from the door referred to, there are no photographs of any other gaps around windows or doors.
- Even if the door concerned can be properly described as an external door, on my objective assessment, a gap cannot be seen in the photograph. The claim as it relates to draughts is dismissed. HHS drainage
- There is no documentary evidence supporting the tenant’s claim that the issue had been raised. The property complies with the HHS drainage standard. I accept the landlord’s submission that the photographic evidence does not establish that there was a defect with the drainage. The claim as it relates to drainage is dismissed. HHS heating
- I am not satisfied that the property fails to meet the HH heating standard. The claim is dismissed. Security light
- Unless the landlord had failed to maintain an existing light, or refusing to install a light amounted to a failure to provide and maintain the back stairs in a reasonable state of repair, or to meet any health and safety provisions that may apply, the landlord was not obliged to install a security light. There is no evidence that the stairs themselves were not adequately illuminated. There are no photographs of the stairs at night on which to make an objective assessment. The claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims
- The landlord claims that the heat pump remote was damaged during the tenancy and no longer functioned. The tenancy allowed the tenant to have a dog at the property. The landlord has produced a photograph of the heat pump control showing damage they state is consistent with having been chewed by an animal.
- The tenant denies the claim. They stated that the remote control was already in the condition shown in the photograph at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant stated that the damage could not have been caused by their dog, which had larger teeth. They also noted that the previous occupants had also kept a dog.
- The landlord has produced a photograph showing partially repaired damage to bedroom wall, which they state had occurred during the tenancy.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage, stating that it had occurred while moving out. They stated that during the end of tenancy inspection they asked the property manager to arrange the repair, and the tenant would pay for it. The tenant stated that the parties later agreed that the tenant could attempt the repair themselves. The tenant stated they purchased a patch repair kit from hardware store.
- The landlord stated that, while the tenant was able to attempt the repair themselves, the expectation was that the repair would be completed to a reasonable standard, which they state it was not. The landlord is claiming $322.00 to complete the repair to a reasonable standard.
- The tenant disputes the claim. They state their repair was completed to the same standard as previous repairs and argue that allowing the landlord’s claim would result in betterment. They also question the hourly rate charged, stating that the quote was provided by a contractor who is engaged by the landlord to provide general maintenance and is therefore not sufficiently independent.
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to four internal doors, the exterior sides of two-bedroom doors, the interior side of one of those doors, the exterior side of a wardrobe door, and another door leading off the hallway. The landlord has produced photographs of the doors, which they state show damage more likely than not caused by the tenant’s dog scratching at them. The landlord states that it is more cost effective to replace the doors, for a total of $1,046.50, rather than attempt to repair.
- The landlord has produced photographs of the doors said to have been taken at the commencement of the tenancy and submits that an accurate before and after comparison can be made. The photographs have been taken by a property manager no longer employed by the landlord. The landlord stated that the property manager responsible for the tenancy had also since left the landlord’s employment. The landlord also produced a pre tenancy inspection report signed by both parties. The report records pre-existing marks on “all doors” in bedroom two and three. No damage to the doors in bedroom one is recorded.
- The tenant stated that the previous occupant had a dog. The tenant argues the photographs said to show the condition of the doors at the commencement of the tenancy are not dated, and questions whether they were in fact taken then. The tenant stated that all of the doors had pre-existing marks, including bedroom one, but that, as the other doors had similar damage, they did not consider it necessary to note this separately.
- The tenant also provided photographs showing pre-existing damage, that despite being present, had not been included in the pre tenancy check list. The tenant further stated that there had been regular property inspections during the tenancy, and that no issue regarding the doors had ever been raised. There were no emails, text messages about the damage, or 14-day notices issued because the damage had always been present.
- The landlord claims that the carpet in two bedrooms and the living room was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord has provided photographs showing stains to the carpet in two bedrooms bedroom, and a burn (in the shape of an iron) to the carpet in the living room.
- The landlord stated that at the end of the tenancy a strong odour of urine was detected from the carpet. The landlord stated that the tenant had advised them that they had cleaned the carpet themselves using a domestic carpet cleaner and carpet shampoo.
- The landlord stated that, as part of an insurance claim, the insurer arranged for the carpet to be inspected by a professional carpet cleaner, who advised that the carpet could not be cleaned, and that the odour could not be removed.
- The landlord stated that during the installation of new carpet, sand was discovered between the carpet and the underlay in the living room and one of the bedrooms. The landlord claims that spreading sand on carpets affected by urine is a well-known method of attempting to remove urine stains and odour, and that the presence sand is evidence that the tenant has attempted to mitigate the staining and odour.
- The landlord stated that the carpet was approximately two years old at the commencement of the tenancy and had no staining. The landlord stated that the previous occupant had pets and there had been a condition in their agreement, as there was in the tenants, requiring the carpets be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, which the landlord assumed had occurred.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the burn mark, which they state had been caused by an iron. They stated that there was pre-existing damage where the carpet in the living room met the dining room. The tenant accepted they had cleaned the carpet themselves using a domestic carpet cleaner and carpet shampoo.
- Regarding the staining in the bedrooms, they accepted that the staining had likely occurred during the tenancy but could not recall how and denied that it was urine related.
- Concerning the odour, the tenant stated that they had one dog, that the section was fenced and the dog toileted outside. They stated that no issues concerning odour, which if as strong as suggested, had been raised during the tenancy.
- They denied using sand and stated that it was known to be ineffective. They stated that the landlord was incorrect in claiming that the sand had been found in both the living room and bedroom, and that the photographs showed sand in the living room only. The tenant also stated that they had not seen any evidence from the carpet cleaner that the carpet could not be cleaned. The tenant also stated there was no evidence that the previous occupant had cleaned the carpet. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $650.00 per claim.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision Heat pump remote.
- There is insufficient evidence to establish the condition of the heat pump remote at the commencement of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The claim as it relates to the heat pump remote is dismissed. Doors
- Again, the primary issue is whether it can be established, to the required standard that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy. I have viewed the photographs of the doors said to be taken at the commencement of the tenancy, which, as the tenant submits, are undated. The distance and lighting in the photographs make an objective assessment difficult. The photographs taken at the end are significantly superior to those said to have been taken at the commencement.
- The tenant’s evidence that some pre-existing damage has not been recorded in the pre tenancy check list casts doubt on the reliability of the documents for the purposes of making a before and after comparison. The previous occupant kept a dog, and the damage is consistent with dog scratching. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied, that more likely than not the tenants dog caused the damage. The claim as it relates to the doors is dismissed. Carpet
- There are no photographs showing the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy. Apart from a selection of photographs from one inspection, in which the carpet is obscured by furniture, none of the other reports have been produced. The pre tenancy inspection report records that the flooring in bedroom one has a small red mark and that the flooring in bedroom three has a small black mark. The report records the damage to the join in the carpet in the living room. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sand is confined to the living room only.
- Although this Tribunal has not heard about the use of sand, it has previously heard evidence from commercial carpet cleaners that shampooing carpets, particularly when conducted by a non-professional, can draw urine previously trapped in underlay back through the carpet, a process referred to as “wicking.” Although the landlord assumes that the previous occupants had the carpets professionally cleaned, there is no evidence that this in fact occurred. I cannot rule out the tenant’s self-cleaning of the carpet has drawn out urine residue from the previous tenancy.
- The photographs of the carpet in bedroom one and three show staining not consistent with that recorded in the pre tenancy checklist. I am satisfied that the stains shown in the end of tenancy photographs are over and above those recorded in the pre tenancy checklist and have more likely than not occurred during the tenancy.
- In summary, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the staining to the carpet in the two bedrooms and the burn mark in the living room. I am not satisfied that the stains are urine related, nor that the tenant was responsible for the odour.
- The landlord is claiming four insurance excesses of $650.00, totalling $2,600.00.
- The issue is whether the awarding the insurance excess of $650.00 for each of the three rooms in which the carpet has been stained or scorched is proportionate.
- I accept the tenant’s submission that despite the insurance agreeing to replacement there was no other evidence that this was in fact required. Although the tenant was not responsible for the odour, if wicking had occurred, carpet replacement was likely the only viable option. However, the tenant is only liable for the damage for which they are responsible.
- Carpet in residential tenancy premises has an expected useful life span of approximately 8 – 12 years. The carpet was approximately two years old at the commencement and halfway through its maximum useful life span at the end of the tenancy. The carpet in the two bedrooms concerned and the living room also had some pre-existing damage. Taking into account betterment, I reduce each excess by 50% and make a further deduction of 10%, resulting in a total deduction of 60%. I therefore award the landlord compensation of $260.00 per room, totalling $780.00. Costs
- Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
- As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- Having assessed the matter globally, both parties have been sufficiently successful to be eligible for name suppression. The tenant seeks name suppression; the landlord does not.