What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457107 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5457107?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457107?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457107?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13433104-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457107 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5457107?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457107?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457107?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13433104-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Kopu Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457107 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457107 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,400.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,428.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.
Auckland Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,428.00 on or before Friday 24 April 2026.

The applicant states that the tenancy commenced on 24 March 2025. They say that upon moving in, the property was in a very poor condition. They say that this condition was apparent prior to the tenancy commencing, and they have provided text messages evidencing an exchange with the property manager dated 19 March 2025, in which cleaning was to be arranged.
The applicant states that when they moved in on 24 March 2025, cleaning had not been completed. They have provided photographs which they say show black mould, rubbish throughout the property, fly excrement on surfaces, and staining to the carpet. The landlord does not dispute these photographs. The photographs also show cockroaches, flies, and a significant buildup of grime in the kitchen, including on the backsplash, range hood, and oven. The condition of the kitchen, as shown in the tenant’s photographs, can properly be described as filthy.
There are also photographs of the exterior showing rubbish and garden beds in a state of disrepair.
The respondent does not dispute the tenant’s evidence, except to say that they were undergoing a hip replacement immediately prior to the tenancy and were therefore unable to inspect the property or ensure it was presented in an appropriate condition. They provided me with pre tenancy photos. I have reviewed these and they do not contradict the tenants photos. They give a different impression of the property because they provide a zoomed out view.
The respondent has provided a job order dated 25 March 2025, the day after the tenancy commenced, in which the property manager instructed a cleaning contractor to carry out a “quick clean,” noting that the tenant had already moved in and that the property needed “a bit of a tidy up.” An invoice in the sum of $195.50 has also been provided.
The respondent also confirmed an email provided by the applicant stating that the owner had approved a budget of $200.00, which the tenant could either accept as compensation for undertaking the cleaning themselves or have applied toward cleaning. It is unclear how that arrangement was ultimately resolved. However, it appears that the landlord did engage their regular cleaner. The cleaner’s invoice records that a “touch-up clean” was completed prior to the tenants moving in. This is inconsistent with the evidence, as the tenants had already taken possession of the property. The job order and the invoice indicate to me a cavalier attitude to the landlords obligation to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and minimising of the poor state of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
There were additional issues at the commencement of the tenancy, including that the shower head lacked a functioning slider and was not properly secured. The property generally appeared to be in a poor state. The tenant also identified issues with the stovetop, which they say was rusted and did not regulate heat properly, and with the oven. The tenant states that the stovetop was remedied in May 2025, and that the oven and garden bed issues were remedied in early 2026 following the service of a 14-day notice.
In February 2026, the tenant sought early termination of the fixed-term tenancy, requesting that it end on 16 February rather than 24 February, being the contractual end date. The respondent advised that they did not agree to this request. The claim:
The applicant is asking me to order two things: a) First, they seek a refund of rent for the period 16 to 24 February 2026, on the basis that the tenancy should have ended on 16 February. b) Second, they seek compensation and/or exemplary damages in relation to the condition of the property at the commencement of, and during, the tenancy. Early termination of the fixed term:
A fixed-term tenancy may only be terminated early in limited circumstances. The Act provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where there has been an unforeseen change in circumstances causing significant hardship. Even where termination is granted, the party seeking termination will generally remain liable for the tenancy until a replacement tenant is secured.
In this case, the applicant sought to terminate the tenancy approximately eight days prior to the end of the fixed term. They have not provided evidence of any unforeseen change in circumstances giving rise to hardship. I acknowledge their submissions regarding fairness and the landlord’s failures to meet their obligations. However, those matters are addressed through the award of exemplary damages. I do not consider there are grounds to terminate the fixed- term tenancy early, and this aspect of the application is dismissed. Failure to maintain and exemplary damages:
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The photographic evidence shows that the property contained cockroaches, flies, and was, in many areas, in a filthy state. The property was under professional management. The evidence establishes that, by at least 19 March 2025, the landlord was aware that cleaning was required but failed to ensure that it was completed prior to the tenant taking possession.
Further, after the tenant raised concerns on 24 and 25 March 2025 and provided photographs and a detailed list of issues, the landlord’s response was minimal. The respondent continued, including at the hearing, to minimise the condition of the property, notwithstanding their acknowledgement of the photographic evidence.
The communications provided by the applicant indicate that the landlord and property manager adopted a casual approach to their obligations under section 45, and their responses to the tenant’s concerns were inadequate.
The respondent submits that the tenant did not continue to raise concerns after the initial complaints. The tenant states that they did raise issues verbally but did not persist after being told that no further budget was available. I accept that explanation to a degree. However, I must determine the matter based on the available evidence, which shows that the issues were raised at the commencement of the tenancy and then not formally pursued again until near its conclusion.
I am satisfied that the landlord, through their agent, breached section 45 of the Act. I am further satisfied that the breach was intentional, in the sense that the landlord was aware of the condition of the property and failed to take adequate steps to remedy it, and that the breach had a detrimental effect on the tenant.
The Act identifies certain breaches as unlawful and permits the award of exemplary damages in such cases. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for such an award. There is a clear public interest in enforcing the minimum standards set by the Act.
In determining quantum, I have considered the seriousness of the breach, the landlord’s conduct, and the tenant’s conduct, including the limited follow-up after the initial complaints. Balancing these factors, I consider that an award of one- third of the statutory maximum is appropriate.
Accordingly, exemplary damages in the sum of $2,400.00 are awarded to the applicant. The filing fee and suppression:
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I have granted suppression and awarded the filing fee. H Ben Fayed 13 April 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457107 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,400.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,428.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.
Auckland Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,428.00 on or before Friday 24 April 2026.

The applicant states that the tenancy commenced on 24 March 2025. They say that upon moving in, the property was in a very poor condition. They say that this condition was apparent prior to the tenancy commencing, and they have provided text messages evidencing an exchange with the property manager dated 19 March 2025, in which cleaning was to be arranged.
The applicant states that when they moved in on 24 March 2025, cleaning had not been completed. They have provided photographs which they say show black mould, rubbish throughout the property, fly excrement on surfaces, and staining to the carpet. The landlord does not dispute these photographs. The photographs also show cockroaches, flies, and a significant buildup of grime in the kitchen, including on the backsplash, range hood, and oven. The condition of the kitchen, as shown in the tenant’s photographs, can properly be described as filthy.
There are also photographs of the exterior showing rubbish and garden beds in a state of disrepair.
The respondent does not dispute the tenant’s evidence, except to say that they were undergoing a hip replacement immediately prior to the tenancy and were therefore unable to inspect the property or ensure it was presented in an appropriate condition. They provided me with pre tenancy photos. I have reviewed these and they do not contradict the tenants photos. They give a different impression of the property because they provide a zoomed out view.
The respondent has provided a job order dated 25 March 2025, the day after the tenancy commenced, in which the property manager instructed a cleaning contractor to carry out a “quick clean,” noting that the tenant had already moved in and that the property needed “a bit of a tidy up.” An invoice in the sum of $195.50 has also been provided.
The respondent also confirmed an email provided by the applicant stating that the owner had approved a budget of $200.00, which the tenant could either accept as compensation for undertaking the cleaning themselves or have applied toward cleaning. It is unclear how that arrangement was ultimately resolved. However, it appears that the landlord did engage their regular cleaner. The cleaner’s invoice records that a “touch-up clean” was completed prior to the tenants moving in. This is inconsistent with the evidence, as the tenants had already taken possession of the property. The job order and the invoice indicate to me a cavalier attitude to the landlords obligation to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and minimising of the poor state of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
There were additional issues at the commencement of the tenancy, including that the shower head lacked a functioning slider and was not properly secured. The property generally appeared to be in a poor state. The tenant also identified issues with the stovetop, which they say was rusted and did not regulate heat properly, and with the oven. The tenant states that the stovetop was remedied in May 2025, and that the oven and garden bed issues were remedied in early 2026 following the service of a 14-day notice.
In February 2026, the tenant sought early termination of the fixed-term tenancy, requesting that it end on 16 February rather than 24 February, being the contractual end date. The respondent advised that they did not agree to this request. The claim:
The applicant is asking me to order two things: a) First, they seek a refund of rent for the period 16 to 24 February 2026, on the basis that the tenancy should have ended on 16 February. b) Second, they seek compensation and/or exemplary damages in relation to the condition of the property at the commencement of, and during, the tenancy. Early termination of the fixed term:
A fixed-term tenancy may only be terminated early in limited circumstances. The Act provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where there has been an unforeseen change in circumstances causing significant hardship. Even where termination is granted, the party seeking termination will generally remain liable for the tenancy until a replacement tenant is secured.
In this case, the applicant sought to terminate the tenancy approximately eight days prior to the end of the fixed term. They have not provided evidence of any unforeseen change in circumstances giving rise to hardship. I acknowledge their submissions regarding fairness and the landlord’s failures to meet their obligations. However, those matters are addressed through the award of exemplary damages. I do not consider there are grounds to terminate the fixed- term tenancy early, and this aspect of the application is dismissed. Failure to maintain and exemplary damages:
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The photographic evidence shows that the property contained cockroaches, flies, and was, in many areas, in a filthy state. The property was under professional management. The evidence establishes that, by at least 19 March 2025, the landlord was aware that cleaning was required but failed to ensure that it was completed prior to the tenant taking possession.
Further, after the tenant raised concerns on 24 and 25 March 2025 and provided photographs and a detailed list of issues, the landlord’s response was minimal. The respondent continued, including at the hearing, to minimise the condition of the property, notwithstanding their acknowledgement of the photographic evidence.
The communications provided by the applicant indicate that the landlord and property manager adopted a casual approach to their obligations under section 45, and their responses to the tenant’s concerns were inadequate.
The respondent submits that the tenant did not continue to raise concerns after the initial complaints. The tenant states that they did raise issues verbally but did not persist after being told that no further budget was available. I accept that explanation to a degree. However, I must determine the matter based on the available evidence, which shows that the issues were raised at the commencement of the tenancy and then not formally pursued again until near its conclusion.
I am satisfied that the landlord, through their agent, breached section 45 of the Act. I am further satisfied that the breach was intentional, in the sense that the landlord was aware of the condition of the property and failed to take adequate steps to remedy it, and that the breach had a detrimental effect on the tenant.
The Act identifies certain breaches as unlawful and permits the award of exemplary damages in such cases. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for such an award. There is a clear public interest in enforcing the minimum standards set by the Act.
In determining quantum, I have considered the seriousness of the breach, the landlord’s conduct, and the tenant’s conduct, including the limited follow-up after the initial complaints. Balancing these factors, I consider that an award of one- third of the statutory maximum is appropriate.
Accordingly, exemplary damages in the sum of $2,400.00 are awarded to the applicant. The filing fee and suppression:
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I have granted suppression and awarded the filing fee. H Ben Fayed 13 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457107 — Exemplary damages at 8 Kopu Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457107 — Exemplary damages at 8 Kopu Place, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions