What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463653 about?

The tribunal order states: Fast Rental Limited As The Agent For Xin & Zhu Investment Limited must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5463653?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463653?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13389280-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463653 about?

The tribunal order states: Fast Rental Limited As The Agent For Xin & Zhu Investment Limited must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5463653?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463653?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13389280-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Tawhana Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463653 — Cleanliness

Order

Fast Rental Limited As The Agent For Xin & Zhu Investment Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,605.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (6000629-011) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 12 February 2026 and 31 March 2026.
Mr Bowler represented himself at both hearings and was supported by his partner Rehia Hanara.
Alex Lee appeared for the landlord. Feng Xin appeared as Xin & Zhu Investment Limited’s representative, the owners of the premise. Mr Xin was supported by a Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy on 16 August 2025.
The tenant made a cross application on 9 March 2026, for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond, in response to the landlord’s 9 October 2025 application.
I note for completeness the 2.5-hour hearing on 12 February 2026 was dedicated solely to hearing the landlord’s claims. Due to the property manager’s apparent difficulties in collating and presenting his evidence clearly and succinctly, most of the full day hearing, on 31 March 2026, was also dedicated to hearing the landlord’s claims. The tenants presented their electronic and oral evidence succinctly, and as a result I was able to hear their claims in an hour.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates and rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 18 August 2025.
The parties agree $2,622.86 of rent arrears was owing to 18 August 2025.
The landlord claims the tenant owes $506.66 water rates arrears for the period June to August 2025.
The tenant disputes owing this amount, because the water bills were up to $500.00 per month and when there were only three people living in the house and this water cost was far higher than what their water bills have been prior to this tenancy and after this tenancy. He suspected leaks in the downstairs bathroom was the cause of the higher water bills but says nothing was done to investigate this. Further, he says the water bills reduced when the family ceased using the downstairs bathroom from March 2025.
While trying to sort the water dispute issue out, the tenant continued to pay the water rates until he found he could no longer afford to do so. At this time the tenant began to make weekly payments towards the water rates, but it was not enough to cover the full usage.
The tenant considers that he should be billed for $100.00 per month for these three months, being a payment of $300.00 towards the $506.66. The landlord has agreed to this discounted amount in recognition of the tenant’s water use to clean and waterblast the sides of the pool in November 2024.

Did the tenant comply with his 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
I address each of the costs the landlord seeks compensation for below. Cleaning inside house and interior/exterior windows
The landlord claimed the cleaning was done in the garage and kitchen. Particularly the garage wall, the oven, and wall marks in two downstairs bedrooms and the hallway door to the garage. This claim for $1,092.50 also covers professional cleaning of all the windows inside and outside of the house.
The tenant says the house was not reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy started. For example, the windows were not clean, the lawns not mown, the yard was overgrown, and the pool was filthy. The tenant also challenges whether the entry inspection photographs were taken on the day of the inspection, as some of the photographs appear to be old photographs of the house prior to the subdivision at the back. Additionally, the photographs used to advertise the house for rent were also outdated. The date of some of the landlord’s photographs were not able to be verified with meta data as they were either obtained from the owner after the exit inspection report was completed or the property manager had issues with transferring them at some stage and had lost original versions of the photographs.
The tenant says the owner was present when he was cleaning the premise and potential new tenants were viewing the property at the same time. The tenant confirms the owner was conversing with the tenant and telling him what he required to be completed before the tenant handed the premise back to the owner. The tenant says he did everything asked of him by the owner and extended the tenancy by two days to allow him to complete the required cleaning. This included using sugar soap to remove the marks on walls, cleaning the oven and kitchen 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. cupboards and other such things. The tenant says he even removed rubbish from behind the pool house, at his cost, that was there at the start of the tenancy and not his.
The landlord says the cleaning was due to the tenant keeping a dog in the garage. The tenant confirmed the dog was only ever kept in the garage during inspections for about 10 minutes and was not in the garage every day. The tenant also says the garage was not dirty at the end of the tenancy. Further, the tenant confirmed the owner was with the tenant when he loaded the last of his items out of the garage and he did not raise any concerns about the cleanliness of the garage. In the exit inspection report, dated 21 August 2025, the laundry/garage is noted as average with no comments made about any issues.
Despite the exit inspection report, dated 21 August 2025, recording that there are no issues with the premise, as far as cleanliness goes, the property manager says the photographs in the report prove: a. The hallway door to the garage had several black marks on the door face and edges in the exit photographs taken by the owner after the tenancy ended and after the initial exit report was done. The landlord showed a photograph from the entry inspection report that shows a clean painted door face but does not show the edges of the door. The tenant says the entry inspection photographs are not an accurate representation of the condition of this door at the start of the tenancy. The property manager says he lost some of the original photographs of the entry inspection, so was unable to provide me with the meta data to prove the date the photographs were taken. The property manager accepts he added photographs to the exit report after the last hearing that he obtained from the owner and that these images were not provided to the Tribunal or the tenant prior to the hearing. I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities; b. The garage wall has oil-based paint splattered on it that was cleaned off by the cleaner. The landlord produced a photograph from the owner, taken on an unknown date that shows the splatter up closer. This was photograph was not included in the original exit report. The tenant says that there is paint in the background of image 8419 that was not there during their tenancy, which he says begs the question about what occurred at the premise between the 17 August 2025 (exit day) and the 21 August 2025 (final inspection day). The property manager produced a photograph from the routine property inspection from 18 June 2025 that shows the same paint splatters behind a television screen on the wall. The property manager proved this paint splatter was not present in the photographs from the 12 November 2024 routine inspection. This claim has been proven on the balance of probabilities and is upheld. The landlord is awarded $115.00 compensation for the associated cleaning cost; c. The landlord says the oven rails that support the trays had oil marks on them, but the oven door and inside the oven was otherwise clean. The tenant says he cleaned it before he left the premise, and it was reasonably clean and tidy. The entry inspection photographs do not show the rails at all and only show the inside of the oven from a distance. The exit inspection photographs only show the door and rails pulled out of the bottom part of the oven with the trays removed. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the claim is therefore dismissed; d. The landlord say the owner took photographs after the end of the tenancy, and post the exit report, that shows wall marks in two downstairs bedrooms (rumpus room (bedroom 5 in entry report and bedroom 4 in exit report) and room next door to rumpus room (bedroom 4 in the entry report and bedroom 5 in exit report). There is no meta data on these photographs, and these issues were not raised with the tenant during the exit inspection. On the exit inspection report there are some blue tack marks from the prior flatmate having pictures attached to the walls in the rumpus room. The tenant accepts that there were pictures on the walls that the blue tack removed some paint. He produced photographs that show the the paint was worn and the blue tack removed some paint in patches but that there were not marks. The tenant also proved he had patched and sanded this wall, but not painted it. The landlord says it tried to clean the wall, and it made no difference, so the rumpus wall required painting. The landlord could not produce evidence to prove the claim for cleaning the wall in the room next to the rumpus. I award the landlord $230.00 for the painting of the rumpus room wall and dismiss its claim for the painting of the room next to the rumpus room for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities; e. The landlord says the windows required cleaning (interior and exterior) and that they had been cleaned by the owner prior to the start of the tenancy. The exit report says they were all good or average and there are no photographs of dirty windows requiring cleaning or comments in the report to support this claim. There was also no evidence to prove the windows were pristine at the start of the tenancy and, given the overall condition of the premise on entry, I have reasonable doubt the owner had cleaned all the windows inside and out. I dismiss this claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Carpet cleaning
The landlord says bedroom 4 (in the entry report and bedroom 5 in exit report) had additional marks on the carpet that required cleaning at a cost of $207.00.
The landlord accepts there were marks on this carpet in the entry report that appear to have worsened over the duration of the tenancy. The tenants says this is mould. The landlord denies this. The landlord says its orange juice. The tenant denies this and says orange juice would have come out with spot cleaning. The photographs show the marks did not come out after cleaning. They were diminished but not removed.
The landlord says bedroom 5 (in the entry report and bedroom 4 in exit report) had white paint on the carpet that required cleaning. The tenants says this is plaster flakes. The landlord denies this. The tenants says they did further cleaning after the photographs were taken and that the exit inspection photographs are not an accurate representation of the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The tenant brought my attention to one of the photographs the landlord was relying on to prove its claim where the tenant is in the photograph (7720). This shows the photograph was not taken on 21 August 2025, because the tenant left on 18 August 2025.
The landlord says there were marks in the hallway as well but has no evidence to prove this claim.
I have considered the evidence provided by both parties and find that there is a lack of evidence to prove the tenant stained the carpet due to his carless acts or omissions or the careless acts or omissions of his partner or child. I have doubts the photographic evidence provided by the landlord accurately portrays the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy and that the carpet stains were not present at the beginning of the tenancy and whether there is a possibility these stains may be from slow growing mould.
I dismiss this claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Pool cleaning
The landlord says the pool required cleaning, on 18 September 2025, because the pool was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and that this cost the owner $589.42.
The tenant has provided evidence that proves: a. The pool was beyond dirty and unkept at the start of the tenancy; b. After the tenant followed up the requirement for pool maintenance, the landlord sent a pool company on 2 September 2024 to put chemicals in it. These chemicals cleared the water for a week before it became dirty again because the dirty sides and floor had not been cleaned; c. At the end of November 2024, the tenant emptied the pool and cleaned the walls with scrubbing brushes and then water blasting, refilled it and put chemicals in it. The landlord did not compensate them for this cost; and d. Thereafter, the tenant tried to maintain the pool but found the cost too much to maintain it due to the high level of cleaning needs, because the pool had not been maintained for around seven years, according to the neighbour.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenant left the pool in a better condition that what he got it, and that the landlord has not proven it would be equitable to hold the tenant to a higher standard of pool cleanliness on exit than the condition the landlord provided it to the tenant in. The landlord’s claim for $589.42 is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

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.
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 says the following damage was done during the tenancy, due to the careless acts or omissions of the tenant or persons in the premise with his consent, or intentional damage: Patch the carpet in downstairs bedroom behind the bathroom
The landlord claims $360.00 compensation for the carpet to be patched in this room
The landlord says the tenant, or a person in the premise with his consent used screws to attach a shampoo caddy to the shower wall. Further, that this caddy damaged the waterproofing of the shower, which caused the leaks that led to the bedroom carpet mould and damage. The landlord provided photographs of the entry inspection that proves there was no caddy in the shower and that the 12 November 2024 inspection photographs shows the caddy had been installed during the tenancy.
The tenant says he had a flatmate for a while that used that bathroom and had the bedroom with the mouldy carpet. He confirmed that flatmate caused some issues but the tenant did not know anything about the installation of the caddy, as the flatmate installed it. He says it was the same flatmate that cut the wet and mouldy part of the carpet out, without landlord consent, as he was getting ill from the mould.
The tenant says he raised the mouldy carpet and wall with landlord in phone calls and pointed out the exit inspection report confirms the downstairs bedroom carpet was mouldy. Further, the tenant confirms the property manager confirmed that there was historic leaks in the shower that were fixed a year before this tenancy commenced.
The property manager confirms there were no historic issues affecting the premise at the beginning of this tenancy. Further, he says the back of the shower was removed after the end of this tenancy and that investigation showed there had been no further leaks from the shower plumbing but that it did provide evidence of water coming through the screw holes and leaking down the wall and flowing into the adjacent bedroom wall, skirting and carpet.
I am satisfied the landlord has proven the tenant’s flatmate caused damage to the water proofing of the shower wall and that this is what directly led to the damage to the carpet, in addition to the flatmate having cut into the carpet without consent. The tenant is liable for any damage done to the premise by any person in the premise with his consent. I find that the tenant should compensate the landlord for this damage and award it $360.00 compensation for patching the rumpus room carpet. Patch the carpet in the room next to the rumpus room
The landlord says bedroom 4 (in the entry report and bedroom 5 in exit report) had additional marks on the carpet that required patching. The landlord accepts there were marks on this carpet in the entry report that appear to have worsened over the duration of the tenancy.
The tenants says the new marks are mould. The landlord denies this. The landlord says its orange juice. The tenant denies this and says orange juice would have come out with spot cleaning.
The photographs show the marks did not come out after cleaning. They were diminished but not removed.
The landlord says the carpet was only four years old, but the entry inspection photographs prove it was marked at the start of the tenancy. The entry inspection photographs of that corner also do not show as much of the carpet in that area as the closer up exit inspection photographs.
I am not satisfied the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. Repair and paint walls in three downstairs bedrooms and the hallway and damage to downstairs rumpus room door
The landlord claims the rumpus room and two bedrooms had scuff marks on the walls that required painting at the end of the tenancy. Additionally, it claims there was a crack and a hole, that was patched by the tenant before the tenancy ended, in the hallway, but they were not patched smoothly or painted. Further, the landlord produced a photograph that shows there was a chip out of the rumpus room door that it proved occurred during the tenancy. It appears to be a chip that likely came from the door being slammed shut. It claims it cost $1,495.00 to remedy this damage.
The tenant says in his defence that there were minor wall scuffs and marks present at the end of the tenancy, consistent with normal fair wear and tear. He proved he undertook reasonable repairs of the crack and hole where appropriate and stated that he had walked through the house with Alex “the property manager” prior to handing back the keys on 18 August 2025 and that he was told he had done everything required of him and more because a lot of the scuff marks were pre- existing.
The entry inspection photographs do not show scuff marks, holes or cracks and the paint appears even in the rumpus room. The tenant confirmed the rumpus room had pictures attached to the wall with blue tack that took of some on the single layer of paint when removed. The tenant confirmed he had patched this wall but not painted it.
The bedroom next to the rumpus room, where the carpet was cut, the skirting board had been removed by the flatmate as it was mouldy and was left for the landlord to investigate further. When the skirting board was removed the bottom of the wall got damaged and needed to be repaired and painted. The landlord directed me to the routine inspection report dated 24 March 2025 that shows the skirting board, wall and floor damage.
The landlord confirmed the third bedroom was painted so there was consistency in paint colour in all the bedrooms had patched and as such the tenant cannot be held liable for this cost.
The tenant says the final inspection report records the rumpus room door to be in good condition. The landlord says he does not record comments on inspection reports and relies on photographs. The photograph of this door shows a large chip out of the side of the door. The tenant had no defence to this claim other than to say it was not mentioned in the walk through on 16 Augus 2025.
I am satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of repainting the rumpus room and repairing/painting the damaged areas of the room next to the rumpus room and the rumpus room door, but not for the cost of painting the third downstairs bedroom. I have also taken into consideration the walls in these rooms were not pristine at the start of the tenancy and had some scuff marks on them, as shown in the tenant’s evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord compensation of $821.67 (being two thirds of the cost sought), minus depreciation of 15% for the prior minor damage to the walls of these rooms. Downstairs wash basin in bathroom
The landlord says there was a crack in the wash basin that was not evident in the entry inspection report or the 12 November 2024 inspection report that is says evident in the exit inspection photograph 7739.
The tenant says there was no crack in this bathroom wash basin at the end of the tenancy.
The photograph 7739 in the exit inspection report is taken from a distance and when blown up is blurry and inconclusive. However, the 18 June 2025 routine inspection report photograph of the basin shows this crack more clearly. The tenant says he does not know how the crack got there, as they had not used that bathroom since December 2024.
I am satisfied the evidence provided by the landlord proves on the balance of probabilities this damage was done during the tenancy as a result of a careless act or omission by the tenant or a person in the premise with the tenant’s consent.
I award the landlord compensation of $172.50, the amount the landlord has proven it cost to remedy this damage. Three broken wardrobe doors in three upstairs bedrooms ($345.00)
The landlord claims $345.00 for remediation of three damaged wardrobe doors.
The landlord proved the exit inspection report shows a dent in the master bedroom door that required plaster and paint (in photograph 7704). The tenant claims he was unaware of this damage prior to the landlord’s Tribunal application and would have fixed this if it had been brought to his attention at the walk through before the tenancy ended.
The tenant says the other two wardrobes were not used, except for a month at the beginning of the tenancy. He stated the wardrobe doors did not close properly at the beginning of the tenancy, and these were pre-existing issues. Further, the tenant says the exit inspection report records these doors as good.
The landlord withdrew its claim for the other two doors, as it now classifies these as fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s builder confirmed that the cost for the master bedroom wardrobe door repair was $180.00. I make an award for this amount to compensate the landlord for this damage. Front lawn damage from tenant parking on it
The landlord says there was damage caused by the tenant parking on the lawn that required it to refill the area with 3-ton gap on 8 September 2025 at a cost of $250.00.
The tenant says that photograph 7753 in the exit report shows the lawn cut up by tires in an area that you would never put 3-ton gap in. 3 ton gap is often used as base course under pavers, water tanks, concrete preparation and footpaths but not on lawns.
. The tenant says the driveway was steep and cars cut this corner when they came out on an angle and that this damage was done by the landlord’s contractors, and owner as well as the tenant.
The tenant proved he had levelled this area and sown grass seed on it before the end of the tenancy, but after the exit inspection report photographs.
I am satisfied the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the tenant was solely responsible for any damage to this grass and that it has not met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to justify me making an award of $250.00 for 3-ton gap that was not used to remediate the damage complained of. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?
The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 3
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00 for all proven breaches. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenant says the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Specifically, at the start of the tenancy the curtains were mould affected, the walls of the house were damp, dirty and mouldy in places, the swimming pool was dirty and unusable, the outdoor areas were overgrown at the bottom of the stairs (to the point the tenant didn’t know there 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. was a pond under the kikuyu grass), and the pool house contained items/rubbish that did not belong to the tenant which remained there for the duration of the tenancy. The tenant says it took him took two months to clear this, and several trips to the tip. The yard area in the advertisement does not look like the tenant’s photographs.
The tenant produced photographs that show the pool being extremely dirty at the beginning of the tenancy and parts of the yard down the back being overgrown with kikuyu grass and weeds, to the point a pond that was in this area could not be seen until the tenant weeded this area himself. The photographs used to advertise this property were misleading, because the property was not in anywhere near the same condition at the start of the tenancy as the advertisement showed, including the overgrown yard and the development behind the pool house.
The tenant says the mouldy curtains are evident in entry inspection report but was unable to direct me to photographs to prove this. However, he produced an invoice for the cost of replacing curtains throughout the house that he says he would not have done if they had not been so mouldy at the start of the tenancy. Additionally, there was no evidence produced that proved the tenant raised the mouldy curtains with the landlord prior to replacing them. He produced an invoice that proves he replaced them on 25 November 2024 at a cost of $851.00, and that the contractor charged $50.00 plus GST to “dispose of the mouldy curtains”. He says he replaced the curtains only after making a number of phone calls to the property manager about the mouldy curtains, damp dirty and mouldy walls in the lounge and kitchen room area, the pool and other issues, because at first, he did not have the property manager’s email address.
The tenant’s photographs of walls in the lounge and kitchen areas show the wallpaper is old, damp and has had some mould grow in certain areas that have lifted over time. Additionally, some areas of the wallpaper are dirty and not sealed firmly to the wall any longer. One photograph shows water damage in an area that is no longer covered by wallpaper. The landlord denies the black mouldy areas are anything but dirt marks from old 30- to 40-year-old wallpaper that could not be cleaned off. Further, the landlord says this is scuffs from furniture or dirt and it was not damp or peeling. The property manager confirmed he had recommended to the owner the lounge be repainted prior to the tenancy commencing but the owner chose not to do this.
The tenant noted that mould can grow in and behind wallpaper. It thrives in the dark, damp, and unventilated space between the wallpaper and the wall, often feeding on the adhesives and paper materials. Common causes include humidity, water leaks, or applying wallpaper to damp walls. I am satisfied the photographs show what appears to be dampness and mould in the wallpaper.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 8 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 9 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 10
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 11 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 12
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 13 , not commercially clean 14 , spotless 15 or to a hotel or motel standard 16 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 17 .
I am satisfied the tenant has produced enough evidence to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities: a. The curtains were mouldy and needed to be replaced, as the tenant stated he was unable to get the mould to wash out. The contractors invoice confirms mould on the old curtains that it disposed of and the photographs of the walls suggests there has been some dampness and mould in the lounge, kitchen and bedroom areas; b. The swimming pool was extremely dirty and unkempt at the start of the tenancy and that the landlord did not take sufficient steps to address the level of remediation required to get the pool to a reasonably clean and tidy condition that could be maintained by the tenant; c. The back yard was overgrown and not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy; and d. The kitchen and lounge walls were damp, dirty and in places mouldy.
I am also satisfied that more likely than not, the tenant did raise these issues with the property manager over the phone at the start of the tenancy, even though there is no written communication to prove he did raise these issues (other than the pool and yard) and when. Text communication proves the pool issue was 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 11 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 12 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 13 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 14 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 15 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 16 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 17 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. raised repeatedly from around 23 September 2024 by text and a pool contractor came to look at the pool around 2 September 2024.
I find that the tenant has proven the landlord failed to ensure the premise was in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy, that the tenant raised these issues with the landlord and when the landlord did not address these issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, the tenant took steps to address these issues himself, including paying to change the mouldy curtains and dispose of the old mouldy curtains, clean the mould from the walls, clean up to seven years of algae off the pool walls and floor and water blast it and tidy the yard and pay to remove green waste.
I award the tenant general damages for the period 16 August 2024 to 8 December 2024, when he had remediated all the move in cleanliness and tidiness issues at a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the 16 weeks and 2 days, being a total rent rebate of $3,257.14. Additionally, I award the tenant compensation to reimburse him for the costs incurred as follows: a. Pool restoration and chemicals $800.00; b. PoolWerx November 2024 invoice $400.00; c. Curtain replacement $600.00; d. Cleaning and remediation supplies $150.00; e. Mould treatment materials $200.00; and f. Pool cleaning labour and water blaster hire $1,000.00
I also find the landlord’s intent was one of disregard of its obligations under the RTA, the uncleanliness distressed the tenant greatly, the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise?

The tenant claims the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Heat pump not working
The tenant claims the heat pump was broken and not able to be used from the start of the tenancy.
The property manager says this issue was not raised with him, it worked when he tested it just before the tenancy started and he would have fixed this if he had known it was not working.
The tenant says he became frustrated with the property manager not addressing repair and maintenance issues after finding very quickly that anything raised was not addressed promptly, if at all. He says this was addressed with the property manager at the first inspection after the entry inspection. The landlord denies this and there is nothing in the 12 November 2024 routine inspection report.
I am not satisfied the tenant had met his burden of proof in that he has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed. Mould in son’s bedroom and bathroom and leak
The tenant produced photographs that proves mould developed in the tenant’s son’s bedroom carpet. The photographs show visible mould growth in the carpet where the bedroom shares a wall with the downstairs bathroom, and the tenant says he became concerned the shower or plumbing may have been contributing to moisture that led to the mould development.
The tenant says that during the 12 November 2024 inspection he raised the dampness and mould in the son’s room with the property manager. The property manager denies this and says the photograph of the son’s bedroom on 12 November 2024 is covered by a TV stand and mirror, and any issue could not have been seen by either party.
On 3 December 2024 the tenant says he raised the potential leak causing damage in the son’s bedroom and bathroom that they wanted investigated, after receiving the first high water bill (25 October to 22 November 2024).
The property manager denies the tenant contacting him and states that on this date he called the tenant about the high-water bill, and asked the tenant to check the water meter, when everything was turned off, to see if the meter was still running and video it. The parties confirmed the tenant did this, and the property manager decided there was no leak, because the water meter was not moving. No further investigation about the cause of the high-water bills was undertaken, despite there being three more high water bills that followed. MonthBilled amountNotes (24 July to 26 August 2024) $115.41 (10 days) ($182.41 total bill) $67.00 was charged to last tenant 27 Aug to 22 Sept 2024 $5.05 23 Sept -24 Oct 2024 $96.29 25 Oct to 22 Nov 2024 $496.56(3 December 2024- landlord asks tenant to check the water meter to see if it runs fast when no one is using the water- tenant called LL back) 23 November to 23 December 2024 $300.01 24 December 2024 to 23 January 2025 $511.74 24 Feb to 23 March 2025 $420.58Tenant says they stopped using downstairs bathroom and water costs dropped.
The landlord put these four months of high-water costs down to the tenant’s use of the pool over the summer months. The tenant confirms he and his family did not use the pool much at this time as it kept getting dirty and was costing more money than the tenant could afford in chemicals to keep the pool clean. Additionally, the tenant had to purchase a $2,000.00 pool sweeper to try to maintain the pool. In the end he gave up as he was never able to get the pool to a condition where it was easy to maintain.
The landlord says this issue was first raised with him on 24 March 2025 after he discovered the carpet was cut. He claims that by the time he saw this, the cut piece of carpet was dry. The tenant says there was mould under the carpet where the cut-out piece had been. When the landlord looked at it the carpet square, he confirmed it was black, but dry and denies the black is mould.
The tenant says that he and his family stopped using the downstairs shower and after that the water bills dropped dramatically for the remainder of the tenancy. Once this was identified, the tenant suspected the running of the shower may have been the cause for high water bills.
The tenant says the mould under the carpet appeared well established, suggesting it had existed for some time. Because of the high-water bills, the mould and dampness in both the bedroom and bathroom, the tenant and his family ceased using these rooms due to health risks . He says the bedroom remained unusable for approximately six months.
The landlord has, post the end if the tenancy, found that the tenant’s flatmate’s screws in shower wall, to install the shower caddy, caused the mould and dampness issues complained of.
I am satisfied the tenant raised the bathroom and bedroom issue with the property manager around 24 March 2025 and by this time the water bills had returned to a normal level. I also prefer the property manager’s evidence that on 3 December 2024, the property manager raised the first high power bill with the tenant and asked the tenant to do the water meter test and once it was confirmed the water meter was not moving when everything was turned off, he concluded the 24 March to 23 April 2025 credit $146.04 24 April to 23 May 2025 $146.92 24 May to 23 June 2025 $50.67 24 June to 23 July 2025 $96.29 24 July to 23 August 2025 $126.62Total bill $458.65 Deducted $332.00 for annual fixed charge 23 August to 23 September 2025 $108.63Tenancy ended on 16 August 2025 water bill related to the pool and failed to undertaken any further investigation into potential causes of the higher water usage.
I am also satisfied the tenant’s flat mate caused the mould and dampness issue in the bathroom and bedroom, and that it would be inequitable to compensate the tenant for the impact of this damage, when the landlord’s builders evidence proves there was no leaks in the shower pipes or other plumbing and that the slow leak was caused by the screws in the shower wall
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for the loss of the use of these two rooms. Pool
The tenant says the swimming pool was a primary reason for him entering the tenancy, and despite repeated requests to the property manager the pool remained unclean for approximately three months.
The landlord says Pool Werx was sent out to “clean” the pool on 2 September 2024 and it relied on these pool professionals’ advice that all the pool needed was some chemical treatment, it did not raise the need to empty the pool and clean the sides and floor of the pool, and had it done so this work would have been authorised.
I am satisfied the pool was not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and that, despite the tenant’s best efforts, he never managed to get on top of the pool cleaning requirements, so the pool became untenable for him to manage. However, the pool breach has been addressed above in the failure to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the tenant has received compensation for this breach under that head of claim. It would be inequitable to allow the tenant to double dip by awarding the tenant further compensation under this head of claim. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to meet healthy homes standards?

The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the 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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 16 August 2024. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Saturday, 14 December 2024. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant confirmed that this claim was related to the dampness and mould in the downstairs bedroom and bathroom. This type of damage is not covered by the moisture ingress and drainage standards and is a repair and maintenance issue, as outlined in that section of this Order above. Therefore, I must dismiss this claim. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises?
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) which requires that “every house should be free from dampness”.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant say the landlord failed to meet its obligations under regulation 15 of the HIR because the son’s bedroom and adjacent bathroom was damp and mouldy, therefore the house was not free from dampness.
I am also satisfied the tenant’s flat mate caused the mould and dampness issue in the bathroom and bedroom, and that it would be inequitable to compensate the tenant for the impact of this damage, when the landlord’s builders evidence proves there was no leaks in the shower pipes or other plumbing and that the slow leak was caused by the screws in the shower wall
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for any alleged breach of regulation 15 of the HIR. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant and the landlord have both substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse both the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463653 — Cleanliness at 20 Tawhana Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463653 — Cleanliness at 20 Tawhana Crescent, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for water rates and rent arrears?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise?

Did the landlord fail to meet healthy homes standards?

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for water rates and rent arrears?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise?

Did the landlord fail to meet healthy homes standards?

Property management