How much money was awarded in case 5457503?

Cleaning: $441.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,614.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $282.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457503?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199395-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5457503?

Cleaning: $441.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,614.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $282.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457503?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199395-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

55 Cilliers Drive, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457503 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457503 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 5457503 — net $937.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2026	$2,614.29		Rent arrears to 24 January 2026
Water rates	$282.43		Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$441.00		Carpet Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$2,400.00	Section 45
Total award	$3,337.72	$2,400.00
Net award	$937.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$937.72

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Ling Sun: $937.72 [The tenant/s]: $3,462.28

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 11 September 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 25 May 2024 and ended on 24 January 2026.

The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, carpet cleaning and repairs.

The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant acknowledged that these amounts were owed. Carpet cleaning

The landlord claims $741.00 for carpet cleaning.

The tenant had cleaned the carpet at the end of the tenancy, but she acknowledged that there were some marks on the carpet caused during the moving process. In text messages with the landlord the tenant had agreed for the landlord to get the carpet cleaned and for it to be deducted from the bond.

The landlord had agreed for the tenant to have two dogs in the tenancy and said that there were dog smells at the end of the tenancy. There is no evidence produced to support this.

The tenant said that the dogs only had supervised access to one of the carpeted rooms and the remainder of the area is hardwood. The tenant denies that there was a dog smell at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant was not happy with the landlord’s invoice for carpet cleaning, and she said that some things on the invoice were not agreed to.

The ingoing inspection report shows that there were carpet stains at the beginning of the tenancy. The invoice includes stain treatment.

I accept that the tenant should not be responsible for the cost of removing stains that she did not cause. In relation to other costs associated with dog odour there is also no evidence that there was an odour or that treatment for it was required.

The claim for carpet cleaning is reduced to $441.00.

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 damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord claimed for repairs to damage and produced an invoice for $690.00.

The first repair item listed on the invoice was repair to wallpaper. The wallpaper was damaged at the beginning of the tenancy as shown in the ingoing inspection report so was not the responsibility of the tenant.

When going through the listed items the landlord said that the owner was mainly concerned with the damage to the aluminium joinery from removal of a deadlock that was installed by the tenant. The exit inspection included a photograph of the deadlock.

It seemed odd that this lock would be removed because it added a level of security to a sliding ranch slider door. When asked about whether there were any photographs showing the repair the landlord advised that the repairs have not been carried out.

An invoice is usually submitted after work has been carried out. The premises were sold by the landlord after the tenancy ended. As there has been no loss to the landlord the claim for repairs due to damage is dismissed. Tenant’s application

The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to maintenance issues at the premises.

The first issue raised by the tenant was in relation to the oven. While there were two ovens at the premises one of them did not work and was not repaired during the 20 months of the tenancy.

The tenant raised the issue of the oven not working at the first inspection which took place on 20 August 2024. The tenant said that she was unable to test electrical appliances when she viewed the premises because the power had been disconnected. She also said that she was unable to upload comments to the ingoing inspection report.

The routine inspection reports produced at the hearing by the landlord all record that the oven was not working.

The tenant raised other maintenance issues with the landlord including the heated floors in the entrance and master ensuite not working, the entertainment system was not working, the security cameras were not working, the garage fuse repeatedly tripped and there was a leak in the laundry.

The first three issues were raised by the tenant in a text message to the landlord on 12 August 2025. [The party] of these issues were addressed during the tenancy.

The landlord said that no action was taken because the tenant only mentioned these issues once and did not repeatedly raise these matters.

In relation to the garage fuse the tenant advised the landlord by text message on 13 October 2025. The tenant asked for an electrician to look at the issue. It may be that the fuse also impacted the other issues that were not remedied by the landlord.

The owner attended at the premises instead of an electrician and a text message from the tenant on 15 October 2025 states, “Hi the owner took a look & neither of us could find a fault. The electrician hasn’t been, I think I know what the problem is, the sink in the garage has a leak and I believe it’s gotten that power point wet. We don’t use the sink because the washing machines in front of it, although this morning I lent over and washed my hands and heard water. I cleaned that up straight away but suspect that’s the problem in our garage.”

The tenant thought that the electrical issues, especially in the garage, may have been linked to the leak in the laundry.

The landlord asked for a photograph of the leak in the laundry which the tenant provided. The landlord did not arrange for either an electrician or a plumber to attend after the tenant had advised of these problems.

The tenant moved her laundry to another home that they were moving into so the sink was not often used. However, the landlord should have employed professionals to investigate and make any necessary repairs. There is a safety risk associated with mixing water with electrics.

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching this obligation 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord failed to maintain the premises in relation to the issues raised by the tenant. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

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.

The landlord’s failure to address these issues affected the tenant’s use of the premises. These amenities were present in the premises and should have been available for the tenant to use. The issues in the garage may have created a safety risk for the tenant and should have been looked at by a professional.

The landlord was aware of these issues because they were either recorded in the inspection reports (oven) or raised by the tenant (text messages). It is not acceptable for the landlord to say that the tenant did not continue to complain about the issues.

The landlord failed to remedy any of these maintenance issues for the duration of the tenancy. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,400.00 is reasonable. In awarding this amount I have taken account of the loss of amenity for the tenant.

The tenant also applied in relation to the smoke alarms. While the tenancy agreement does not record the expiry date for the alarms this is not a requirement of the regulations, however it would be prudent for a landlord to ensure that smoke alarms are both working and have not expired and record this. There is no evidence that they were expired so this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee

As both parties have had some success with the claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

In the application the tenant requested suppression. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457503 — net $937.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2026	$2,614.29		Rent arrears to 24 January 2026
Water rates	$282.43		Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$441.00		Carpet Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$2,400.00	Section 45
Total award	$3,337.72	$2,400.00
Net award	$937.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$937.72