How much money was awarded in case 5431480?

Compensation: $2,520.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431480?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13495089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5431480?

Compensation: $2,520.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431480?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13495089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431480 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431480 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431480 — net $2,548.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,520.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,548.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,548.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Edinburgh Realty Limited As Agent For Belinda & Richard Mcarthur must pay [The tenant/s] $2,548.00 which can be deducted from the rent owing for the premises, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.

On 1/2/2026 the tenants applied for compensation of two weeks rent amounting to $2,520.00 for the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.

The tenancy is for a fixed term from 1/1/2026 to 31/12/2026 at $1,260.00 rent per week.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and well maintained condition.

In particular the tenants were unhappy with the state of the premises when the first tenant moved in on 1 January.

The tenants submitted that for over a week they had to clean dust, mould and cobwebs from all rooms and vacuum the premises.

Further, the tenants were unhappy that although the landlord’s cleaner undertook cleaning of the back bathroom on 1 January, further cleaning, grass cutting, rubbish removal and cleaning of spouting was not completed until the end of January.

In support of the claim the tenants provided photographs dated between 3 and 6 January 2026 and email correspondence with the landlord.

While not disputing that the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord submitted that work was undertaken as soon as possible.

The landlord provided invoices to support that the cleaner completed the cleaning after their second visit on 20 January, a gardener cut the grass, removed rubbish and repaired the window by 19 January and cleaned the spouting by January.

In addition, the landlord provided a healthy homes standards compliance report dated 16/3/2020 and invoices to support the work undertaken for compliance, and an initial property inspection report comprising only photographs dated 1/1/2026.

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching either 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.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and well maintained condition at the start of the tenancy.

The evidence is clear, and the landlord does not dispute that the fundamental provisions of section 45(1)(a) & (b) were breached.

The obligations lie with the landlord and under section 11(3) the tenants cannot be held to have waived the obligations by undertaking some cleaning themselves.

However, the tenants did not seek exemplary damages but only compensation, which I need to assess, and have done so on the basis of loss of amenity.

For the first month of their tenancy the tenants not only had to undertake the initial cleaning of the premises but had to put up with their quiet enjoyment of the premises being disturbed by contractors to undertake work which the landlord should have made sure was completed before the tenancy began.

Considering that the evidence supported the tenancy had been vacant for a year and the tenancy agreement was signed on 29/7/2025, the landlord had ample opportunity to make sure they complied with their obligations before the start of this tenancy.

I consider the compensation claimed by the tenants is reasonable and have made an award accordingly.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.

Suppression is granted to the tenants because they were largely successful with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431480 — net $2,548.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,520.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,548.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,548.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Edinburgh Realty Limited As Agent For Belinda & Richard Mcarthur must pay [The tenant/s] $2,548.00 which can be deducted from the rent owing for the premises, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
On 1/2/2026 the tenants applied for compensation of two weeks rent amounting to $2,520.00 for the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 1/1/2026 to 31/12/2026 at $1,260.00 rent per week.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and well maintained condition.
In particular the tenants were unhappy with the state of the premises when the first tenant moved in on 1 January.
The tenants submitted that for over a week they had to clean dust, mould and cobwebs from all rooms and vacuum the premises.
Further, the tenants were unhappy that although the landlord’s cleaner undertook cleaning of the back bathroom on 1 January, further cleaning, grass cutting, rubbish removal and cleaning of spouting was not completed until the end of January.
In support of the claim the tenants provided photographs dated between 3 and 6 January 2026 and email correspondence with the landlord.
While not disputing that the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord submitted that work was undertaken as soon as possible.
The landlord provided invoices to support that the cleaner completed the cleaning after their second visit on 20 January, a gardener cut the grass, removed rubbish and repaired the window by 19 January and cleaned the spouting by January.
In addition, the landlord provided a healthy homes standards compliance report dated 16/3/2020 and invoices to support the work undertaken for compliance, and an initial property inspection report comprising only photographs dated 1/1/2026.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching either 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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and well maintained condition at the start of the tenancy.
The evidence is clear, and the landlord does not dispute that the fundamental provisions of section 45(1)(a) & (b) were breached.
The obligations lie with the landlord and under section 11(3) the tenants cannot be held to have waived the obligations by undertaking some cleaning themselves.
However, the tenants did not seek exemplary damages but only compensation, which I need to assess, and have done so on the basis of loss of amenity.
For the first month of their tenancy the tenants not only had to undertake the initial cleaning of the premises but had to put up with their quiet enjoyment of the premises being disturbed by contractors to undertake work which the landlord should have made sure was completed before the tenancy began.
Considering that the evidence supported the tenancy had been vacant for a year and the tenancy agreement was signed on 29/7/2025, the landlord had ample opportunity to make sure they complied with their obligations before the start of this tenancy.
I consider the compensation claimed by the tenants is reasonable and have made an award accordingly.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenants because they were largely successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431480 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431480 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions