How much money was awarded in case 5442769?

Cleaning: $384.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $795.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $203.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13143594-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5442769?

Cleaning: $384.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $795.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $203.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13143594-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Lachlan Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442769 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442769 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442769 — net $1,411.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace damaged drapes in lounge	$795.96	Replace damaged drapes in lounge
Repair broken window	$203.75	Repair broken window
Carpet cleaning	$384.10	Carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,411.81
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.81

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Amelia Kiddey to pay [The landlord/s] $1,411.81 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: • [The landlord/s]: $1,411.81 • Amelia Kiddey: $268.19

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 16 February 2026.

The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its responsibilities under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The specific alleged breaches are a failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant also alleges that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was in retaliation for her raising repair and maintenance issues.

The landlord has applied for the replacement cost of damaged drapes in the lounge (4 sets), the repair cost of a broken window, and carpet cleaning costs. Background

The tenancy started on 26 August 2022 and ended on 29 December 2025 at the end of the written notice period given by the landlord.

The tenancy seems to have been without any significant issues until around September 2025 when the tenant raised repair issues with the landlord and with the owners. Included among the issues raised by the tenant was a mouse infestation.

Towards the end of September 2025, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, about one month after the tenant raised the repair issues.

Very soon after, on 1 October 2025, the tenant lodged her application. She claimed her bond and a remedy for the landlord’s alleged breaches which she said resulted in her and her children only having the use of the lounge and one bedroom due to mould, dampness, and cold.

The hearing was scheduled on 15 December 2025. The tenant attended. It became clear that the service details for the landlord were incorrect. I adjourned the hearing, arranged for service on the landlord, and amended the application to include a declaration that the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was a retaliatory notice. I also made a direction for the tenant to specify her claims, which she did.

The landlord then filed a cross application. I heard both applications together. Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Is the tenant liable for the repair and cleaning costs claimed by the landlord? •Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice? •Did the landlord commit any breaches of its section 45 RTA responsibilities? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation and/or exemplary damages? Law

Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to repair any damage; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Section 54 RTA allows the Tribunal to declare a notice to terminate a tenancy retaliatory if the landlord, in giving the notice, was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenancy by the tenancy agreement, by the RTA, or by any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. Compensation and exemplary damages

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.

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 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, 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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion The landlord’s application

I will address the landlord’s application first.

I find the landlord’s claims proved. The tenant accepted that her cats had ripped the lounge curtains; that she had broken a window entering the premises; and that she kept pets inside the premises even though the tenancy agreement excluded animals. She said she rehomed the animals once the landlord issued a breach notice.

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 2 .

The landlord’s claims are based on quotes. Not all the work has not been done because the premises have not yet been rented. The curtain quote is for drapes discounted 50%. That more than accounts for depreciation. Although the tenant submitted that the drapes were mould damaged, that does not relieve her of the responsibility to repair actual damage.

The window has been repaired and an invoice was produced in evidence.

The quote for carpet cleaning is objectively reasonable. When animals are kept inside premises, the Tribunal often considers that professional carpet cleaning is a reasonable requirement to remove allergens and other contaminants. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA

The landlord withdrew a claim for damage to walls and doors. The tenant’s application. Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

The Tribunal must be careful to ensure that Parliament’s intention to allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy without reason by giving 90-days’ notice is respected, while at the same time protecting a tenant’s right to have a termination notice declared retaliatory.

Here, there was about one month between the action the tenant relies on (the raising of repair and maintenance issues) and the issuing of the notice.

Further, the landlord produced evidence that the owners have applied for subdivision consent and have taken active steps towards that by instructing a firm of planners/surveyors/engineers.

As well, the premises have not been re-tenanted while the subdivision plans are worked through.

The Tribunal can understand why the tenant might consider that the termination notice was retaliatory. The Tribunal’s objective assessment of the evidence does not establish that on the balance of probabilities. In other words, it considers that the landlord’s (the owner’s) reasons for ending the tenancy were genuine.

The application for a declaration that the notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice is dismissed. Did the landlord commit any breaches of its section 45 RTA responsibilities?

First, I will address the allegation that the landlord did not comply with the HHS.

The HHS are not absolute. There are exemptions in some cases. Here, the landlord correctly filled out the HHS compliance statement to show that ceiling and floor insulation could not be installed, nor could an externally vented extraction fan be installed in the kitchen (there was an openable window right beside the stove).

The landlord produced in evidence confirmation from Energy Smart that the house was exempt from insulation requirements for the underfloor and ceiling and confirmation from Heartland Electrical that a rangehood could not be installed due to the construction of the house meaning it was exempt.

The purpose of the HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement is for tenants to be fully informed about the HHS status of the premises before they decide to rent the premises.

Here, the landlord has not committed any breach of the HHS.

Nor do I find any breach by the landlord of its repair and maintenance responsibilities. That there was mould at the premises does not of itself establish a landlord breach. Mould can equally arise as a consequence of the way in which the premises are used. The tenant did not produce any independent mould assessment addressing cause to assist the Tribunal. The photos she produced also do not establish cause.

The landlord’s post-vacate photos and the February 2025 inspection report do not document any issues with mould. The landlord’s representative said there were no issues raised during the tenancy, other than general maintenance. She said there was a marked change between the February 2025 inspection and mid-2025. Nor had previous tenants ever experienced any issues with mould.

The landlord’s representative said the tenant would not allow the owners access to assess and repair the matters she raised. The tenant said that was because she was not given adequate notice.

The tenant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord (or owner, also a landlord by definition) failed to maintain or repair the premises resulting in mould at the premises that then damaged her chattels – furniture, bedding and clothing.

Finally, if there was a rodent problem, that is for the tenant to address not for the landlord. Rodent infestation can also arise due to the way in which the premises are used, or simply occur due to seasonal and other changes. It does not arise (in most cases) as a result of a landlord breach. Has the tenant proved claims for compensation and or exemplary damages?

It follows from my finding that the landlord did not breach its section 45 RTA responsibilities that the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages for breaches that amount to unlawful acts, or compensation for chattels, clothing, furniture (details of which the tenant provided after the hearing) and dump fees. Compensation follows a breach; without a proven breach compensation is not generally awarded. Result

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

The landlord’s application is successful in the amount of $1,411.81 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee.

The bond will be split between the parties - $1,411.81 to the landlord and $268.19 to the tenant. Name suppression

The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression on the successful application 3 .

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442769 — net $1,411.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace damaged drapes in lounge	$795.96	Replace damaged drapes in lounge
Repair broken window	$203.75	Repair broken window
Carpet cleaning	$384.10	Carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,411.81
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.81