What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441488 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay Trinity Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5441488?

Compensation: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441488?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13530362-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441488 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay Trinity Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5441488?

Compensation: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441488?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13530362-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

135 Renall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5441488 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441488 — net $2,080.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for letter box	$115.00	Compensation for letter box
Compensation carpet damage	$300.00	Compensation carpet damage
Garage remote control replacement	$165.00	Garage remote control replacement
Compensation garden works	$1,000.00	Compensation garden works
Rubbish removal and tidy garden	$500.00	Rubbish removal and tidy garden
Net award	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,080.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441488 — net $2,080.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for letter box	$115.00	Compensation for letter box
Compensation carpet damage	$300.00	Compensation carpet damage
Garage remote control replacement	$165.00	Garage remote control replacement
Compensation garden works	$1,000.00	Compensation garden works
Rubbish removal and tidy garden	$500.00	Rubbish removal and tidy garden
Net award	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,080.00

Order

[The party] and [The party] must pay Trinity Trust (Trustees: Leah Stuart Terence O'hara, [The landlord/s] $2,080.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Compensation for letter box$115.00 Compensation carpet damage$300.00 Garage remote control replacement$165.00 Compensation garden works$1,000.00 Rubbish removal and tidy garden$500.00 Total award$2,080.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,080.00
All other claims for both parties are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended.

BACKGROUND

While I have not been provided with any tenancy agreements, I understand from the parties that the Tenancy commenced in 2019, and over the years there has been a change of composition of tenants. Mr Kloeg has been a tenant for the duration, with Ms Sala coming into the Tenancy more recently.
As will be discussed further below, over time they have been rent increases.
It is also the case that the tenancy premises expanded, where the tenants were able to make use of an area of land at the back of the property. It is also the case that the tenants obtained consent from the landlord to do various works including building a barbecue and other changes to the garden area, but those works have not been completed.
Ultimately the Tenancy came to an end in late December 2023. The tenants say the final date of the tenancy was 29 December 2023, whereas the landlord says it was 30 December 2023.
Both parties have filed applications in the Tribunal. A hearing was conveyed in Masterton today, on 1 May 2026. Both tenants were in attendance, as was Ms Stuart for the landlord.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Damage i. Carpet damage ii. Wooden floor iii. Letter box replacement iv. Garage remote control v. Firepit compensation vi. Barbeque removal vii. Removal of exterior items

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Refund of rent for unlawful rent increase on two occasions.

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 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider the claims presented by the parties, commencing with the landlord’s claims. Landlord claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenants are in rent arrears.
The landlord has provided a table showing what she considered to be the rent arrears between 15 June 2019 and 29 December 2024 (recording annual totals).
At the hearing the tenants accepted that if the landlord’s rent charge figure was correct, then the arrears claimed by the landlord between 21 May 2022 and 29 December 2023, totalling $3,300.00 would be correct. The tenants advised that they paid a lower rental than that demanded by the landlord, because they disagreed that they rent level charged. That is what the tenants have claimed, and I will address below. But if the tenants are not successful in their claim, then the tenants accept that the landlord's accounting showing arrears of $3,300.00, would be correct.
Beyond that, the landlord has also claimed that there are $1,030.00 of rent arrears between 15 June 2019, and 20 May 2022. The landlord has not provided any rent records, such as the rent ledger supporting that claim. The tenants do not accept that they owe that money. As I indicated at the hearing, the rent arrears claim for that period cannot succeed. The onus sits with the landlord to prove that the tenants owe the money she states, and at the end of the day, there is no evidence supporting this claim. I have no reason to prefer the landlord’s claim that the money is owed over the tenant claim that it is not.
However, for the reasons I will discuss below, I find that the two rent increases advised by the landlord were invalid, and it must therefore follow that there is no basis to require the tenants to pay an increased level of rent as the landlord has claimed. Landlord claim 2 - Damage
The landlord claims compensation for a range of damage to the premises. Carpet damage
The landlord states there was damage to the carpet, in particular, three burn holes. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy in 2019. One burn was close to the fire so was probably from embers or the like, but two other burns were away from the fire so caused by other reasons.
In response, the tenants say that there were embers that came out of the fireplace. At the end of the tenancy, they offered to pay for spot repairs, but the landlord refused that and wanted the whole of the carpet replaced.
The landlord’s view is that the full replacement cost should be ordered.
As I indicated at the hearing, claims for compensation are based on the actual loss incurred. That must be measured when possession of the tenancy was returned to the landlord, at the end of the tenancy period. While the burns no doubt occurred prior to that, the landlord had not incurred a realisable loss as such during the tenancy, the tenants were not paying less rent because of the burns, it was largely a neutral situation for the landlord.
I am also minded that the landlord has re-rented the premises, and the carpet has not been replaced. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the current tenant pays less rent, because of the three burns to the carpet.
In my assessment, replacing the carpet would be proportionate to the level of damage. I agree with the tenants, that a spot repair would have been the appropriate course of action, but at the end of the day the landlord does not have to proceed with a spot replacement if she does not want to, but the level of liability the tenants would have, could not be beyond the spot repair cost.
The tenants confirm that they received a quotation for the spot repair when they moved out of the tenancy; they could not recall what it was specifically, but recall it was around the $300 mark. The tenants consider that level would be a fair level of compensation. I agree. Taking into account the extent of the damage, the age of the carpet at the time the premises were returned, an order at $300 would be a fair contribution toward the repair cost. That amount is ordered. Wooden floor
The landlord states that the wooden floor has had gouges on the wooden floor. The landlord has provided one photograph showing marks on the floor. I asked what the floor was made of, the landlord said it was wood.
The tenants say that the floor was not wood, it was a laminate or similar. The tenants dispute that the damage was caused by anything other than normal living, as it was a soft floor.
In my assessment of the evidence, I accept that it is more likely than not that the floor is not solid wood as such, like a polished floor, but rather a vinyl or laminate flooring. That would be consistent with the quotation provided by the landlord which says: Vinyl: to uplift the existing subfloor and planks and sand the existing T&G floor in the Dining room areas in preparation to install vinyl planks.
Taking into consideration that the flooring is likely to be vinyl or a laminate product, and taking into consideration the photographs, I must conclude that the landlord has not convinced me that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, for a Tenancy of some 4 ½ years duration. That being the case, I find no basis to order the tenants pay the cost to replace, or compensate the marks on the floor. Letterbox replacement
The landlord says that at the start of the tenancy, there was a property at the back of the property which had a letter box that was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agree that they have knocked the letter box off and agree to the $115 claimed replacement cost. Garage remote control
The landlord says that two remote controls were provided and only one was returned.
The tenants said that they could not find the second remote when they moved out, but later found it and dropped it off at the tenancy. The landlord disputes receiving the remote back.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant” the garage remote control falls into that category.
In this case, the tenants have acknowledged that the garage remote control was not returned to the landlord when possession returned to the landlord, and so they have not complied with section 40.
While I recognise the tenants subsequently found the remote control, and left it in the letterbox at the Tenancy, the landlord’s evidence is that the remote control has not been received. I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s evidence in that regard.
The landlord has provided a quotation to supply and program a replacement door controller, which is $165. The tenants are liable for that cost in full. Firepit compensation
The landlord states that the tenants asked during the tenancy to install a firepit. That permission was given. A hole was dug but the area was not completed. The landlord wants the areas made good.
The tenants say that they asked the landlord for permission to build the planter boxes and firepit, and it was an ongoing project, they accept that the area was not finished at the start of the tenancy. The tenants say the firepit was built by a brick layer, and they paid $2,000.00.
The evidence is that the tenants requested consent from the landlord to make some additions or changes in the backyard, including building a barbecue and other works. The landlord provided that consent, so from the permission point of view there is no problem.
The landlord’s position is that the fire pit, is not properly built, and relies on the statement of her handyman to that extent. The landlord tells me that the handyman considers that the wrong bricks have been used. On the other side of the ledger, the tenants tell me that the fireplace was built by a bricklayer, at a cost of some $2,000. Overall, the landlord has not convinced me that there is anything materially wrong with the fireplace. The photographs that have been provided show brickwork which is in my view, to a decent certainly tradesmen like standard, and I am not convinced that the fireplace is inherently flawed to the state that it needs removal. In short, I decline the landlord’s application for compensation to remove the fireplace at some future time.
I do consider that the rest of the works that the tenants commenced are unfinished and a plainly messy. I consider that compensation should be provided to the landlord, to compensate for any cost involved with tidying or making good the works commenced by the tenant. When I step back and consider the quotations provided, and the work needed, I consider compensation at $1,000 would be reasonable, and that is ordered.
I note for completeness, that if the tenants had completed the works, I would not have made any order that the works be removed. What the order does, is compensate the landlord for cost that would be incurred, with finishing what the tenant started. Removal of exterior items
The landlord states that there is a range of items in the back of the area. Photographs have been provided which show a range of items such as pallets, an old bath, wood and other items or rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants are required to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. They have not achieved that, and it is fair that the landlord would be compensated for the costs involved with undertaking the works needed to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. Again taking a global approach, I consider an order of $500 for that work would be reasonable on a commercial basis. That is ordered. Tenants claim 1 – first unlawful rent increase one.
The tenants say that the first rent increase occurred on 14 November 2022, and was an increase of from $400 to $500 per week, but only giving one week of notice.
The landlord agrees that there was a one-week rent increase notice given. Following discussion the landlord agrees that insufficient notice was provided.
Section 24 of the RTA relates to Rent increases, and sets out various requirements that must be met for valid rent increases including the following: 24 Rent increases (1) The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect; and
In terms of the first rent increase, that followed a text message from the landlord on 7 November 2022, the landlord states: Just letting you know that due to overall increases, the rent for 135 Renall Street will be set at $500 as of November 14. This increase will also align with the rental market. If you have any questions regarding this feel free to ring me.
I note a subsequent text message from the landlord on 16 November 2022, noting the tenants had made a $400 payment, but ”I messaged to say the rent would be increased to $500. Could you please make the correct payment please”.
Section 24 provides strict requirements that must be met in order to have a valid rent increase. Subsection 1 says that the rent may be increased “provided all of the following conditions are met”. That denotes mandatory requirements in order to raise rent. In the case of the first rent increase, but the notice is plainly defective, as it does not provide 60 days notice to the tenant, the rent increase only provides one week’s notice. To that extent, the rent increase is not valid, and the landlord cannot therefore require any higher level of rent. Tenants claim 2 – second unlawful rent increase
The tenants claim there was a second unlawful rent increase on 17 July 2023. That was less than 12 months following the prior increase and the notice was short, and also defective.
The landlord states that the prior rent increase was because the tenants had use of neighbouring land, and the second increase from 17 July 2023 was an actual rent increase for the house.
The problem for the landlord with the second rent increase, is the same as the first. It is short. The landlord emailed the tenants on 5 July 2023 saying: The trustees have asked for a rental appraisal for the Renall Street house which I have done. This has come in at $500 so will be increasing this to meet the market. If you would like to discuss this increase please feel free to give me a call. First increase will be on 17 July.
While it was also argued that this rent increase was less than 12 months from the prior rent increase, as I have found above, that prior increase was invalid. But the second rent increase is also invalid because it also only provided one week notice, not the 60 required by law for a valid increase. Exemplary damages
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages. I cannot see any basis to order exemplary damages. To make an order of exemplary damages, I must find that the landlord acted intentionally with the breach and I do not believe that is the case here. I consider the landlord was very likely mistaken as to the notice required.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441488 — Property damage at 135 Renall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441488 — Property damage at 135 Renall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions