What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5435008?

The tribunal order states: Richard Robb and Judith Mary Robb must pay Harry James Collie, Ben Murray

How much money was awarded in case 5435008?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $251.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $367.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435008?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081552-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5435008?

The tribunal order states: Richard Robb and Judith Mary Robb must pay Harry James Collie, Ben Murray

How much money was awarded in case 5435008?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $251.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $367.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435008?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081552-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

136 St David Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5435008 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435008 — net $2,881.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to banister	$251.00		Repairs to banister
Repairs to refrigerator	$367.07		Repairs to refrigerator
Compensation		$2,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$618.07	$3,500.00
Net award		$2,881.93
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,881.93

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435008 — net $2,881.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to banister	$251.00		Repairs to banister
Repairs to refrigerator	$367.07		Repairs to refrigerator
Compensation		$2,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$618.07	$3,500.00
Net award		$2,881.93
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,881.93

Order

Richard Robb and Judith Mary Robb must pay Harry James Collie, Ben Murray Alan Wood, Mitchell Luke Wheeler, Liam Darryl Fairbairn, Reuben Potgieter and Jak William Keogh $2,881.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The respective applications by the tenants and landlord for further compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
On 5/12/2025 the tenants applied for compensation of $18,000.00 for the move in issues with the premises, their ill health during the tenancy and disruption caused, loss of comfort and enjoyment, failure of the landlord to carry out inspections, fix issues in a timely manner, lack of insurance information and exemplary damages for breach of healthy homes standards.
In response, on 29/1/2026 the landlord applied for compensation of $807.07 for repairs and replacement chattels.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,170.00 rent per week.
The bond of $3,510.00 has been refunded to the tenants. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means that both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on each applicant, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not. Tenant’s case

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, maintain the premises and comply with the healthy homes standards for draught stopping and ventilation.
When the first tenants moved in on 2/1/2025 they submitted they found the premises unclean and untidy, with decomposing food in a freezer and the previous years tenants’ possessions still at the property.
After immediately contacting the landlord, who was out of Dunedin and not available until 17 January, the tenants submitted they moved the refrigerator outside, began cleaning and contacted the previous tenants about removing their possessions.
A witness, the mother of one tenant gave evidence about the state of the premises, the telephone conversation with the landlord and the cleaning undertaken, which she estimated took her 32 hours.
Subsequently on 12/1/2025 the tenants emailed the landlord expressing their dissatisfaction with the state of the premises and how the matter had been handled.
The tenants provided to the landlord photographs taken on 2/1/2025 and a list of the nine items they believed needed attending to.
Additionally, the tenants sought two weeks rent as compensation.
In support of their claim for exemplary damages the tenants provided a copy of a healthy homes standards compliance report dated 3/11/2025 which indicated the premises failed the ventilation and draught standards.
On the other hand, the landlord did not dispute the move in issues experienced by the tenants but initially declined their request for compensation.
Subsequently, including at the hearing, the landlord offered compensation of $2,000.00.
On 3/2 the landlord replaced the lounge carpet due to the damage caused by the leaking freezer.
The landlord provided a copy of a healthy homes compliance report dated 29/1/2026 which indicated full compliance with all standards.
Previously the landlord had relied on a revised healthy homes standards compliance report dated 9/8/2022.
Under section 45, 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.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals: i. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching 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).
As the tenancy commenced on 1/1/2025 the compliance date would have been 1/4/2025.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
An award has been made for $2,000.00 compensation as offered by the landlord for the lack of cleaning.
The tenants suggested that the landlord did not maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair because all the issues raised by them in the email of 12/2/2025 had not been attended to, in particular the hole in the downstairs bathroom wall and crack in the glass in the sliding door.
The fact that the landlord did not undertake formal quarterly inspections or written reports the tenants believed did not help the communication between the parties.
In response, the landlord submitted they believed all other issues had been fixed, except the crack in the glass which was unnecessary because of the double glazing.
The landlord suggested the tenants had an obligation to advise of any other problems and did not do so and nor did they ventilate the premises properly.
While it is possible the premises were not properly maintained after the initial move in problems, I am not persuaded by the evidence of the tenants that it was more likely than not this was the case.
I accept the evidence of the landlord that he undertook the repairs he knew about.
The landlord did not fail to maintain the premises and has not committed an unlawful act.
The evidence about healthy homes compliance comes from three reports.
The report for the tenant dated 3/11/2025 found in bedrooms 3 and 4 that only 50% of windows were in service and needed latch repairs.
Further the report suggested black mould in both bathrooms constituted a failure of the ventilation and possibly the extractor fans, despite the window/floor percentage ratio being within the guidelines.
On the other hand, the report for the landlord dated 29/1/2026 suggested full compliance with all standards.
The earlier report for the landlord dated 9/8/2022 with an expiry date of 9/8/2025, following an earlier report dated 12/8/2021 certified compliance as a result of the owner having completed required work for heating, ventilation, draughts and moisture barrier.
I am not persuaded, to the necessary standard, by the evidence provided by the tenants that the landlord failed to comply with healthy homes standards.
While there may have been a failure of ventilation and draught standards in November 2025 there is contradictory evidence about whether window latches were fixed, by whom, whether the landlord was aware latches needed repairing and the cause of the “black” mould.
Mould (or mildew) is a primitive form of fungal growth which grows from spores which abound everywhere. Mould will grow in any home where humidity remains high but will have difficulty in surviving in one with low humidity.
There are two ways to reduce humidity; by heating and ventilation, and ventilation is the most basic requirement. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly.
On the other hand, the landlord must provide the tenants with the necessary means to heat and air the premises. If appropriate, heating, fans and dehumidifiers should be provided. Devices should be fitted to windows so that they can be left open and also secure. This is especially so of the tenants are away during the daytime, as the tenants should not be required to leave the premises insecure in order to ventilate them.
Tenants must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken.
The landlord is also required to provide premises, which are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault.
In summary premises must be able to be used and lived in, in a normal way, without mould developing. If this can't be done, then it is the landlord’s problem. If the tenants fail to ventilate and heat the premises when heating and ventilation are available, then it is the tenants’ problem.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord committed an unlawful act. Landlords’ case

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sought compensation of $50.00 for replacement of a table which was not at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants submitted the table had been left outside at the behest of the landlord, and they believed had been taken by a former tenant who told them he had made it.
The landlord has failed to persuade me that the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing the table.
The tenancy agreement did not include any chattels list and the tenants’ evidence was that it was not removed by them from outside.
The claim for compensation for a replacement table fails.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord sought compensation of $757.07 as follows: a. $251.00 for repairs and painting of a banister, b. $50.00 for painting of a kitchen windowsill, c. $39.00 for replacement range hood filters, d. $50.00 towards a replacement microwave, e. $367.07 for replacement refrigerator parts.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs, quotes and invoices.
The tenants agreed they had damaged the refrigerator which was new just prior to their tenancy and had made marks on the banister.
However, the tenants suggested the range hood filter was already damaged when they took it out to clean, and the microwave had not worked well during the whole tenancy.
Additionally, the tenants suggested they were unaware of any damage to the kitchen windowsill.
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 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.
I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the banister and refrigerator shelves and awards have been made for replacement shelves and repairs and painting.
However, I consider the damage to the rangehood filter, microwave, and kitchen windowsill is fair wear and tear and the compensation claims for these fails.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed an unlawful act by not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.?
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I consider the evidence supports that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness because of their reliance on the assurances of the departing tenants that the premises would be cleaned.
Moreover, the actions of the landlord are exacerbated by their reliance on tenants not moving in at the beginning of the tenancy and then taking two weeks to remedy the situation, leaving the tenants to undertake all the cleaning.
The landlords’ statement that “in 22 years of being a landlord this was the first time tenants had moved in at the beginning of the tenancy” is not a justification for failing to comply with the obligations set out in the legislation.
The tenancy began on 1/1/2025 and the obligation was on the landlord to make sure the premises were provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness on that date.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided by the tenants, who have clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of the landlord at the beginning of their tenancy and the power imbalance involved during the term of the tenancy.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenants and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages.
The legislation sets out the responsibilities and obligations of a landlord and when these are ignored some censure is necessary.
As a mitigating factor I have taken into account the offer of compensation by the landlord and have made an award at the lower end of the scale of $1,500.00.
The renting of premises is a business. Tenants have rights and landlords’ obligations which should not be ignored.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties have been partly successful, and the fees effectively cancel each other out.
Neither party sought suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435008 — Exemplary damages at 136 St David Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435008 — Exemplary damages at 136 St David Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions