Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5440574 — State of repair
Decided 15 Jul 2026 · Published 15 Jul 2026 · Application 5440574
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The landlord] must pay [The tenant] $552.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 15 July 2026. The tenant and the Tribunal were assisted by using a Korean interpreter.
- The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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 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 summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
- The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
- The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
- Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
How much is owed for water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 14 December 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant does not refute this cost, only raising concerns that the landlord withheld reimbursement of her entire bond for so long while it waited for the Body Corporate to issue the final water rates bill. This was issued on 5 January 2026.
- The tenant states her monthly bill was never more than $200.00 and the remainder of the bond could have been paid to her at the end of the tenancy.
- I note that a landlord is entitled to withhold the bond until all debts incurred by the tenant during the tenancy have been paid, and the landlord was still investigating whether the hair dye could be removed from the carpet and whether the carpet could be patched. The parties had been unable to agree on liability for the remediation of this damage.
- Additionally, as soon as the tenant made her application to the Tribunal, the Bond Centre would have automatically frozen the bond until after the Tribunal hearing as it was clear the bond was in dispute.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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.
- The landlord claimed the tenant caused damage to the carpet through the tenant’s careless use of hair dye, that this damage was caused during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
- The tenant claims this damage was because of an accident and not her careless act or omission. Further, she states that she reported the damage on 18 September 2025 and was told the landlord’s (property manager/handyman) friend would inspect the stain and advise the tenant of the next steps. The tenant says neither the landlord nor her friend ever mentioned it again. Therefore, she believed that the landlord was not concerned about the stain and that she would not be held liable for any remediation cost.
- The landlord’s friend/handyman/property manager (Murray) says he conducted the exit inspection and that the tenant had brought forward her departure date as she was leaving New Zealand on 30 November 2025. Murray gave evidence he told the tenant the house was signed off, subject to getting the stain investigated as he didn’t know if stain would wash out and what the cost of remediation would be. The tenant says she did not remember being told this and that he should have made a comment on the inspection form.
- The landlord and Murray said they tried everything first before patching to try to save the tenant money.
- The tenant says the patch repair was done just after she made her claim to the Tribunal and that the claim was made in retaliation for her trying to enforce her rights as a tenant. I note the email and invoice evidence proves the repair was done on 19 January 2026 and billed on 27 January 2026. The tenant made her application to the Tribunal on 9 February 2026.
- Spilling hair dye on the carpet is defined as careless damage. It is reasonably foreseeable that if you do not cover carpet that your hair dye might fall on the carpet and cause damage. The tenant did not take reasonable steps to protect the carpet from such damage when dying her hair.
- I am satisfied the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the tenant caused the damage to the carpet during the tenancy because of her careless acts or omissions and that she should pay the remediation costs incurred by the landlord.
- The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
- [The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
- There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
- A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
- There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
- Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
- Breaching either of these s45(1) 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.
- General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant. Failure to maintain
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to address a crack in the marble kitchen bench in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and failing to repair a hole in the wall that allowed rodents to enter the premise. Kitchen bench
- At the beginning of the tenancy (23 June 2024) the tenant says she was aware there was a crack on the kitchen bench and she mentioned this issue to the landlord on 23 September 2024, asking about when it would be repaired. She says she was told not to put anything on that side of the bench that would make the crack worse.
- The landlord reiterated this advice in an email dated 23 September 2025 that says: 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. “Sunmi, the air conditioner technician noticed while looking at the layout photos that you have a lot of items on the kitchen benchtop. I would appreciate it if you could avoid placing items in the right corner when looking toward the window. The marble next to the sink is cracked and needs to be repaired, but I haven't been able to find someone to fix it yet. If the weight of items presses down near the crack, it could crack further. Thank you. Have a nice day."
- A photograph, dated 28 November 2025, shows large crack on right hand side of front of the sink.
- The tenant says she should have been able to use the sink bench without restriction and she suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience during her tenancy as this crack continued to get worse, despite her taking care not to place items near this part of the bench.
- The landlord acknowledged that at the beginning of tenancy there was a crack in marble and that it took a lot of time for her to find a proper solution and not just silicone it. All the contractors that she had approached had recommended replacing the whole marble bench, which would have been very costly.
- The landlord also confirms she did ask the tenant to remove the heavy items to the other side of the bench as she did not want the crack to get worse to the point there would be no option but to replace it.
- The invoice dated 9 Feb 2026, proves the bench was repaired on Wednesday 4 February 2026 and that the contractor had filled the crack to blend with marble and created a wooden substrate under the bench to stop further cracking. The invoice says “repaired crack by sink and created wooden substrate for support and glued beneath the sink”.
- I accept that the landlord was seeking cost effective solutions to the crack, that it took some time to find a contractor that could repair and not replace the benchtop and that she did not intentionally delay having the repair carried out. However, the tenant did suffer a loss of amenity of the bench due to the restrictions placed on her use of the bench for her entire tenancy.
- I find the landlord failed to remediate the bench issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period of 77 weeks (23 June 2024 and 14 December 2025) she suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having unrestricted use of the kitchen bench, being a rent rebate of $770.00
- I do not find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages and general damages should be awarded. Hole in the wall
- The tenant claims there was a hole inside the house next to fridge that went to outside and that let in draughts and pests/mice. She reported this to the landlord on 23 September 2024.
- The landlord sent Murray to investigate the issue, and he confirmed he could see mice droppings and he closed the hole and told the tenant to buy a mouse trap and peanut butter to trap the mouse. She was afraid of mice and did not want to have to deal with a mouse trap. She called a pest control company who set mice traps and eliminated the rodents. She paid $115.00 for this eradication and told the landlord about the cost buy did not ask directly for reimbursement.
- Murray confirmed there was evidence of mice in the hot water cupboard, as it was winter, and mice look for a warm place to live at that time of the year. He advised the tenant to set some mice traps herself to eradicate them. He also confirmed the hole was cut into the bottom of the cabinetry to allow plumber access to hot water cylinder and that this hole did not go to outside. He confirmed that further back against the back wall there was a hole that went to outside, from an upgrade to the mains pressure hot water cylinder and that the plumber had filled the hole with silicone at the time of the upgrade. He stated the silicone was translucent and in daylight it looked like it went right through to outside, but it was a blind hole. Murray put expanding foam in hole before he found it was a blind hole. He says he was not sure where the mice got into the house, but the landlord confirmed the unit below was also experiencing mice problems. This indicates it was a wider issue than just the tenant doing something to attract mice and indicates the landlord should have taken further steps to get pest control to lay mouse traps and bait stations.
- I am satisfied that the landlord addressed the hole and mice issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances but consider the request for reimbursement of the pest control costs incurred by the tenant, for pest that were not related to any acts or omissions of the tenant, and were a wider issue in the building, should be reimbursed.
- I find the landlord has not breached it s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant in relation to addressing the hole and mice in a timely manner. The landlord was under the genuine believe there was one or two mice and the tenant laying mice traps with peanut butter should have addressed the issue. The tenant did not tell the landlord she was afraid to do this, so she hired pest control to do it. I award the tenant compensation of $115.00 for the pest control cost incurred. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
- [The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
- The tenancy commenced on 23 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had to comply within 90 days of the commencement of the start of the tenancy, being Saturday, 21 September 2024.
- [The tenant] claims the landlord breached the draught stopping standard that 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 by not filling the hole that went to the outside of the house.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- 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).
- In this case I have determined that there was no hole that went to the outside of the house and therefore there was no proven breach of the draught stopping standard.
- The tenant’s claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Overpayment of rent
- The tenant claims she paid rent to 14 December 2025 and that the landlord moved into the premise in the last week of her notice period and therefore the tenant should not have been charged rent for that week. The tenant provided a WhatsApp message from a neighbour that confirmed in the landlord was living in the unit or at least parking her car there.
- The tenant had given notice, to end the tenancy on 14 December 2025. She had to return to Korea earlier, so vacated on 28 November 2025 and flew back to Korea on 30 November 2025.
- Murray carried out the exit inspection on 29 November 2025, and the tenant handed back her two keys and gave vacant possession to the landlord on that date. She was still liable to pay rent to the end of her notice period and the landlord was free to enter the premise form the date of vacant possession.
- The landlord confirmed she did not enter the premise or live there until 29 December 2025 and that she was living with a friend nearby until that date. She confirms she did park her car at the premise, as there was no room for parking at the friend’s house, and that she moved some of her belongings into the house on 24 December 2025.
- The landlord provided: a. Confirmation of her broadband connection starting on 24 December 2025; b. Confirmation of power connection starting on 29 December 2025, with Mercury Energy; and a c. Note from her doctor, dated 22 December 2025, verifying that the landlord was living with a friend temporarily from just prior to 28 November 2025 to 29 December 2025.
- A tenant has the legal right to retain the exclusive right to possession and quiet enjoyment of the property until the very last day of their official notice period. If a tenant moves out early and returns the keys (known as giving "vacant possession") earlier than the termination date, the tenancy does not automatically end. However, there is no compelling evidence that the landlord moved into the premise before 14 December 2025 and there is compelling evidence that there were no utilities connected until after 14 December 2025, making the house unliveable at this time.
- There is evidence the landlord parked her car at the premise for the last week of the tenant’s notice period without having the tenant’s agreement that she could do so. However, the tenant had left New Zealand and suffered no loss of amenity of disadvantage for this breach. Therefore, while I find there was a breach of the tenant’s exclusive rights to the car parking space, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for refund of a week’s rent because of this breach for the reasons set out above. Promise of $260.00 at the end of twelve months of tenancy
- The tenant claims she was promised compensation of $260.00 if she stayed in the tenancy for 12 months, she did, and the landlord did not pay this amount to her as promised.
- The landlord produced written communications where the tenant waived her right to this compensation because of the assistance the landlord gave her with her visa issues.
- The tenant changed her mind and decided to add this to her Tribunal claim when she and the landlord could not resolve the bond issue.
- I find it would not be equitable to allow the tenant to resile from her promise to waive her right to the $260.00 compensation that she freely forwent in gratitude for her landlord’s assistance with her immigration issues. Especially when she resiled from this promise to waive her right to this compensation in retaliation for not having her bond refunded before the final water bill was provided by the Body Corporate and the cost of the remediation of the carpet stain damage was still unknown.
- The tenant’s claim for the $260.00 is dismissed for the reasons set out above. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
- Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord and tenant apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
- 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.
- The landlord and tenant have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s or tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.