What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432973 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 5432973?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432973?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13613862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432973 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 5432973?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432973?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13613862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432973 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432973 — net $460.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning	$160.00	cleaning
Exemplary damages: failure to provide reasonably clean premises	$300.00	failure to provide reasonably clean premises
Net award	$460.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$460.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The background of this matter may be briefly stated: a. The tenancy began on 30 December 2024, with a fixed term ending on 29 December 2025. The tenants say that they had discussed with the landlord that they were looking for a long-term, stable tenancy. b. On moving in it was discovered that there were some areas of the property which were not in a reasonably clean condition. There was an exchange of emails between the parties relating to this. The landlord offered to waive one day’s rent to deal with this. However, this offer was not accepted. c. On moving in the tenants discovered that the tenancy was unfurnished. They had not realised this was the norm in New Zealand. Therefore, they spent reasonably large amounts of money to furnish the tenancy. d. On 20 August 2025, the landlord gave 90 days’ notice to vacate. The interstate of the tenancy was to be the final date of the fixed term. The reason given was that the owners were intending to return to Wellington and live in the property. e. Given the timing of the end of the tenancy, which came during a busy period for tertiary study for [The tenant/s] who is a post-graduate student, it was decided to look for a new tenancy straight away. The new tenancy was found reasonably quickly, and a request was sent to the landlord to break the lease early and terminate the tenancy at the end of August 2025. This request was declined. f. A new tenancy was found, and the tenants moved out of the tenancy on 22 November 2025. As the new tenancy is a smaller premises with less storage, the tenants say they were forced to sell an amount of their possessions at a loss. g. It eventuates at the owner did not move back in, and on 22 January 2026 the tenants saw the tenancy advertised on Trademe.
The tenants bring this application in which they seek: a. compensation for time spent cleaning the property at the start of the tenancy, $1400; b. cleaning supplies, $100; c. losses on the possessions sold due to moving into the smaller flat, $400; d. the costs of the van hire and petrol for moving out, $200; e. compensation for breaking the current tenancy, and subletting the current property to find a larger one, $2500; f. compensation for frustration and hardship caused by the misrepresentation of the longevity of the lease arrangements; and g. exemplary damages for the landlord falsely stating that the owners were going to move back in. Cleaning
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires that tenancy is provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant has provided photos which show: a. mould inside a wardrobe in one of the bedrooms and on melamine wardrobe doors; b. cobwebs, dust buildups and what appears to be mildew on curtain rails; c. dust and cobwebs on a bathroom heater; d. a dust buildup on a panel heater; e. a rug which was grimy and was disposed of with the landlord’s permission at the outset of the tenancy. f. dirt and mildew in the kitchen sink cabinet, and laundry sink cabinet; g. buildup of dirt and grime in the seals of the fridge; and h. grimy seals and an uncleaned baking tray in the oven.
The landlord has provided the entry inspection, which has some photos of the areas referred to by the tenants. However, the size and resolution of these photos makes it difficult to compare. For instance, the laundry sink cabinet appears reasonably clean and the entry photos, but the closer are photos supplied by the tenant show there is a level of dust and grime built up in this area. Furthermore, I note that this issue was raised early on by the tenants, who sorts the waiver of a week’s rent. The correspondence indicates that the landlord accepted there was an issue and counteroffered one day’s which is not accepted.
I conclude that the premises were not in a reasonably clean condition. However, this is limited to the areas referred to above. The other photos provided by the landlord, show that generally other areas were in passable condition. I do not accept the tenant’s position that a week’s worth of cleaning was necessary, and find the $1400 as an excessive amount for the level of cleaning necessary. With regard to the claim of $100 for cleaning materials, no invoices or proof of these costs has been provided.
The landlord has provided quotes for a clean from commercial providers which range between $150-$160 for a two-hour clean.
I conclude that in or of $160 compensation is appropriate. This would be the commercial cost of cleaning the tenancy, and reflects that the tenants genuinely spent time cleaning.
The breach of the duty under S 45(1)(a) was an unlawful act. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that a modest award is appropriate. Providing the tenancy in a reasonably clean state is a fundamental obligation and sets the tone for the rest of the tenancy. The discussions during the hearing appeared to show that the issue arose as the tenancy began during a holiday period. However, it would have been relatively easy for the landlord to have arranged for the premises to be commercially cleaned. I award $300 exemplary damages which is a relatively nominal sum, however it stresses the importance of the obligation, and reflects that this was a genuine issue for the tenants. Breaking the lease early
The tenants have brought claims for the landlord not renewing the lease. A fixed term lease is a contract, the terms of which bind both parties. In this instance the term in question related to the timing on which the lease began and ended. The landlord says they had merely exercised the right under s50(1)(a) RTA to take repossession of the tenancy once the term of the lease had expired. The 90 day notice was sufficient to do this.
The tenants says that the term of the lease was misrepresented to them. They say that they made it known to the landlord that they sought a long-term tenancy, longer than one year, and the decision to terminate early was a breach of this.
For misrepresentation to occur the misrepresenting party, in this case the landlord, must have made a representation which is untrue. In this case the allegation is that the term of the lease was longer than one year. However, even had this been communicated, the term of the written lease was clear. Therefore, any previous verbal representation was overwritten by the written words of the signed lease. Under such conditions it would be difficult to show inducement, or that the term had been misrepresented. While the tribunal has the power to deal with misrepresentation fraud and mistake at S 78(1)(g) I do not find that the landlord’s alleged actions met the level where the Tribunal would exercise this power.
The tenants have alleged that the notice was retaliatory. Where a landlord serves notice to terminate which is motivated by the landlord’s response to a tenant exercising a right under the RTA, s54 allows the tribunal to declare that notice retaliatory and awards exemplary damages. The difficulty with this claim is that s54(3) requires the application is made to the Tribunal within 28 working days of the notice. Notice was served on 20 August 2025, therefore the application would need to be made to the Tribunal by 25 September 2025. This application was made on 28 January 2026, and so was out of time for a claim under S 54.
Moreover, the landlord has provided evidence, in the form of power bills, showing that the owner had reconnected power, and paid at least one bill, before deciding that they would not move in due to a change in circumstances. I am satisfied that the landlord was not motivated by the tenant’s exercise of rights, and the notice was not, in fact or law, retaliatory.
This being so there are no legal grounds for the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages set out at paragraphs [3] c.-g. above. The tenants chose to leave the tenancy in November for their own personal reasons and should have known that the lease only ran to 29 December 2025. The timeframe was of their own choosing, as was the decision to move into smaller premises. Therefore, the loss of selling items was caused by their own decisions rather than those of the landlord. With regard to the moving costs, these were costs that the tenants would have had to incur when the lease came to an end in any event. As above I have found there was no actionable misrepresentation of the term of the lease, or of the owner’s intention to move back in.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432973 — net $460.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning	$160.00	cleaning
Exemplary damages: failure to provide reasonably clean premises	$300.00	failure to provide reasonably clean premises
Net award	$460.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$460.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The background of this matter may be briefly stated: a. The tenancy began on 30 December 2024, with a fixed term ending on 29 December 2025. The tenants say that they had discussed with the landlord that they were looking for a long-term, stable tenancy. b. On moving in it was discovered that there were some areas of the property which were not in a reasonably clean condition. There was an exchange of emails between the parties relating to this. The landlord offered to waive one day’s rent to deal with this. However, this offer was not accepted. c. On moving in the tenants discovered that the tenancy was unfurnished. They had not realised this was the norm in New Zealand. Therefore, they spent reasonably large amounts of money to furnish the tenancy. d. On 20 August 2025, the landlord gave 90 days’ notice to vacate. The interstate of the tenancy was to be the final date of the fixed term. The reason given was that the owners were intending to return to Wellington and live in the property. e. Given the timing of the end of the tenancy, which came during a busy period for tertiary study for [The tenant/s] who is a post-graduate student, it was decided to look for a new tenancy straight away. The new tenancy was found reasonably quickly, and a request was sent to the landlord to break the lease early and terminate the tenancy at the end of August 2025. This request was declined. f. A new tenancy was found, and the tenants moved out of the tenancy on 22 November 2025. As the new tenancy is a smaller premises with less storage, the tenants say they were forced to sell an amount of their possessions at a loss. g. It eventuates at the owner did not move back in, and on 22 January 2026 the tenants saw the tenancy advertised on Trademe.
The tenants bring this application in which they seek: a. compensation for time spent cleaning the property at the start of the tenancy, $1400; b. cleaning supplies, $100; c. losses on the possessions sold due to moving into the smaller flat, $400; d. the costs of the van hire and petrol for moving out, $200; e. compensation for breaking the current tenancy, and subletting the current property to find a larger one, $2500; f. compensation for frustration and hardship caused by the misrepresentation of the longevity of the lease arrangements; and g. exemplary damages for the landlord falsely stating that the owners were going to move back in. Cleaning
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires that tenancy is provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant has provided photos which show: a. mould inside a wardrobe in one of the bedrooms and on melamine wardrobe doors; b. cobwebs, dust buildups and what appears to be mildew on curtain rails; c. dust and cobwebs on a bathroom heater; d. a dust buildup on a panel heater; e. a rug which was grimy and was disposed of with the landlord’s permission at the outset of the tenancy. f. dirt and mildew in the kitchen sink cabinet, and laundry sink cabinet; g. buildup of dirt and grime in the seals of the fridge; and h. grimy seals and an uncleaned baking tray in the oven.
The landlord has provided the entry inspection, which has some photos of the areas referred to by the tenants. However, the size and resolution of these photos makes it difficult to compare. For instance, the laundry sink cabinet appears reasonably clean and the entry photos, but the closer are photos supplied by the tenant show there is a level of dust and grime built up in this area. Furthermore, I note that this issue was raised early on by the tenants, who sorts the waiver of a week’s rent. The correspondence indicates that the landlord accepted there was an issue and counteroffered one day’s which is not accepted.
I conclude that the premises were not in a reasonably clean condition. However, this is limited to the areas referred to above. The other photos provided by the landlord, show that generally other areas were in passable condition. I do not accept the tenant’s position that a week’s worth of cleaning was necessary, and find the $1400 as an excessive amount for the level of cleaning necessary. With regard to the claim of $100 for cleaning materials, no invoices or proof of these costs has been provided.
The landlord has provided quotes for a clean from commercial providers which range between $150-$160 for a two-hour clean.
I conclude that in or of $160 compensation is appropriate. This would be the commercial cost of cleaning the tenancy, and reflects that the tenants genuinely spent time cleaning.
The breach of the duty under S 45(1)(a) was an unlawful act. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that a modest award is appropriate. Providing the tenancy in a reasonably clean state is a fundamental obligation and sets the tone for the rest of the tenancy. The discussions during the hearing appeared to show that the issue arose as the tenancy began during a holiday period. However, it would have been relatively easy for the landlord to have arranged for the premises to be commercially cleaned. I award $300 exemplary damages which is a relatively nominal sum, however it stresses the importance of the obligation, and reflects that this was a genuine issue for the tenants. Breaking the lease early
The tenants have brought claims for the landlord not renewing the lease. A fixed term lease is a contract, the terms of which bind both parties. In this instance the term in question related to the timing on which the lease began and ended. The landlord says they had merely exercised the right under s50(1)(a) RTA to take repossession of the tenancy once the term of the lease had expired. The 90 day notice was sufficient to do this.
The tenants says that the term of the lease was misrepresented to them. They say that they made it known to the landlord that they sought a long-term tenancy, longer than one year, and the decision to terminate early was a breach of this.
For misrepresentation to occur the misrepresenting party, in this case the landlord, must have made a representation which is untrue. In this case the allegation is that the term of the lease was longer than one year. However, even had this been communicated, the term of the written lease was clear. Therefore, any previous verbal representation was overwritten by the written words of the signed lease. Under such conditions it would be difficult to show inducement, or that the term had been misrepresented. While the tribunal has the power to deal with misrepresentation fraud and mistake at S 78(1)(g) I do not find that the landlord’s alleged actions met the level where the Tribunal would exercise this power.
The tenants have alleged that the notice was retaliatory. Where a landlord serves notice to terminate which is motivated by the landlord’s response to a tenant exercising a right under the RTA, s54 allows the tribunal to declare that notice retaliatory and awards exemplary damages. The difficulty with this claim is that s54(3) requires the application is made to the Tribunal within 28 working days of the notice. Notice was served on 20 August 2025, therefore the application would need to be made to the Tribunal by 25 September 2025. This application was made on 28 January 2026, and so was out of time for a claim under S 54.
Moreover, the landlord has provided evidence, in the form of power bills, showing that the owner had reconnected power, and paid at least one bill, before deciding that they would not move in due to a change in circumstances. I am satisfied that the landlord was not motivated by the tenant’s exercise of rights, and the notice was not, in fact or law, retaliatory.
This being so there are no legal grounds for the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages set out at paragraphs [3] c.-g. above. The tenants chose to leave the tenancy in November for their own personal reasons and should have known that the lease only ran to 29 December 2025. The timeframe was of their own choosing, as was the decision to move into smaller premises. Therefore, the loss of selling items was caused by their own decisions rather than those of the landlord. With regard to the moving costs, these were costs that the tenants would have had to incur when the lease came to an end in any event. As above I have found there was no actionable misrepresentation of the term of the lease, or of the owner’s intention to move back in.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432973 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432973 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions