Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5454630 — Rent arrears at 19 Glucina Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602
Decided 7 Jul 2026 · Published 7 Jul 2026 · Application 5454630
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Spectre Property Management Services Limited $3,080 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 (BN-00137154) as follows; $2,980.07 to to Spectre Property Management Services Limited immediately and $71.93 to the tenants.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 11/2/2026 when the bailiff attended to enforce a possession order. A Tribunal order issued on 31 January 2026 confirmed that the landlord’s 42 day notice to end the tenancy on Tuesday, 20 January 2026 was valid and enforceable.
- The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- As the bailiff was required to enforce the possession order as the tenants had not moved by 10 am on 11 February, the costs associated with enforcement are proven by the invoice and evidence provided and awarded under s102.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenants had three dogs at the property I am satisfied that the carpet cleaning and cleaning of the deck was required to return the carpets and deck to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The evidence establishes that the deck and carpets were stained and had unreasonable odours associated with the dogs and the costs claimed are proven and awarded.
- In making this order I accept that the tenants used a rug doctor to clean the carpets but do not accept this was sufficient to restore the carpets or deck to the required standard.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
- Spectre Property Management Services Limited claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 20 January 2026, the date the tenancy ended in accordance with the valid 42 day notice.
- A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant claims that the fact the notice was issued with an incorrect date and for invalid reasons was the reason they did not initially vacate and filed a Tribunal claim asserting that the notice was invalid and ought not to be upheld. That is a reasonable excuse until 31 January when their claim was dismissed by the Tribunal, and the 42-day notice was unequivocally held to be enforceable.
- The landlord’s claim that the tenants were unreasonable to file a claim and challenge the notice is not accepted. It had been issued with an incorrect date and the tenants were entitled to test whether it was valid on that basis alone.
- However, once the tenants had the Tribunal order confirming they were required to leave, they were in breach. The order was issued on 31 January so they were then in breach. . I find they have committed an unlawful act, they did not move until 11 February 2026, very soon after the Bailiff attended.
- 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I accept that the tenants immediately contacted WINZ for emergency appointments and assistance as they had nowhere else to go and could not afford the relocation costs. The appointments and the assistance with emergency funds to relocate were on 9 and 10 February respectively for each tenant. The moving van was arranged for the following day. The tenants also kept the landlord informed about the delay and the reasons for it.
- I am therefore satisfied that the tenants’ actions after receiving the 31 January 2026 Tribunal order confirming that they must leave immediately were reasonable in the circumstances and this is not a case where exemplary damages can be awarded.
- The landlord is entitled to compensatory damages as awarded above and including for the additional rent the owner was charged when he could not move back in which is also proven by the tenancy agreement provided.
- The landlords final claim is for exemplary damages as the tenants had 3 dogs at the property when the tenancy agreement only permitted them to have one and or that the tenant’s extra dogs were there as they were running a dog breeding business that was not permitted.
- The tenants said they had the 2 additional dogs for the final part of the tenancy only and they did not consider the breach was intentional as they believed the owner had given permission for the 2 additional dogs to be there.
- They denied that the additional dogs were there as breeding dogs and said they did not have puppies and this part was untrue.
- They also noted that the landlord did not issue a 14-day notice for the breach which would have put them on notice that the additional 2 dogs needed to go.
- I have considered the landlords claims and find that there is insufficient evidence of “intentionality”. I agree with the tenants that this would require the issuing of a 14 day notice specifically stating that the additional dogs were not permitted and needed to go (and providing reasons why).
- From 1 December 2025 pet consent rules changed and tenants who kept unconsented pets after that date needed to request consent. If the landlord declines, they must provide a valid reason
- While I accept that the landlord is entitled to all “out of pocket” expenses in relation to the dogs and these are awarded in full I decline to award exemplary damages. It seems likely the additional 2 dogs were at the property around the time of the law change. There is simply no evidence the landlord refused permission or even issued a breach notice.
- There is also insufficient evidence that the tenants were conducting a dog breeding business that was not permitted.
- In these circumstances the applicant has not proven that exemplary damages can be awarded.
- I have awarded the applicant the filing fee as the application is partly successful.