What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436716 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5436716?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Insulation breach - HH…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $197.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436716?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13612272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436716 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5436716?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Insulation breach - HH…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $197.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436716?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13612272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436716 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436716 — net $280.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$197.80		22. I have ordered the tenant pay $197.80 for Lawn mowing and rubbish removal and $138 for cleaning.
Cleaning	$138.00		I have ordered the tenant pay $197.80 for Lawn mowing and rubbish removal and $138 for cleaning. Damage claims
Repairs: Wall repairs	$345.00		Repairs: Wall repairs
Compensation: Insulation breach - HHS		$400.00	Insulation breach - HHS
Total award	$680.80	$400.00
Net award	$280.80
Bond	$876.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.80

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436716 — net $280.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$197.80		22. I have ordered the tenant pay $197.80 for Lawn mowing and rubbish removal and $138 for cleaning.
Cleaning	$138.00		I have ordered the tenant pay $197.80 for Lawn mowing and rubbish removal and $138 for cleaning. Damage claims
Repairs: Wall repairs	$345.00		Repairs: Wall repairs
Compensation: Insulation breach - HHS		$400.00	Insulation breach - HHS
Total award	$680.80	$400.00
Net award	$280.80
Bond	$876.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Nafisa Maqbool to pay [The landlord/s] $280.80 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $876.30 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $280.80 Nafisa Maqbool: $595.50

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
These proceedings relate to cross applications.
The tenancy commenced in December 2023 and ended in January 2026.
The tenant seeks compensation for breached of the healthy homes standards and refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation and seeks payment from the balance of the bond held with the bond centre.
At the commencement of the hearing it was discussed how this matter would proceed and that the matter might need to be adjourned given the nature of the evidence filed at the start of the hearing (the healthy homes report filed by the tenant), however the parties agreed for the matter to proceed without delay. Partway through the hearing the tenant requested an adjournment which I declined, given the need to promptly resolve matters and there was no reasonable basis to adjourn the matter to allow the tenant to file additional evidence. All evidence and claims should have been filed well before the hearing. I also note the tenant raised claims in respect of maintenance which I declined to hear as they were not included in the application or filed before the hearing. Relevant legal considerations
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 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 1 , 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 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.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 4
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 5
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). 6 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by 2 RTA, 40(1)(e). 3 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 4 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
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. 9 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. 10
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim. Entry and exit inspection reports were also provided in support of the claim.
The tenant disputed that all of the rubbish was hers and also said some of it would be picked up after the tenancy ended.
I have reviewed the evidence and consider the entry photographs show the premises was clean and there was no rubbish in the premises.
I consider the landlord has proven the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not mow the lawns and did not remove all her rubbish.
I have ordered the tenant pay $197.80 for Lawn mowing and rubbish removal and $138 for cleaning. Damage claims
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The upstairs bedroom wall was damaged with stickers. 6 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 7 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 8 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 9 RTA s 49B(1). 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The tenant acknowledged causing the damage but disputed the quantum, suggesting only part of the wall should be painted, not the whole wall as she says has been invoiced.
I find the tenant is responsible for the damage and the amount claimed is for touch up painting, a repair only, which is reasonable.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered of $345 is proved.
The landlord said a doorway required repair as it was marked. $195.50 is claimed for the repair. The tenant said the damage was the result of there being no door stop. I consider the landlord has not proven this damage is more than fair wear and tear resulting from the placement of the doors and this claim is dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Healthy homes standards

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant seeks one months rent as compensation for the claimed breach.
The RTA requires compliance with the HHS. 11 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. Here the obligation to comply with the HHS commenced 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. 12 The HHS documentation
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant provided a Healthy Homes Assessment report from Habitat for Humanity from an inspection on 29 April 2025 (Habitat report). The tenant was asked if the report writer would be giving evidence at the hearing and she said they would not be.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Standards – current level of compliance certificate dated 20 October 2023 (Compliance statement) with their application and a AAA Property Inspection Healthy Homes Compliance Report (AAA report) from an inspection on 14 October 2022 at the hearing and referred to both in response to the claim. Heating standard: 11 RTA, s 45(1) (bb). 12 HHS, Schedule 1
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ . 13 The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Heating standard: this case
The tenant said the premises did not meet the heating standard because the Habitat report recommended annual servicing of heat pumps and this did not occur.
The Habitat report did say the premises met the heating standard and the recommendation in respect of annual servicing was a comment.
The landlord relies on the AAA report which says the main living room has a qualifying heater and is compliant with the HHS.
I find there is insufficient evidence that the premises did not comply with the heating standard during this tenancy. The recommendation that the heat pump is serviced, without evidence that the heat pump is not functioning to the required standard, is insufficient to prove the heating standard was not complied with. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Insulation standard:
The insulation standard says that the ceiling of each domestic living space in the premises must be fully covered by qualifying ceiling insulation and if a domestic living space in the premises has a suspended floor, that floor must be fully covered by qualifying underfloor insulation.
To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and
3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The HHS does provide an exemption to the requirements for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. 14 13 HHS, regs 8-12 14 HHS, regs 13-20
A domestic living space means an interior space of a building that is a space for activities normally associated with domestic living. 15 A garage would not meet the definition of a domestic living space as it is a space generally used for storing cars or belongings.
Where a garage is located directly beneath a domestic living space or spaces, the underside of the floor between the garage and the habitable space needs to be insulated. Insulation standard: this case
The tenant said the Habitat report confirms that underfloor insulation in respect of the living area / garage ceiling is required. She says there is a living space above the garage.
The landlord disputes that the premises is not compliant with the insulation standard and refers to the AAA report which says: “Compliant with exemption due to the premises not having any enclosed or accessible underfloor space. (Concrete Slab).” The landlord says they have relied on that report.
In this case, as noted in the Compliance statement, none of the floor has insulation on the basis the premises has a concrete floor and is exempt.
The landlord’s exemption relies on the premises having concrete floors, however that is not the case for the living room above the garage. Further, the space above the garage is uninsulated and because the garage is not a domestic living space, I consider that underfloor insulation is required in the floor space between the domestic living space and a garage below.
I therefore consider the tenant has proven the claim in respect of the insulation standard. I address the claim of compensation further below. Ventilation standard:
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. 16 Ventilation standard: this case
The tenant said there was no issues in respect of the ventilation standard and I note that the Habitat report says the premises meets the ventilation standard.
For the avoidance of doubt, I record that there is insufficient evidence of a breach of the ventilation standard. 15 HHH, r 3. 16 HHS, regs 21-24 Draught Stopping Standard:
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. 17 Draught Stopping Standard: this case
The tenant accepted the Habitat report provided the premises complied with the HHS in respect of draught stopping, therefore while the report referred to the louvre windows creating draughts there is no suggestion this created a breach of the HHS. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. 18 Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard: this case
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the drainage standard and refers to the Habitat report which says the backyard fills with water during heavy rain and the tenant reports drainage is slow to drain during heavy rain. The Habitat report also notes a downpipe is running into sewage and recommends site drainage remedial works.
The AAA report says the property has a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water surface water and ground water to an appropriate outfall and includes a photograph of the same drain that the Habitat raises a concern about.
In the absence of the Habitat report writer or a plumber giving evidence that clarifies and explains why the drain is not an appropriate and efficient part of the drainage system, and the lack of photographs to show an issue with drainage, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven the property is not compliant with the drainage standard. Outcome and Compensation
I find that the landlord has not complied with the HHS in respect of flooring insulation. 17 HHS, regs 25-26 18 HHS, regs 27-29
The landlord says the tenant did not raise this issue during the tenancy. However in the case of the HHS the landlord’s duty is a statutory one, it is not necessary for the tenant to give notice if the tenant considers that there has been a breach. It is incumbent on the landlord to ensure that the premises complies with the HHS on an ongoing basis.
I am satisfied the landlord fully intended to comply with their obligations. I am unclear why the AAA report writer appears to have assessed the space above the garage as not requiring underfloor insulation when the photographs provided by the tenant in the Habitat report indicated insulation could have been installed and as I have found above, I consider this is required under the HHS.
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.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 19 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.
The period of this tenancy was from 22 December 2023 to 6 January 2026. The tenant did not particularly expand on the effect of the breach on her. I consider compensation should reflect that the tenant was paying for a home that was meant to be HHS compliant, but it was not in respect of insulation for part of the premises. I consider compensation of $400 reflects the nature, duration and effect of the breach in respect of a lack of flooring insulation, which is an important obligation on the landlord. Bond
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord to off-set the amounts ordered. The balance is to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fee
Both parties have been partly successful with their claims. Awarding the filing fee to each party would cancel the other out, therefore I do not make an order for payment of the filing fee. Suppression 19 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 20
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 21
The landlord applied for suppression and as the application has been substantially successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant applied for name suppression, however as they have not been substantially successful in the claim, their level of success has been minor and the public interest in open justice outweighs the tenant’s interest in suppression, name suppression for the tenant is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436716 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436716 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions