What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455688 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 5455688?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,720.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $18,680.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $162.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455688?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851969-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455688 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 5455688?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,720.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $18,680.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $162.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455688?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851969-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455688 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455688 — net $19,020.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 April 2026	$18,680.00	Rent arrears to 3 April 2026
Rubbish removal	$162.00	Rubbish removal
Smoke alarm replacement	$50.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Repairs	$1,720.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,020.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,020.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455688 — net $19,020.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 April 2026	$18,680.00	Rent arrears to 3 April 2026
Rubbish removal	$162.00	Rubbish removal
Smoke alarm replacement	$50.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Repairs	$1,720.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,020.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,020.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $19,020.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing. The tenants did not attend the video hearing, despite the hearing being changed to a video hearing on their request and despite them being telephoned several times on the numbers in the application form ending in 898 and the number ending in 044.
I also crossed checked contact details with the landlord to ensure there had been no inadvertent error in the tenants’ application form or the information held by the Tribunal.
The hearing then proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
The tenants had applied to the Tribunal seeking work orders, compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches relating to a failure to maintain and healthy homes breaches. The tenancy has since ended and so it is assumed that the tenant no longer seeks work orders.
The landlord has made a cross application and applied for termination, rent arrears and damages, however for the same reason the termination was no longer sought at the hearing.
The tenancy commenced in October 2021 and ended in April 2026. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 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. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.
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. Exemplary damages
The tenant has sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732. 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord advised that although the tenancy was scheduled to end on 22 January 2026 (after the tenants were provided with an extension from the original end date of August 2025), the tenants did not vacate the property until much later and on 3 April 2026 finally advised the landlords they had left. Correspondence shows that on several occasions the landlord had advised a ‘final date’ for the tenancy, [The party] of which had been adhered to.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing of $18,680.00 for rent arrears to 3 April 2026.
The amount ordered is proved.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord says that the tenants did not remove all rubbish from the property, and they were required to collect and dispose of this. It included 53 paint containers left at the property. The landlord claims $162.00 for this rubbish removal (including travel costs). 4 The landlord has provided the exit inspection report, that includes photographs in support of this claim.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not meet the statutory standard and did not remove all rubbish.
In addition, the landlord was required to replace two missing smoke alarms at a cost of $50.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 4 I have included the travel costs for rubbish and recycle, pick up plastic rubbish and rubbish run from the schedule of costs. 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 claims for wall repairs of $1,270.00, replacement security stays in bedroom two of $30.00, bedroom 4 ceiling repairs of $150.00, missing door handle in bedroom 4 of $65.00, missing shower pop-up plug of $45.00 and a missing vanity plug of $40.00. Travel costs have also been sought for repairs of $120.00 across the different repairs. The total amount claimed is $1,720.00.
The landlord has provided a detailed exit inspection report and comparative photographs (from before and after) and a breakdown of the costings sought.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to walls, ceilings and missing hardware. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought additional travel costs of around $168.00. These costs relate to landlord activities such as checking occupancy and carrying out the exit inspection. I consider that these are part of the normal responsibility of a landlord managing a tenancy and are not extraordinary costs but routine aspects of property management. This claim is therefore dismissed. Tenants’ claims
Despite the lack of attendance by the tenants, I have proceeded to consider their claims based on the information and evidence provided with their application.
The tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches relating to a failure to maintain, healthy homes breaches and breaches of quiet enjoyment. Failure to maintain and healthy homes breaches
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 and section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
In particular, the tenants have raised issued relating to leaks, moisture under the kitchen floor, lack of extraction in the bathroom, a lack of electrical outlets in the bathroom, a hole in the front door, slider door and balcony issues.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Compliance dates for healthy homes standards (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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching any of these 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 RTA.
In support of these claims, the tenants have provided a few photographs of different locations. However, it is not always clear where or when these photographs were taken.
The landlord has provided evidence in response submitting that the house was naturally warm and easy to heat. They advise that the walls and ceilings were insulated in 2006 and have provided photographs, together with evidence disputing that there are any issues with the property being damp.
They also say that they repaired any issues immediately, even when the tenants were continuing to remain at the property after the legal vacate date and have provided emails confirming the same.
On review of all evidence provided, I consider that there is insufficient evidence to support claims for a failure to maintain or breaches of healthy homes.
These claims are dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants have sought exemplary damages for breaches of quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds. 5
The tenants’ claim appears to relate to feeling intimidated and harassed with respect to unpaid rent and vacating the property. The application form refers to belittling and aggressive behaviour in text messages and meeting [sic].
Copies of text messages and emails have been provided.
On review of the evidence provided with the application, although the tenants may have felt harassed and intimidated, I do not consider that these messages reach the level of harassment required to award exemplary damages.
This claim is dismissed. Other matters
Both parties sought name suppression. As the landlord have been substantially successful this is granted. The tenants also sought name suppression on their application; however, unpaid rent is a matter of public interest, and no reasons 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. have been advanced that outweigh that public interest. See section 95A of the RTA.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 05 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455688 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455688 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions