What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429678?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,460.00 (BN16750101) to Amanda

How much money was awarded in case 5429678?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429678?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377160-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429678?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,460.00 (BN16750101) to Amanda

How much money was awarded in case 5429678?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429678?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13377160-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 32 Derby Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429678 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 31 March 2026. Both gave evidence. I also heard evidence from the tenant’s witness Janine Shaw (no relation to the tenant). Background

The tenancy started on 3 November 2020 and ended on or about 21 November 2025, so it was a long tenancy by New Zealand standards.

It seems that for much of the tenancy there were no issues between the parties, or at least none that were the subject of any 14-day compliance notices. The relationship deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy.

The tenant flied her application first. She seeks compensation and/or exemplary damages for what she says were breaches of her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy and harassment by the landlord.

The landlord’s cross application followed. He seeks compensation for cleaning costs and some repairs and for the replacement of carpet in 2 bedrooms damaged by carpet moth.

Each party seeks the payment of the bond. Issues

The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and did his behaviour amount to harassment? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation or exemplary damages? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning, repairs, and the replacement cost of carpet? Relevant law

The following sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are relevant.

Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Where a breach of quiet enjoyment amounts to harassment, that is declared to be an unlawful act.

Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to repair any careless or intentional damage that is beyond fair wear and tear; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages

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. Compensation flows from the breach. It is not awarded to soothe injured feelings or as a remedy for rudeness or poor behaviour.

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.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

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 RTA.

In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.

Section 109(2) RTA provides that an application for exemplary damages may not be made more than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act (other than for bonds or a failure to keep records). Discussion Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and did his behaviour amount to harassment?

I do not find proved the allegation that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

The landlord gave evidence that he never entered the premises other than with notice. While he did maintenance work on the premises and general garden work, he was entitled to do that.

The tenant’s allegations were vague as to dates and time. The Tribunal is cautious when assessing claims made after such a long tenancy has ended, when there has been no action by the tenant such as issuing a 14-day notice. While that does not negate a claim, it is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider.

The tenant submitted that the landlord’s communications with her breached her quiet enjoyment. As I have noted, communications that offend or upset are not always considered a breach by the party who authors them. I gained the impression that towards the end of the tenancy the relationship between the parties had broken down completely. Each was reactive towards the other. I am not persuaded to award compensation for what was, in effect, a broken landlord/tenant relationship with contributors both ways. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation or exemplary damages?

Given my finding that the landlord did not breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy, I make no award of compensation. Even if unlawful acts by the landlord had been proved by the tenant, they occurred more than 12 months before the application was made so a claim for exemplary damages could not succeed.

The exception to that was a verbal altercation when the tenancy ended when the landlord said words to the effect that car accidents are good for people like you, Amanda.

The landlord agreed that he said that. At the hearing he went further and said he believed the world would be a better place without people like Amanda. He described that as his honest opinion.

When the landlord made that comment (which was truly awful) I was struck by his apparent lack of embarrassment and total absence of appropriateness. However, the comments, though nasty, do not constitute harassment because they did not relate to the use of the premises by the tenant as section 38 RTA requires. Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning, repairs, and the replacement cost of carpet?

The landlord has claimed for 2 hours’ cleaning and for repairs to a section of fence slats, and painting. The work (other than the cleaning) has not been done.

A tenant need only need leave the premises reasonably clean. While correct that the bathroom fan required cleaning (the tenant accepted that) landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. Cleaning the fan would have been no more than a 5-minute job.

The fence slat is not major; it can properly be viewed as an issue of landlord maintenance. Insufficient details were provided about the painting claim. It also seems to be a minor repair.

This claim fails for lack of proof.

Also unsuccessful is the claim for carpet replacement. Carpet in 2 bedrooms was affected by carpet moth. The landlord said that was due to insufficient cleaning by the tenant and her failure to remove furniture and clean under it.

The landlord admitted he did not do regular inspections. Even had he done so it is unlikely he would have noticed this damage.

The tenant gave evidence that 2 other units were similarly affected. The 3 units are jointed together.

The landlord agreed that the carpets in those 2 units were also affected. He said that was irrelevant as the focus is on this tenant’s unit.

I do not accept that. The fact that the landlord knew that other units were affected should have put him on notice that there was a problem with carpet moth. The Tribunal would only award compensation where it was proven that the presence of the moths was due to some failure, that is, some careless act, by the tenant.

Oddly as well, the landlord said he would not replace the carpet while tenants were renting the premises in case the problem recurred. So, he effectively seeks compensation based on a quotation to be paid by this tenant as an investment for the future when the carpet might be replaced.

That does not accord with the legal principles that apply to awards of compensation. Result

The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for cleaning costs, repairs, and carpet replacement is dismissed.

The bond will be paid to the tenant in full.

I make no order reimbursing the filing fees since both applications were unsuccessful. Name suppression

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

The landlord sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order because his application is unsuccessful 2 .

Reasons