What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428931 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 5428931?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428931?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13680773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428931 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 5428931?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428931?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13680773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428931 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
Nicholas James Sparks and Rebecca Ravenwood must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, for filing fee reimbursement.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches.
At a previous hearing, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears and awarded rent arrears.
The remaining issues of compensation and exemplary damages claims were adjourned for a further hearing, and this order deals with those claims. 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
The tenants 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, [1986] NZLR 732. 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. 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
The landlords claim for cleaning, water blasting and curtain cleaning required after the tenancy ended.

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 tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. They say that they were required to carry out general cleaning, water blasting and curtain cleaning. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014.
The landlords claim for water blasting the exterior of the property of $828.00, curtain cleaning of $571.20 and cleaning of $2,000.00. There are invoices for the curtain cleaning and the water blasting, however, only bank transfers have been provided for the cleaning.
I need to have sufficient evidence of the areas that required to additional cleaning, to be sure enough, that the premises did not meet the statutory standard at the end of the tenancy. Unfortunately, I do not consider that I have enough evidence to prove these claims.
In addition, exterior maintenance such as water blasting is usually considered a landlord responsibility as part of providing and maintaining the premises in a state of repair.
These claims are dismissed. Tenants’ claims
Although the tenants did not attend the hearing, I have determined the claims based on the documentation provided and comments made at the previous hearing.
The tenants originally requested work orders for several items, however, as the tenancy has now ended, these have not been considered further. Likewise, the tenants stated that they were unable unlock the front door due to not having a key, and likewise as the tenancy is no longer in place, I also consider this is no longer required.
The tenants claim for exemplary damages without specifically identifying a breach. They refer to feeling bullied, having difficulty arranging access times for maintenance, feeling threatened, a lack of latches on the windows (or issues locking the windows) and other issues relating to the payment of rent (dealt with in the previous order).
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the tenants which includes photographs, documents and correspondence.
The few provided photographs show windows, two small holes in the floor (beside walls) and mould on a ceiling.
The remainder of the evidence provided by the tenants predominantly relates to the claims around rent.
Based on the evidence provided, I do not consider I have sufficient information or evidence to prove landlord breaches or to award compensation or exemplary damages.
Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the previous claim for rent arrears and termination, I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 31 May 2026

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
Nicholas James Sparks and Rebecca Ravenwood must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, for filing fee reimbursement.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches.
At a previous hearing, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears and awarded rent arrears.
The remaining issues of compensation and exemplary damages claims were adjourned for a further hearing, and this order deals with those claims. 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
The tenants 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, [1986] NZLR 732. 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. 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
The landlords claim for cleaning, water blasting and curtain cleaning required after the tenancy ended.

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 tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. They say that they were required to carry out general cleaning, water blasting and curtain cleaning. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014.
The landlords claim for water blasting the exterior of the property of $828.00, curtain cleaning of $571.20 and cleaning of $2,000.00. There are invoices for the curtain cleaning and the water blasting, however, only bank transfers have been provided for the cleaning.
I need to have sufficient evidence of the areas that required to additional cleaning, to be sure enough, that the premises did not meet the statutory standard at the end of the tenancy. Unfortunately, I do not consider that I have enough evidence to prove these claims.
In addition, exterior maintenance such as water blasting is usually considered a landlord responsibility as part of providing and maintaining the premises in a state of repair.
These claims are dismissed. Tenants’ claims
Although the tenants did not attend the hearing, I have determined the claims based on the documentation provided and comments made at the previous hearing.
The tenants originally requested work orders for several items, however, as the tenancy has now ended, these have not been considered further. Likewise, the tenants stated that they were unable unlock the front door due to not having a key, and likewise as the tenancy is no longer in place, I also consider this is no longer required.
The tenants claim for exemplary damages without specifically identifying a breach. They refer to feeling bullied, having difficulty arranging access times for maintenance, feeling threatened, a lack of latches on the windows (or issues locking the windows) and other issues relating to the payment of rent (dealt with in the previous order).
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the tenants which includes photographs, documents and correspondence.
The few provided photographs show windows, two small holes in the floor (beside walls) and mould on a ceiling.
The remainder of the evidence provided by the tenants predominantly relates to the claims around rent.
Based on the evidence provided, I do not consider I have sufficient information or evidence to prove landlord breaches or to award compensation or exemplary damages.
Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the previous claim for rent arrears and termination, I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 31 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428931 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428931 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions