What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427588 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay C & J Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5427588?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427588?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13812203-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427588 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay C & J Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5427588?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427588?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13812203-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 King Street, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427588 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay C & J Rentals Limited Chris Donkin $737.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
[The tenant/s] must pay C & Rentals Limited $111.43 immediately, for rent arrears from 21 March 2026 to 1 April 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,660.00 (BN-00162466) to C & J Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations, and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 11 October 2025. James was released from the fixed term by agreement on 5 February 2026. The tenancy ended early for Kalita by agreement on 1 April 2026.
The issues to be decided are as follows: -Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? -Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and in circumstances amounting to harassment? -How much is owed for rent and who is liable? -Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? -Are the tenants responsible for damage to the premises?
The onus is on both parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with the healthy homes standards 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 landlord says the premises and carpets were commercially cleaned prior to the tenancy but accepts that the carpets were old. The landlord says that the tenants did not ask for permission to remove the carpets, and the pieces left behind at the end of the tenancy were unusable. The landlord says there were no leaks nor mould inside the premises, but they accept that the grounds were flooded in one area which required 16.5 tonnes to fill and took around a month from the start of the tenancy to fix. The landlord says they gave the tenants some bait to get rid of rodents, and the electrical problems were fixed by their electrician in a reasonable time. The landlord accepts there was a crack in the bath but says this was fixed at the start, and a leak from the fireplace in heavy rain was fixed within a week.
I find that the landlord has breached their obligations and committed an unlawful act.
The carpet in the lounge was not attached to the subfloor, it was very old and mouldy, and all other carpets were disintegrating and threadbare. As a whole, the carpets did not provide adequate floor covering in any of the rooms and the tenant’s concerns were not acted upon. Although I acknowledge the tenants should not have removed the carpets without permission, the carpets should have been removed by the landlord before the tenants moved in as they were not in a reasonable state of repair. I find no evidence of any other leaks or mould.
The kitchen cupboards had rodent droppings from the outset and I agree with the tenants that the landlord could have done more to address their concerns by getting a professional out to investigate and eradicate the problem rather than offering bait traps. I also note that the area underneath the sink and adjoining benchtop was stuffed with papers rather than being properly sealed off which probably contributed to the infestation.
The front garden was flooded in a large area from the start and remained that way until the tenants complained about the smell. Although this was sorted within a month (approximately), this should have been done before the tenants moved in.
During the tenancy there were problems with power points, oven thermostat, and a leak from the fireplace, but I find that the landlord responded promptly and they were fixed within a reasonable time. I also find that the tenants failed to tell the landlord that the fix on the bath was not holding, therefore he was unable to make further repair or replace.
The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having considered all of the factors above, I find that an award of compensation and exemplary damages is appropriate in these circumstances. I award $1,250.00 compensation for loss of amenity which equates to a rent reduction of $50.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy. Weighing the substantive merits and justice, I also award $1,250.00 exemplary damages. In particular, this takes into account the detrimental effect on the tenants. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and in circumstances amounting to harassment?
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants say that the landlord called in without prior notification when they had specifically asked him not to come without giving notice, because he poked his head around the door and gave the tenant a fright.
I do not find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment nor harassed them. He had legitimate reasons for calling at the premises when he delivered and picked up weed spray, and to discuss complaints from neighbours.
This part of the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Cross application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended by agreement on 1 April 2026 and the arrears accrued after James left. This means that only Kalita is liable for the rent arrears but both remain liable (if proven) for all other claims.
The landlord provided rent records and a water rates invoice which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also made a claim for lost rent to the end of the fixed term. This claim cannot succeed because the landlord has already agreed to end the fixed term early. This part of the claim is dismissed.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
I decline to award any compensation for garden work as the grounds were not in a reasonable state at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: smoke alarm, lightbulbs, curtains, plugs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to doors and one was removed, broken door jamb in bedroom 2, some minor damage to paintwork and walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed $3,440.80 for replacement carpets. Although all the carpets were removed by the tenants without notifying the landlord, I find that they had no value given the dilapidated state they were in. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
I have awarded $1,212.98 for paintwork (50% of the amount claimed) which takes into account some pre-existing inconsistent patchwork, and depreciation.
As both parties have been partly successful, I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427588 — Property damage at 61 King Street, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427588 — Property damage at 61 King Street, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management