What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429496 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5429496?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $306.18 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,272.72 awarded to landlord; Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429496?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13718668-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429496 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5429496?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $306.18 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,272.72 awarded to landlord; Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429496?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13718668-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429496 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429496 — net $2,406.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Heat pump remote	$306.18	Heat pump remote
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Carpet	$1,272.72	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Walls	$400.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,406.90
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,406.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Bug Williams, Keala Thompson and Eve Dawson AKA Wyatt Dawson to pay [The landlord/s] $2,406.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,406.90 Bug Williams, Keala Thompson and Eve Dawson AKA Wyatt Dawson: $713.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 8 June 2026.
The tenant Bug Williams was represented by Lewis Illman. The other tenants did not appear at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for release of the bond, failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, failure to maintain the premises, breach of quiet enjoyment and exemplary damages.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The applicant is not required to prove that the allegation is truthful, merely that it is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

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 and must return all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that the heat pump remote control was missing at the end of the tenancy and supplied an invoice for the replacement.
The original tenancy agreement between the parties required the tenants to keep the lawns and gardens tidy. That arrangement was subsequently amended to limit the tenants’ responsibility to the lawns only.
I have reviewed the photos of the grounds provided. The tenant has made attempts to mow the lawns. The gardens are not the responsibility of the tenants and I have not included any costs relating to the gardens in the claim by the landlord. I consider that a reasonable amount to bring the lawns only to a reasonably tidy standard (that being the standard required of tenants) is $400.00. The tenants are ordered to pay $400.00 to the landlord.
The amounts are reasonable and are proven.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Carpets were substantially damaged by what appears to be cat urine. The carpets were treated at a cost of $1,272.72. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Damage has occurred repeatedly, so as to indicate that the damage was intentional rather than careless on the part of the tenants.
Walls have been damaged. The photos provided by the tenants indicate that the walls to the premises were in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord proposed a reduction of 60% to the actual costs of repair to take betterment into account. 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I consider that the appropriate compensation figure once those factors are taken into consideration is $400.00
The amounts ordered are proven.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must; (1) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (2) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
As indicated at the commencement of this order, it is incumbent upon anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, 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.
The premises are not new. A Healthy Homes certificate provided in evidence would suggest that the home was compliant at a time just prior to the commencement of this tenancy.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence of the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy for the Tribunal to find that it was more likely than not that the premises were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair at that time. For that reason, the application is dismissed.
The tenant says that the landlord has failed to repair the premises. A landlord must repair premises within a reasonable period of time after knowledge of the need for repair is notified by the tenant. The landlord’s evidence was that no notification had been provided by the tenant. The tenant was unable to refer to a specific e-mail or text to the landlord notifying the landlord or the problem. Where a landlord is notified and fails carry out repairs within a reasonable time, the tenant may give the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy.
As the tenants’ have failed to provide sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to find there was both a defect and that the landlord had been notified, the tenants’ application is dismissed.
Insufficient evidence in support of the claim that there had been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises was provided by the tenants.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded in this claim the tenants are ordered to pay the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429496 — net $2,406.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Heat pump remote	$306.18	Heat pump remote
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Carpet	$1,272.72	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Walls	$400.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,406.90
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,406.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Bug Williams, Keala Thompson and Eve Dawson AKA Wyatt Dawson to pay [The landlord/s] $2,406.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,406.90 Bug Williams, Keala Thompson and Eve Dawson AKA Wyatt Dawson: $713.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 8 June 2026.
The tenant Bug Williams was represented by Lewis Illman. The other tenants did not appear at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for release of the bond, failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, failure to maintain the premises, breach of quiet enjoyment and exemplary damages.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The applicant is not required to prove that the allegation is truthful, merely that it is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

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 and must return all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that the heat pump remote control was missing at the end of the tenancy and supplied an invoice for the replacement.
The original tenancy agreement between the parties required the tenants to keep the lawns and gardens tidy. That arrangement was subsequently amended to limit the tenants’ responsibility to the lawns only.
I have reviewed the photos of the grounds provided. The tenant has made attempts to mow the lawns. The gardens are not the responsibility of the tenants and I have not included any costs relating to the gardens in the claim by the landlord. I consider that a reasonable amount to bring the lawns only to a reasonably tidy standard (that being the standard required of tenants) is $400.00. The tenants are ordered to pay $400.00 to the landlord.
The amounts are reasonable and are proven.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Carpets were substantially damaged by what appears to be cat urine. The carpets were treated at a cost of $1,272.72. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Damage has occurred repeatedly, so as to indicate that the damage was intentional rather than careless on the part of the tenants.
Walls have been damaged. The photos provided by the tenants indicate that the walls to the premises were in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord proposed a reduction of 60% to the actual costs of repair to take betterment into account. 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I consider that the appropriate compensation figure once those factors are taken into consideration is $400.00
The amounts ordered are proven.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must; (1) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (2) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
As indicated at the commencement of this order, it is incumbent upon anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, 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.
The premises are not new. A Healthy Homes certificate provided in evidence would suggest that the home was compliant at a time just prior to the commencement of this tenancy.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence of the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy for the Tribunal to find that it was more likely than not that the premises were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair at that time. For that reason, the application is dismissed.
The tenant says that the landlord has failed to repair the premises. A landlord must repair premises within a reasonable period of time after knowledge of the need for repair is notified by the tenant. The landlord’s evidence was that no notification had been provided by the tenant. The tenant was unable to refer to a specific e-mail or text to the landlord notifying the landlord or the problem. Where a landlord is notified and fails carry out repairs within a reasonable time, the tenant may give the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy.
As the tenants’ have failed to provide sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to find there was both a defect and that the landlord had been notified, the tenants’ application is dismissed.
Insufficient evidence in support of the claim that there had been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises was provided by the tenants.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded in this claim the tenants are ordered to pay the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429496 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429496 — Property damage

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

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