Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5468654 — Property damage

Decided 25 Sept 2026 · Published 25 Sept 2026 · Application 5468654

Property damage
Rent arrears
Cleanliness

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Adjudicator

M Kemp

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $4,875.00
Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord: $2,015.00

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5468654 — net $2,015.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/4/26 BY CONSENT	$350.00	Rent arrears to 23/4/26 BY CONSENT
Cleaning: Heat pump filter	$25.00	Cleaning: Heat pump filter
Clothesline	$150.00	Clothesline
Carpet Cleaning	$270.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet - Lounge, Hall, B1

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,015.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant HHS draught stopping standard claim for compensation in respect of x2 windows in the lounge and bedroom are dismissed.
The tenant HHS draught stopping standard claim for compensation in respect of the front door is dismissed.
The tenant HHS heating standard claim for compensation in respect of the heat pump is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing and for exemplary damages for unlawful use is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant keeping a pet is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for carpet replacement in the dining room and bedrooms 2 and 3 is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to damage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both individual landlords attended with counsel. I permitted counsel (Ms Forsyth) to appear for the landlord given the sums in issue exceeded $6,000 (see section 93(2) RTA). The landlord also bought a support person, but she sat in the public area given that the landlord already had support in the form of counsel to ensure some balance given that the tenant attended alone.
The Tribunal must determine a tenant application for compensation arising out of breaches said to have occurred relating to Healthy Homes Standards and maintenance issues and a landlord application relating to rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed that tenancy started on 2 August 2022 and ended on 23 April 2026 (although keys were returned earlier). The property is an older villa or bungalow type of property with three bedrooms and a separate lounge and dining area. Civil Burden of proof
As explained in the hearing the applicant of each application is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. 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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
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 assessing the oral evidence, I have borne in mind that memory is fallible and that recollections of past events are often reconstructed over time rather than recalled with precision. An honest witness may therefore be mistaken. I have accordingly assessed the parties' recollections against the surrounding circumstances, any contemporaneous records, and the evidence as a whole.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this order. General principles for compensation and exemplary damages
As compensation and exemplary damages are remedies sought in this case I have set out relevant principles relating this below.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has breached the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, 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.
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasised that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: The nature of the breach, the duration of the breach, and the effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 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 proven that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA.
Those factors are: the intention of the person, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and the public interest. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS HHS draught stopping standard breach in bay window in lounge
The tenant says that in the lounge a window had a gap and this breached the Healthy Homes Standards for draught stopping. She seeks compensation. She seeks a total of $7,000 for all breaches she has alleged in her application.
The tenant says that the window was discussed at the start of the tenancy. She says Mr Fabish said he would fix it later but assured her it was still Healthy Homes Compliant, and she believed that. The tenant provided a photograph of a window in a wooden frame taken towards the end of her tenancy. The window is one of several at the top of a larger bay window.
The landlord says the property is an older home but that prior to the tenancy starting they checked for gaps. They say that the window still closes now. The landlord says they fix things when they are notified. The landlord says that if this had been noted in an inspection it would appear in the contemporaneous handwritten notes provided. The tenant had made no reference to the window. The landlord says that the conversation at the start of the tenancy did not occur.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”) provide for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. In the context of the HHS the landlord must ensure that all installed or provided things are appropriate for the purpose for which they are installed or provided and ensure all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order; or if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time (Regulation 6 HHS).
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair (in the context of a claim for a failure to maintain which is in s 45(1)(b) RTA) was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. The court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.
Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The court in Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085 stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
Put another way, the obligation to maintain the premises is not a warranty that the property will be free from faults / defects during the period of the tenancy. Rather, it is an obligation on the landlord is to respond appropriately to any issues that are brought to their attention in a timely way.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes an obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after the discovery of the need for repairs to the premises.
The RTA also provides a mechanism for tenants to raise work required at the premises more formally with the landlord. In particular, tenants are able to provide the landlord with a breach notice (a 14 day notice) and if work is not completed in a timely way, tenants can seek a work order from the Tenancy Tribunal that requires the landlord to remedy the breach.
That is consistent with section 49 RTA which requires that a party mitigate their loss. In the context of this claim, this means that the tenant must take any necessary steps to limit the loss they have incurred from a landlord breach. Section 49 of the RTA holds:
Mitigation of damage or loss Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
There is no dispute that the HHS apply to this tenancy which began on 2 August 2022. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
There is no evidence as to the condition of the window at the start of the tenancy in 2022. The tenant’s recollection that the window had this issue at the start of the tenancy and that she discussed it with the landlord is not supported by any contemporaneous probative evidence and the landlord denies such a conversation. The tenant did not raise the issue again during the course of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently proven there was a defect with the window breaching the HHS draught stopping standard at the start of the tenancy or that the landlords were made aware of the issue during the course of the tenancy so that it could be remedied if it were causing a draught. I am not satisfied that they would have necessarily observed the issue on an inspection. Therefore, I am not satisfied there has been a proven breach of the draught stopping standard for which compensation can be awarded. This part of the application is dismissed.
In any event, if the tenant considered that more timely maintenance was necessary because this was causing a draught, she could have taken action to mitigate her loss and have that work addressed sooner, such as issuing the landlord a 14-day notice setting out the work that was required, or even pursuing the matter at the Tenancy Tribunal. While that does not absolve the landlord of their responsibility to comply with the HHS that would be a significant factor that must be taken into consideration if the breach had been established and compensation considered. HHS draught stopping standard breach in second lounge window and bedroom
The tenant did not pursue these claims. They are dismissed. HHS draught stopping standard breach at the front door
The tenant says that there was a severe gap at the front door this also breached the HHS for draught stopping. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.
She says she noticed the gap and took a photograph of it after her second to last inspection in July 2025. This photograph was provided to the Tribunal. She says she raised the issue at this inspection but was told to put a draught stopper there. The landlord says the issue was not raised. If it had been raised it would be in their contemporaneous notes and it is not in their notes (provided). They say it could have easily been remedied if it had been bought to their attention. They did not know about it as an issue until the application was filed.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that there is an unreasonable gap that is causing a draught or that this was the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy or that the landlords were made aware of an issue during the course of the tenancy or that they would have observed an issue on an inspection. Therefore, I am not satisfied there has been a breach of the HHS for draught stopping for which compensation may be awarded. This part of the application is dismissed.
In any event, as set out above, if the tenant considered that maintenance was necessary, she could have taken action to mitigate her loss and have that work addressed sooner and that would be a significant factor that must be taken into consideration when awarding compensation if the breach had been established. HHS draught stopping standard breach for back door
The tenant says that a cat door caused a draught at the back door this breached the HHS for draught stopping. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.
The tenant says there was a cat flap in the back door. She says she could not use it as she was not permitted to have pets in the tenancy agreement. She says at the start of the tenancy it was taped up using masking tape but over time the tape wore off and it was picked at by her toddler daughter. She says the cat flap had no closing mechanism, and it would flap open and closed. She says she drew this to the landlord’s attention at two inspections. This is supported by the landlord’s notes of inspections which refer to the cat door being untaped both on 24 July 2025 and 13 February 2026.
The landlord says that the cat door was taped closed due to the no pets provision in the tenancy agreement and that the tenant did not mention draughts or cold coming from the cat door. It was the landlord who had instead raised the issue about the missing tape.
I accept that a cat door will be a source of draughts if they do not close properly. I accept that a cat door with no closing mechanism will flap and cause a draught. The landlord taped the cat door but I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that by 24 July 2025 the tape had gone. I am not satisfied that the tape coming off the door is anything other than fair wear and tear, masking tape is not a long term solution, so the tenant was not liable to replace it. The landlord is responsible for HHS compliance and maintenance.
I accept that a cat door that can freely flap open and closed will cause a draught. Therefore, I accept that there is a proven breach of the draught stopping standard once the landlord knew about it but then failed to remedy the issue within a reasonable period.
I accept the draught caused would have caused the house to be colder than it would otherwise have been and award modest compensation of $150.00 because the tenant did not pursue the issue during the tenancy. HHS breach of heating standard due to mould around heat pump
The tenant says that there was a breach of the HHS because there was mould behind the heat pump. The tenant clarified this was a breach of the heating standard. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.
The tenant says that there were no issues with the heat pump until roughly 2024. Then the wall the heat pump was on started to get issues. She says that there was mould and moisture on the wall from the heat pump and provided a photograph. A photograph she provided, she says, appears to show mould behind the heat pump. She said this related to the landlord not servicing the heat pump. She says she didn’t clean the heat pump filters when she left the tenancy but that she had cleaned them during the tenancy. She says this is a breach because the heat pump could not do its job properly. She says the heat pump could still be used but it should have been serviced. The tenant’s written submissions note that when she raised the issue the landlord told her to clean the filter.
The landlord says that the tenant raised an issue regarding the heat pump at the final inspection only but never raised an issue concerning mould or a wet wall. The heat pump was then serviced at the end of the tenancy but the marks behind/around the unit, the landlord says, were dust rather than mould. Photographs were provided of the external part of the unit and inside the filter. They say there has been no breach because the heat pump is working and the tenant should have ensured that it was clean.
I accept that the heat pump filter and surround was dusty at the end of the tenancy rather than mouldy. This appears most likely from the photographs provided. The obligation to clean the filer and the area around the heat pump generally is a tenant responsibility. However, more extensive servicing remains the responsibility of the landlord. The service invoice and report identified grime on the evaporator coil and a clogged drain which go beyond the tenant’s obligation. The HHS requires the landlord to ensure all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that there was a maintenance issue with the heat pump. However, the evidence only proves that this was communicated to the landlord near to the very end of the tenancy. In the absence of any other evidence as to the date, the landlord’s inspection notes indicate that the last inspection was on 13 February 2026. The notes also show that the tenant told the landlord they would be vacating the property at this inspection. I heard how the tenant vacated the premises on 16 March 2026 informing her landlord she had left her keys on the bench for them.
Based on the evidence before me, I do not consider the period between reporting the issue and the tenant moving out to be an unreasonable length of time in which to arrange for the service of a heat pump particularly given that it was not unreasonable to investigate if the cleaning of the filters would resolve the issue.
Therefore, while I find there was a maintenance issue with the heat pump, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to remedy it within a reasonable period after being notified of an issue in breach of the HHS. The tenant’s claim relating to this breach is therefore dismissed. Failure to maintain the drain / gully trap
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
I refer to the detailed comments made above regarding the extent of that maintenance obligation and the tenant liability to notify the landlord about maintenance issues and mitigation obligations (see paragraphs 21- 26).
The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the drains because a gully trap outside would overflow into the garden and the drain leaked for a substantial period of time overflowing into the garden causing a puddle around the drain. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.
The tenant says she told the landlord of this by text in July 2025. The landlord was due to come for an inspection and notes show this took place on 24 July. The tenant admits that on the date the landlord came the drain did need cleaning out of hair and a few minor sticks and leaves. She told the landlord that she had cleaned it out 1 or two weeks prior, but this was dismissed with this being regarded as her fault. The problem still happened. The tenant was not clear if there was another occasion when she raised this with the landlord. She the suggested it was raised at another inspection (the one before last) but was not clear on this.
The landlord clarified that the drain concerned is a gully trap. The landlord’s position is that when they looked at the drain after being notified of the issue it was full of hair and so he had a conversation with the tenant telling her perhaps she should clean it out because the hair was blocking the drain. She acknowledged it got blocked weekly or fortnightly. He says he could not see other issues. The landlord’s written evidence is that the drain was unblocked at that time. It was not until the end of the tenancy that he saw the grate had been removed. That was there to stop things going down the drain. They say they were not advised of further issues after that inspection.
It is common ground that the drain concerned is a gully trap and it had hair blocking it when the landlord visited just a few days after the issue was reported. I am satisfied that there was a small metal grate available to cover the drain (a gully trap) which could be lifted. The grate can be seen in the video provided. I cannot be certain if the tenant raised the issue again after the discussion in July.
Although I consider that removing visible hair from showers, baths and sinks is a tenant obligation maintaining suitable drainage is a landlord obligation. I accept that the level at which the tenant reported to the landlord her family was cleaning the drains of hair (being every 1 to 2 weeks) and the reported overflow should have alerted the landlord to the fact that there was a drainage issue worthy of investigation. I consider that it is not standard practice to need to remove hair from an outside gully trap every few weeks. The landlord did not carry out additional investigations. I find this was a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
However, I note that the tenant could have taken additional action if the issue was causing her to suffer a loss. She could have taken action to mitigate her loss and have that work addressed sooner by giving a 14 day notice or coming to the Tribunal.
There was very limited information about the tenant’s loss and this is also an aspect of the case that must be proven when compensation is sought. I do accept that the tenant would have spent time ensuring the drain was not blocked and she should have had a drain that did not need frequent cleaning by her or her family. I award the tenant the sum of $200 to reflect this. Failure to maintain the roof
The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the roof above the bay window in the lounge. She says it was not a severe leak but it was definitely a leak causing damage to the walls by the bay window including mould and a crack in the wall. It was left for an extended period of time. If it was raining she says that water would come inside.
She discovered the leak when she was exercising near the window. She heard drip and then found water all over the bottom wall of the bay window. She says she notified Mr Fabish in a telephone call in roughly November 2022. Mr Fabish said he would come around and he did so on the same day. She says he inspected the room and said he would send a specialist.
She says no further action was taken until 20 February 2023 when she sent Ms Fabish a follow up text message. The message asked when the builders were coming to fix the roof part of the lounge to stop the leaking. She referred to the leak getting worse after weather. Ms Fabish’s text response was to apologise and say that Mr Fabish had “forgot”. She refers to “[the maintenance person]” coming around that day to measure it. I heard how [the maintenance person] did come that day and then the tenant says she waited. It was then fixed, she says, about 2 months later. She says it could have been fixed sooner if the issue had not been forgotten about. Due to this happening the tenant says some of the wallpaper by the bay window peeled off (this is further considered below).
The landlord’s position was far from consistent here. Counsel for the landlord first put forward that as soon as the landlord was contacted about the issue (being after the text message in February) Mr Fabish arranged for [the maintenance person] to go around and he applied a temporary fix. It was also said that Ms Fabish arranged for [the maintenance person] to go around. I heard how the issue was then fixed within a two-month period.
When asked about this further, because this did not account for the tenant’s position that Mr Fabish had come to the property earlier before [the maintenance person] visited, counsel then put forward that Mr Fabish’s recollection was that this call was about a leaking shed and text messages on that issue were referenced. It was further referenced again that it was after the February text message that [the maintenance person] went around. The landlord repeated that the first notification they had of the leak was when the text message was received (on 20 February 2023).
The landlord’s position then changed to acknowledge that the tenant had in fact called the landlord earlier. The landlord then said [the maintenance person] went around on that day or the next (rather than in February). The landlord also said it was Mr Fabish who went around after the tenant called and that he looked at the roof and found a rusted part with a hole about the size of 50 cents. While Mr Fabish said [the maintenance person] sealed it in February this position was inconsistent with the landlord saying it was sealed after the first telephone call. Counsel reiterated there was an interim fix and then there was a final fix on the roof. The landlord says the final fix was finished by the end of March and early April.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence because it is consistent and is supported by the text message which refers to [the maintenance person] being sent around in February. The tenant’s text and the reply shows that the landlord clearly knew about the leak earlier than the February. The landlord did, in due course, admit an earlier telephone call and attendance but could not say with any certainty or clarity what was done at this point.
I find it more likely than not that [the maintenance person] in fact attended the property in February 2023, after the follow up text message. This is consistent with the landlord’s initial evidence and the text message itself.
In the absence of other evidence, I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s position the initial telephone call was in or about November 2022.
I therefore accept that the tenant has proven that she had a leaking roof which the landlord was aware of between November 2022 and February 2023. There is no probative evidence to prove the leak continued beyond February 2023 and that the temporary fix was not adequate. I find the delay between November to February to amount to a landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. A roof leak is a serious problem relating to weathertightness.
I award the tenant $500 in compensation in respect of this breach. This award takes into account the rent the tenant was paying at the time, the nature and extent of the issue that has been proven and the time taken to respond to the issue.

THE LANDLORD APPLICATION

Rent arrears

The tenant agreed she still owed $350 of rent and so this is ordered by consent to the end of the tenancy on 23 April 2026. Methamphetamine test costs
The landlord seeks $690 in Methamphetamine testing costs. The landlord does not seek remediation / decontamination costs.
The landlord says that the tenant is liable for testing costs as the property has been used for unlawful purposes namely using methamphetamine. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for this unlawful use. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant says she finds it insulting to be accused of this. There was no one using methamphetamine in the property. She says she did not understand the results, but she considers them to be under contamination levels in any event.
Under section 40(2)(b) RTA the tenant must not use or, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Smoking methamphetamine is an unlawful act. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12).
The tenant vacated the property prior to the end of the tenancy and left the keys for the landlord on 16 March 2026. A composite methamphetamine test was undertaken and the results, dated 19 March 2026, show a methamphetamine reading of 19μg/100cm². A detailed analysis was then undertaken and this identified methamphetamine levels of 2.4μg/100cm² in the kitchen, 13.3 μg/100cm² in the main bedroom, 0.11 μg/100cm² on the meter board,
3μg/100cm² in the sunroom and 0.41μg/100cm² in the front room.
A separate methamphetamine sample was taken of the carpet in the main bedroom on 20 April and this had a methamphetamine reading of
1μg/100cm². The landlord says that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy and I accept this as it is supported by evidence. An invoice has been filed to support this. The landlord says this proves that the tenant unlawfully used the premises to consume methamphetamine.
In this case, the landlord did not test the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy starting. If there is no testing of the premises before, or at the start of the tenancy, as is the case here, the immediate hurdle is proving that the contamination at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant. In the absence of a baseline test, it is much harder for a landlord to establish that the contamination / use occurred during the tenancy.
I note two District Court decisions where the court has confirmed that in the absence of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, it would be very difficult for a landlord to prove the tenant contaminated the premises.
In Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical smells arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises often, as well as regular visits from the police. On appeal the District Court did not accept that evidence was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises during that tenancy, and concluded that the difficulty with the landlords claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy. The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the Court considered that there was no evidence to support that the tenants in that case caused the contamination.
In the earlier case of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. In that case, the landlord reports finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing.
In Yan v Weggery TT 4303380, 12 January 2022 the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage where the premises concerned were brand-new at the start of the tenancy. It was accepted that of itself did not prove that there could not have been methamphetamine contamination before the start of the tenancy. The Tribunal noted that methamphetamine use does occur from tradespeople: just like it does in almost any element of society. The fact that the property was new at the start of the tenancy was insufficient to prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Finally, by way of example, in Lodge City Rentals Limited v Hamilton TT4242075 6 July 2020, the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage. One of the ways in which the landlord sought to prove methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy concerned an oven that had been installed during the course of the tenancy. A methamphetamine sample was taken from the oven. Analysis of the sample returned a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine with a reading of 0.41 μg/100cm². The Tribunal had the benefit of an expert report. The author considered that the area from which the sample was taken was one not typically handled and that hand to hand (object) contamination would be unlikely. The author stated that in their opinion, on the balance of probabilities, the oven was not contaminated when it was delivered, and the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The Tribunal disagreed finding that the area was one that could have been touched daily. The Tribunal was also unable to rule out the possibility that the contamination may have been left by those delivering or installing the oven at the property.
There was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy. The authority set out above makes it clear that the absence of this significantly weakens the landlord’s case against the tenants in this claim. The landlord is therefore left with circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence presented was simply that the carpet was new. However, I consider this not to be sufficient, without further evidence to establish it was the tenant (or someone she permitted) who used methamphetamine during the tenancy. There was no evidence (expert or otherwise) to inform me as to the likelihood (or not) of pre-contamination of the carpet prior to installation or during installation, or the likelihood (or not) of transference of residue from other surfaces in the house to the carpet, had the other surfaces already been contaminated.
I consider that the absence of a pre-let methamphetamine test, prior to or at the start of this tenancy, substantially weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is simply not possible to conclude on the civil balance of probabilities that the tenant, or someone she permitted, used the property unlawfully by consuming methamphetamine. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation (for testing), and exemplary damages resulting from methamphetamine use must be dismissed Cleaning of the heat pump
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish (section 40(1)(e) RTA).
The landlord claims $278 for the cleaning of the heat pump undertaken after the tenancy had ended.
From the photographs shown I accept the heat pump is not reasonably clean. However, the work done and claimed for not only involves the cleaning of the filter which is a tenant obligation but also a general service of the heat pump and that is a landlord maintenance obligation.
I therefore award the landlord the sum of $25 which is a sum I consider to be reasonable for the cleaning of the heat pump filter which is the work the tenant is responsible for. Missing smoke alarm
The landlord says the smoke alarm in the lounge was missing at the end of the tenancy. A tenant must not remove a smoke alarm (see s40(2)(ab) RTA). The tenant disagrees that a smoke alarm was ever there.
There is no probative evidence to prove the existence of a smoke alarm in the room at the start of the tenancy. Notably a reference to alarms is missing from the very limited ingoing property inspection report.
I find that the landlord is unable to prove this part of its claim and it is dismissed. Net curtains
On the termination of the tenancy the tenant must leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant (s 40(e)(v) RTA).
The landlord says the tenant took the net curtains that they say were put up by them when the previous tenants were at the property. The tenant says she put up the net curtains. She knew the landlord did not have to do this and so she took it upon herself to put up the curtains.
Both parties provided written documents from others seeking to support their own position. However, I found these to carry little weight as the witnesses did not attend for cross examination. Statements from previous tenants about what was at the property when they were there are often not helpful as matters can easily change between tenancies. There are no full property inspection reports, including photographs, from the beginning of the tenancy. the only such report is extremely limited.
This is the landlord’s case to prove and the absence of probative evidence about net curtains at the start of the tenancy ultimately means that the claim is not proven and it is dismissed.
I add that, in any event, there was no evidence before me as to the condition of the said net curtains provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord said they were installed in 2021. Given their age and absence of evidence as to condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, any compensation claim would be subject to significant depreciation (see below for more details relating to depreciation) and would likely have resulted in only a nominal award, if any. Damage – general observations and damage claims
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant (which is not alleged to have been caused by a pet following legislative changes in December 2025, see below), the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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 sections 40(2), 49A and 49B RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal takes into account depreciation and betterment. This is because items like curtains, carpets, decoration and other fittings and fixtures in a house do not last forever. They age and deteriorate through ordinary use and through the passage of time. These fixtures, fittings, and chattels gradually lose their value. The Tribunal recognises this. In assessing compensation claims for replacement chattels or remedying damage the Tribunal will generally consider the extent to which the value of the item concerned has been reduced, taking into account evidence concerning its age, expected useful life, and pre-existing condition. This makes sure that any award reflects actual loss suffered and does not place the landlord in a better position than they would have been in had the damage not occurred. Compensation is therefore commonly reduced to account for depreciation and the remaining useful life of the damaged item. Broken sensor light
The landlord says a sensor light was broken at the end of the tenancy and provides a photograph. The tenant says the light was always broken.
There is no probative evidence as to the condition of the light at the start of the tenancy. There is also no evidence as to the age of the light.
I find that the landlord is unable to prove that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy or that this is anything other than fair wear and tear. Also, in the absence of sufficient evidence as to age or condition at the start of the tenancy any compensation that might have been awarded, if liability was established, would have been significantly depreciated in any event.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Broken clothesline
The landlord replaced a rotary clothesline after its steel post was broken. They say the tenant broke it. The tenant admitted this was broken by her daughter swinging on it.
I find the damage occurred during the tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. I find it more likely than not to be intentional damage.
The landlord claims $392.19. He replaced the pole and the rotary part of the line and says that the whole unit had to be replaced. The landlord could not say how old the clothesline that was damaged was, but I can see from the photographs that it is a steel, older style rotary line which remains otherwise serviceable.
Taking into account betterment and depreciation I consider it fair that the tenant contribute $150 towards the replacement cost of the clothes line. Damage to the carpet – cleaning and replacement (and exemplary damages for dog at premises)
The landlord says that the carpet at the house was damaged by pet urine and after they had tried to remedy the issue by cleaning (for which they claim $270) they replaced the living carpet in the lounge, dining room, 3 bedrooms and hallway (at a cost of $9,059). Invoices were provided for both amounts. The landlord seeks these sums from the tenant.
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages due to the tenant keeping a dog at the premises (without it being allowed in the tenancy agreement and without consent). It is convenient to deal with this claim alongside the carpet claim for damage as both relate to the keeping of a dog.
As pet damage was raised in this part of the claim it is appropriate here to set out the position in relation to damage caused by pets. New provisions were recently introduced into the RTA in relation to tenant liability for pet damage. They came into force on 1 December 2025. The new rules mean that tenants are responsible for pet-related damage caused during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear (unlike non-pet related damage, there is no distinction between different types of damage e.g. careless or intentional). However, given the Tribunal’s findings below about when the dog left the property, I find it more likely than not that the damage I have found proven here relating to a pet was done before 1 December 2025. Therefore, the new pet provisions do not apply. The relevant law is therefore that as set out above (at paragraphs 96-100).
The landlord explained that the carpet in 5 rooms had been accepted as damaged by their insurer. The information from their insurer about the damage was very scarce. For example, there was no assessor report. The email provided simply referred to damage to carpets and other damage/payouts and the sums the insurer would pay and then referred to an excess applying to each room. 5 excesses were applied.
Given the mismatch between number of rooms where work done (6 rooms) and the number of rooms on the insurance report (5 rooms) I asked the landlord to further clarify this. The landlord said that the insurer accepted the carpet claim for the living room, main bedroom, bedroom 2 and 3 and the hallway. The dining room did not form part of the insurance claim.
The landlord referred to letters provided to the Tribunal from the carpet providers/installers [the carpet installers] and the professional carpet cleaners who attempted to clean the carpet about the damage. a. The cleaners noted that they tried different chemicals (used for different smells) but the stains could not be removed. They note “once pet urine gets into the underlay of the carpet it is almost impossible to remove the odour if at all”. b. The letter from the carpet provider refer to the carpet being damaged and contaminated with dog urine. It refers to significant damage due to pet related events, specifically dog urine which “has resulted in both visible staining and pervasive odour. The presence of pet urine has also created potential health concern, including the growth of bacteria and black mold [sic], which was evident on the underside of the carpet when lifted. I affirm that the damage was caused by pet activity, and the contamination has compromised the integrity of the carpet, rendering the carpet unsalvageable”.
As set out above, I heard how the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy in 2022 and how the smell was so strong the carpet could not remain. I heard that the cleaners had commented to Ms Fabish how bad it was and that the landlords did not expect anyone to live in it so they had to replace it. The carpet was 3.5 years old at the end of the tenancy. I heard how, when the carpet fitter came to lift the carpet in the main room, Ms Fabish says, the stench was unbelievable. I heard how had to get his gloves and mask and get two other people to come and assist him.
The landlord explained that the dining room carpet was replaced because whilst there was not urine there were marks on the carpet and to match the other areas. I was shown photographs of three marks. Two, the landlord said, were burn type marks and another was a pale stain. One was about 10cm across, another like a 50-cent piece and another about 15cm.
The landlord says that the urine damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord says four different neighbours told them the dog had been at the premises since it was a puppy, and it was there all the time. The tenancy agreement had stipulated no pets, but I heard how the landlord had become aware that the tenant had a dog. They were notified of this by neighbours with it coming to their attention after a Facebook post about a dog roaming in the area on 11 October 2025. A copy of this was provided. They say they tried to talk to the tenant about it, but she denied having a dog. The landlord says they did not identify the existence of a dog at inspections as the tenant would have windows open and be burning incense. This is recorded in their inspection notes. The landlord’s inspection record neighbours advising on 13 February 2026 that the dog had not been seen since “our last visit” (being on 14 October 2025).
The tenant says that the damage to the carpet was not dog urine but at the same time conceded that possibly some of it could have been. But, she says, most should have been from her daughter spilling juice in the lounge and second bedroom. She said there were no stains in the dining room (although once she saw additional photographs she acknowledged the marks saying it had been her son’s bedroom for a while). She says the carpets were left reasonably clean but takes full responsibility for stains in the lounge.
Regarding incense she says she just likes it. it was not to cover anything up. She says that the dog was not owned by her. It was not there since it was a puppy. It was her mother-in-law’s dog who she looked after from time to time while her mother-in-law could not look after it. She said she had looked after it about six times, when her mother-in-law had illness and was in and out of hospital, but emphasised it was not physically her dog. She was aware she was not supposed to have a dog at the premises. The tenant says the dog “could have significantly impacted the carpet. Not denying that fact. However, he was not my dog physically”. She says that the dog never came back after the landlord’s turned up at the property after the Facebook post – the dog was gone within 24 hours. Mr Fabish rang the next day to check if it had gone. The tenant acknowledged that the Facebook post regarding the stray dog related to her.
I will first consider the presence of the dog at the premises. This is established. The tenant says the dog visited 6 times did but not specify the length of the visit. However, this is sufficient to amount to keeping a dog at the premises. Ownership/registration is not the test for whether or not a pet has been kept at the premises (or if it has caused damage). This interpretation is supported by the legislative amendments which came into force on 1 December 2025 which sets out at section 2(4) that “For the purposes of this Act, the tenant of a premises keeps a pet on the premises if the tenant permits the pet to be kept there even if the tenant is not the owner of the pet”.
Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the dog did not return to the premises, and was therefore not kept there, after October 2025. The tenant’s oral submission that she removed the dog is supported by the landlord’s own position that the neighbour did not see the dog again either.
This is important both in relation to ensuring the relevant test for pet damage is applied (although given my findings below that the pet damage was intentional the legislative change would not have changed the outcome in any event) but also in relation to the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages relating to the tenant keeping a dog at the premises.
The landlord has claimed exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant had kept a dog at the premises and that was not permitted (either in tenancy agreement or by consent). This claim is dismissed because, although the RTA now provides that this is an unlawful act (potentially giving rise to an award of exemplary damages - see 42C RTA) this provision was not in force prior to 1 December 2025 and does not have retrospective effect.
In this case, the dog was removed prior to this section of the RTA (and therefore the ability to be awarded exemplary damages for the breach) coming into force.
Turning to the compensation claim for the carpet, the landlord must prove their case and broad generalisations are not sufficient.
I accept that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy.
I also accept that the carpet needed commercial cleaning. The tenant kept a dog at the premises. Given the report from the carpet cleaner I accept the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy. It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake this work. It would have been an important step in seeing whether the carpet needed to be replaced at all. I award the sum sought of $270.
I accept that the landlord has proven that the lounge, master bedroom and hallway carpet were all damaged during the tenancy. These areas were all documented by a number of photographs which I accept show showing staining, most significantly in the living room.
I accept the position that the damage in these rooms was more likely than not pet urine not given the photographs and the written statements from more than one professional supporting this. The tenant also admitted that there could have been some dog urine and that the dog could have impacted the carpet.
I accept that this is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. I am satisfied that the damage was done prior to December 2025. Given the repeated nature of the problem I consider this more likely than not to be intentional damage. It was reasonable to replace the carpet.
The carpets for the six rooms were replaced at a cost of $9,059. There is no breakdown of costs on a room by room basis so I have divided the sum sought into six to reflect the fact that six rooms were replaced. The landlord has established liability for three carpets that were 3.5 years old. I consider that an expected life span for a carpet in a residential tenancy to be between 10 and 12 years. Two of the rooms impacted are areas that would be impacted to a faster rate of fair wear and tear given footfall would be heavier in the lounge and hallway. Therefore, taking into account depreciation, I consider a reasonable sum to be $3,030. The sum ordered is proven.
The tenant admits to the damage in the dining room. However, I do not find that this was pet/urine damage. This was more isolated damage. I am satisfied that this is more than fair wear and tear, but I find that this is most likely to be careless damage. Therefore, the tenant’s liability for this room is capped at the insurance excess which is $550.
The difficulty for the landlord here is that they have failed to comply with their statutory responsibilities because they did not provide the tenant with details of the insurance excess in the insurance statement. The requirement to include the amount of the insurance excess in an insurance statement is at 13A RTA. Although seemingly technical the requirement is an important one. Parliament designated a failure to provide a compliant insurance statement as an unlawful act (and as such has made exemplary damages available for non-compliance). That legislative response shows the significance of the information. It makes sure that tenants are provided with full insurance information at the commencement of the tenancy. It is important because it tells tenants how much they may need to pay if they cause damage carelessly to their rental property. Some tenants may even obtain their own insurance to protect them from that amount.
As the landlord did not comply with this statutory obligation and the tenant had no notice of the insurance excess she would be liable for I decline to award the insurance excess here.
This approach is in line with other Tribunal decisions. For example, in Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039 the tenancy agreement recorded a landlord insurance excess of $400. At end of tenancy landlord claimed for damage to walls of $1,200 (careless damage). Landlord then stated the excess was actually $2,150, and it had been a mistake to record $400 on tenancy agreement. Tribunal found the landlord was bound by $400 given that they were required by law to record in the tenancy agreement the excess level that applied.
Finally, I must now consider to bedrooms 2 and 3. There were no photographs to support a finding that these rooms were damaged either by a pet or otherwise. The statements that have been given by the professionals about pet urine are very broad. They do not break down the type of damage to each room but give a sweeping statement across the property. The broad comments they made do not apply to the dining room (there was no pet damage here) yet there was no carve out for that room to distinguish it (when there ought to have been).
I accept that juice was split in the second bedroom, because the tenant admitted that. However, that admission is not enough for the landlord to prove the tenant is liable to replace the carpets in the two additional bedrooms.
I have carefully considered whether the decision of the insurer to accept the claim for five rooms (including bedrooms 2 and 3) is sufficient proof to establish damage in these two rooms but I conclude it does not. I heard how there was no assessment done by the insurer and the claim was just accepted. An insurer may choose to accept a claim for a variety of reasons and is not bound by the civil burden oof proof or liability as set out in the RTA. The evidence I was provided with from the insurer was very scant despite me requesting documentation from the insurer in advance of the hearing.
I find the claim in relation to these two rooms is not sufficiently proven. Remedying damage to living room walls
The landlord seeks compensation for damage it says the tenant has done to the walls in the lounge. They say the whole room had to be prepped and then was painted. The room was previously wallpapered. The landlord says the tenant ripped off wallpaper in the bay window and referred to remedying a crack in a corner in that area. The tenant had repaired two holes over the top of wallpaper but those patches were not adequate. They fell out when the wallpaper was removed.
The landlord seeks $1,296 for gib stopping and an additional sum for painting. Invoices have been provided. The plasterer’s invoice details the work done: sand areas for plastering, apply tape to all cracked joins, apply plaster to those, supply and skim entire walls ready for painting work.
The tenant admits the damage to two holes in the walls. She says she did her best to fix them. I find this damage to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The damage is most likely, from the explanation given, is intentional damage.
She says that her young daughter did rip some of the wallpaper in the bay window, but says it was damp and damaged from the leak (referred to above in relation to the roof). She says she should not be responsible for the crack in the plaster by the bay window. That was due to the leak.
I am not satisfied the tenant is liable for any work to remedy the crack in the plaster work in the bay window. I consider this more likely than not to be fair wear and tear (potentially caused by the leak). In relation to a section of the wallpaper, the landlord admits that part of the wallpaper in the bay window area had been damaged by the leak in one particular area. The tenant is not liable for that damage. However, I consider allowing her child to rip off additional wallpaper to be more than fair wear and tear and is intentional damage.
That said, I do not consider that the tenant is liable for the redecoration costs for the whole room. The room needed redecorating because: a) the inadequate patching and b) the ripped wallpaper including the wallpaper that was already damaged in part by the leak.
The room was wallpapered, and I heard how it was last redecorated about 5 years ago. After the end of the tenancy the landlord has decided instead to paint the room. This has caused it to need to be prepared for painting including extensive gib work. I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the extensive gib work which allowed the room to be painted rather than wallpapered. Her liability is limited to the gib work for two poorly patched holes.
I therefore award $200 for the patching of the two holes which is a sum I consider to be reasonable.
Turning to the painting costs, I decline to award any further sum. This is because the decoration in the room is now 5 years old and this is in a high use area (living room) meaning it would be subject to a high level of wear and tear already. Without any probative evidence as to the condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy its condition at the start of the tenancy is unclear. In these circumstances alone I would consider the wallpaper to being close to, if not fully depreciated. However, on top of this, some of the wallpaper was already damaged in part by the leak and a crack in the wall needed repairing too. This leads me to find that the decoration had fully depreciated in any event by the end of the tenancy.
No further award is therefore made. Exemplary damages for not leaving property tidy/damage
This claim by the landlord was not pursued. It is dismissed.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Both parties seek suppression of their identifying details.
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 considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (see s95A RTA).
Neither party has been substantially successful so suppression cannot be awarded on this basis. Both parties have only had limited success in relation to the claims they bought.
Section 95A(4) RTA allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
I have carefully considered whether suppression ought to be granted on this basis and conclude by a narrow margin that the tenant should nevertheless be granted name suppression because it would be unduly harsh to publish the tenant’s name regarding methamphetamine use when it has not been proved that she caused or permitted its use at the property.
I make no suppression award to the landlord on this basis as I consider that the impact of the landlord being associated with a methamphetamine claim that it has bought would not have the same impact as it would on an accused tenant. I see no other reasons to grant suppression to them.
Both parties have been at least somewhat successful with their claims. I therefore make no order for one party to reimburse the other’s filing fee. Filing fee costs may lie where they fall.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Rent arrears Cleanliness

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s109, s140, s2, s2(4), s2019, s21, s3, s40, s40(1), s40(2), s40(3A), s45, s45(1), s49, s6, s69, s70, s9, s91, s93(2), s95A, s95A(4), s96

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears
Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: property damage

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5468654 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 5468654?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Clothesline: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Back Door HHS: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain -…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain -…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet - Lounge, Hall, B1: $3,030.00 awarded to landlord; Remedy Holes In Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5468654?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5468654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5468654 — net $2,015.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears to 23/4/26 BY CONSENT

$350.00

Rent arrears to 23/4/26 BY CONSENT

Cleaning: Heat pump filter

$25.00

Cleaning: Heat pump filter

Clothesline

$150.00

Clothesline

Carpet Cleaning

$270.00

Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Carpet - Lounge, Hall, B1

Order

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

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,015.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] immediately.

The tenant HHS draught stopping standard claim for compensation in respect of x2 windows in the lounge and bedroom are dismissed.

The tenant HHS draught stopping standard claim for compensation in respect of the front door is dismissed.

The tenant HHS heating standard claim for compensation in respect of the heat pump is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing and for exemplary damages for unlawful use is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant keeping a pet is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for carpet replacement in the dining room and bedrooms 2 and 3 is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to damage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Both individual landlords attended with counsel. I permitted counsel (Ms Forsyth) to appear for the landlord given the sums in issue exceeded $6,000 (see section 93(2) RTA). The landlord also bought a support person, but she sat in the public area given that the landlord already had support in the form of counsel to ensure some balance given that the tenant attended alone.

The Tribunal must determine a tenant application for compensation arising out of breaches said to have occurred relating to Healthy Homes Standards and maintenance issues and a landlord application relating to rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

The parties agreed that tenancy started on 2 August 2022 and ended on 23 April 2026 (although keys were returned earlier). The property is an older villa or bungalow type of property with three bedrooms and a separate lounge and dining area. Civil Burden of proof

As explained in the hearing the applicant of each application is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. 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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.

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 assessing the oral evidence, I have borne in mind that memory is fallible and that recollections of past events are often reconstructed over time rather than recalled with precision. An honest witness may therefore be mistaken. I have accordingly assessed the parties' recollections against the surrounding circumstances, any contemporaneous records, and the evidence as a whole.

While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this order. General principles for compensation and exemplary damages

As compensation and exemplary damages are remedies sought in this case I have set out relevant principles relating this below.

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has breached the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, 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.

Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasised that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: The nature of the breach, the duration of the breach, and the effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 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 proven that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA.

Those factors are: the intention of the person, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and the public interest. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS HHS draught stopping standard breach in bay window in lounge

The tenant says that in the lounge a window had a gap and this breached the Healthy Homes Standards for draught stopping. She seeks compensation. She seeks a total of $7,000 for all breaches she has alleged in her application.

The tenant says that the window was discussed at the start of the tenancy. She says Mr Fabish said he would fix it later but assured her it was still Healthy Homes Compliant, and she believed that. The tenant provided a photograph of a window in a wooden frame taken towards the end of her tenancy. The window is one of several at the top of a larger bay window.

The landlord says the property is an older home but that prior to the tenancy starting they checked for gaps. They say that the window still closes now. The landlord says they fix things when they are notified. The landlord says that if this had been noted in an inspection it would appear in the contemporaneous handwritten notes provided. The tenant had made no reference to the window. The landlord says that the conversation at the start of the tenancy did not occur.

The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”) provide for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. In the context of the HHS the landlord must ensure that all installed or provided things are appropriate for the purpose for which they are installed or provided and ensure all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order; or if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time (Regulation 6 HHS).

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS.

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair (in the context of a claim for a failure to maintain which is in s 45(1)(b) RTA) was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. The court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.

Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The court in Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085 stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.

Put another way, the obligation to maintain the premises is not a warranty that the property will be free from faults / defects during the period of the tenancy. Rather, it is an obligation on the landlord is to respond appropriately to any issues that are brought to their attention in a timely way.

Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes an obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after the discovery of the need for repairs to the premises.

The RTA also provides a mechanism for tenants to raise work required at the premises more formally with the landlord. In particular, tenants are able to provide the landlord with a breach notice (a 14 day notice) and if work is not completed in a timely way, tenants can seek a work order from the Tenancy Tribunal that requires the landlord to remedy the breach.

That is consistent with section 49 RTA which requires that a party mitigate their loss. In the context of this claim, this means that the tenant must take any necessary steps to limit the loss they have incurred from a landlord breach. Section 49 of the RTA holds:

Mitigation of damage or loss Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.

There is no dispute that the HHS apply to this tenancy which began on 2 August 2022. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

There is no evidence as to the condition of the window at the start of the tenancy in 2022. The tenant’s recollection that the window had this issue at the start of the tenancy and that she discussed it with the landlord is not supported by any contemporaneous probative evidence and the landlord denies such a conversation. The tenant did not raise the issue again during the course of the tenancy.

I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently proven there was a defect with the window breaching the HHS draught stopping standard at the start of the tenancy or that the landlords were made aware of the issue during the course of the tenancy so that it could be remedied if it were causing a draught. I am not satisfied that they would have necessarily observed the issue on an inspection. Therefore, I am not satisfied there has been a proven breach of the draught stopping standard for which compensation can be awarded. This part of the application is dismissed.

In any event, if the tenant considered that more timely maintenance was necessary because this was causing a draught, she could have taken action to mitigate her loss and have that work addressed sooner, such as issuing the landlord a 14-day notice setting out the work that was required, or even pursuing the matter at the Tenancy Tribunal. While that does not absolve the landlord of their responsibility to comply with the HHS that would be a significant factor that must be taken into consideration if the breach had been established and compensation considered. HHS draught stopping standard breach in second lounge window and bedroom

The tenant did not pursue these claims. They are dismissed. HHS draught stopping standard breach at the front door

The tenant says that there was a severe gap at the front door this also breached the HHS for draught stopping. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.

She says she noticed the gap and took a photograph of it after her second to last inspection in July 2025. This photograph was provided to the Tribunal. She says she raised the issue at this inspection but was told to put a draught stopper there. The landlord says the issue was not raised. If it had been raised it would be in their contemporaneous notes and it is not in their notes (provided). They say it could have easily been remedied if it had been bought to their attention. They did not know about it as an issue until the application was filed.

I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that there is an unreasonable gap that is causing a draught or that this was the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy or that the landlords were made aware of an issue during the course of the tenancy or that they would have observed an issue on an inspection. Therefore, I am not satisfied there has been a breach of the HHS for draught stopping for which compensation may be awarded. This part of the application is dismissed.

In any event, as set out above, if the tenant considered that maintenance was necessary, she could have taken action to mitigate her loss and have that work addressed sooner and that would be a significant factor that must be taken into consideration when awarding compensation if the breach had been established. HHS draught stopping standard breach for back door

The tenant says that a cat door caused a draught at the back door this breached the HHS for draught stopping. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.

The tenant says there was a cat flap in the back door. She says she could not use it as she was not permitted to have pets in the tenancy agreement. She says at the start of the tenancy it was taped up using masking tape but over time the tape wore off and it was picked at by her toddler daughter. She says the cat flap had no closing mechanism, and it would flap open and closed. She says she drew this to the landlord’s attention at two inspections. This is supported by the landlord’s notes of inspections which refer to the cat door being untaped both on 24 July 2025 and 13 February 2026.

The landlord says that the cat door was taped closed due to the no pets provision in the tenancy agreement and that the tenant did not mention draughts or cold coming from the cat door. It was the landlord who had instead raised the issue about the missing tape.

I accept that a cat door will be a source of draughts if they do not close properly. I accept that a cat door with no closing mechanism will flap and cause a draught. The landlord taped the cat door but I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that by 24 July 2025 the tape had gone. I am not satisfied that the tape coming off the door is anything other than fair wear and tear, masking tape is not a long term solution, so the tenant was not liable to replace it. The landlord is responsible for HHS compliance and maintenance.

I accept that a cat door that can freely flap open and closed will cause a draught. Therefore, I accept that there is a proven breach of the draught stopping standard once the landlord knew about it but then failed to remedy the issue within a reasonable period.

I accept the draught caused would have caused the house to be colder than it would otherwise have been and award modest compensation of $150.00 because the tenant did not pursue the issue during the tenancy. HHS breach of heating standard due to mould around heat pump

The tenant says that there was a breach of the HHS because there was mould behind the heat pump. The tenant clarified this was a breach of the heating standard. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.

The tenant says that there were no issues with the heat pump until roughly 2024. Then the wall the heat pump was on started to get issues. She says that there was mould and moisture on the wall from the heat pump and provided a photograph. A photograph she provided, she says, appears to show mould behind the heat pump. She said this related to the landlord not servicing the heat pump. She says she didn’t clean the heat pump filters when she left the tenancy but that she had cleaned them during the tenancy. She says this is a breach because the heat pump could not do its job properly. She says the heat pump could still be used but it should have been serviced. The tenant’s written submissions note that when she raised the issue the landlord told her to clean the filter.

The landlord says that the tenant raised an issue regarding the heat pump at the final inspection only but never raised an issue concerning mould or a wet wall. The heat pump was then serviced at the end of the tenancy but the marks behind/around the unit, the landlord says, were dust rather than mould. Photographs were provided of the external part of the unit and inside the filter. They say there has been no breach because the heat pump is working and the tenant should have ensured that it was clean.

I accept that the heat pump filter and surround was dusty at the end of the tenancy rather than mouldy. This appears most likely from the photographs provided. The obligation to clean the filer and the area around the heat pump generally is a tenant responsibility. However, more extensive servicing remains the responsibility of the landlord. The service invoice and report identified grime on the evaporator coil and a clogged drain which go beyond the tenant’s obligation. The HHS requires the landlord to ensure all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order.

I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that there was a maintenance issue with the heat pump. However, the evidence only proves that this was communicated to the landlord near to the very end of the tenancy. In the absence of any other evidence as to the date, the landlord’s inspection notes indicate that the last inspection was on 13 February 2026. The notes also show that the tenant told the landlord they would be vacating the property at this inspection. I heard how the tenant vacated the premises on 16 March 2026 informing her landlord she had left her keys on the bench for them.

Based on the evidence before me, I do not consider the period between reporting the issue and the tenant moving out to be an unreasonable length of time in which to arrange for the service of a heat pump particularly given that it was not unreasonable to investigate if the cleaning of the filters would resolve the issue.

Therefore, while I find there was a maintenance issue with the heat pump, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to remedy it within a reasonable period after being notified of an issue in breach of the HHS. The tenant’s claim relating to this breach is therefore dismissed. Failure to maintain the drain / gully trap

The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.

I refer to the detailed comments made above regarding the extent of that maintenance obligation and the tenant liability to notify the landlord about maintenance issues and mitigation obligations (see paragraphs 21- 26).

The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the drains because a gully trap outside would overflow into the garden and the drain leaked for a substantial period of time overflowing into the garden causing a puddle around the drain. The compensation sought forms part of the overall sum sought of $7,000.

The tenant says she told the landlord of this by text in July 2025. The landlord was due to come for an inspection and notes show this took place on 24 July. The tenant admits that on the date the landlord came the drain did need cleaning out of hair and a few minor sticks and leaves. She told the landlord that she had cleaned it out 1 or two weeks prior, but this was dismissed with this being regarded as her fault. The problem still happened. The tenant was not clear if there was another occasion when she raised this with the landlord. She the suggested it was raised at another inspection (the one before last) but was not clear on this.

The landlord clarified that the drain concerned is a gully trap. The landlord’s position is that when they looked at the drain after being notified of the issue it was full of hair and so he had a conversation with the tenant telling her perhaps she should clean it out because the hair was blocking the drain. She acknowledged it got blocked weekly or fortnightly. He says he could not see other issues. The landlord’s written evidence is that the drain was unblocked at that time. It was not until the end of the tenancy that he saw the grate had been removed. That was there to stop things going down the drain. They say they were not advised of further issues after that inspection.

It is common ground that the drain concerned is a gully trap and it had hair blocking it when the landlord visited just a few days after the issue was reported. I am satisfied that there was a small metal grate available to cover the drain (a gully trap) which could be lifted. The grate can be seen in the video provided. I cannot be certain if the tenant raised the issue again after the discussion in July.

Although I consider that removing visible hair from showers, baths and sinks is a tenant obligation maintaining suitable drainage is a landlord obligation. I accept that the level at which the tenant reported to the landlord her family was cleaning the drains of hair (being every 1 to 2 weeks) and the reported overflow should have alerted the landlord to the fact that there was a drainage issue worthy of investigation. I consider that it is not standard practice to need to remove hair from an outside gully trap every few weeks. The landlord did not carry out additional investigations. I find this was a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.

However, I note that the tenant could have taken additional action if the issue was causing her to suffer a loss. She could have taken action to mitigate her loss and have that work addressed sooner by giving a 14 day notice or coming to the Tribunal.

There was very limited information about the tenant’s loss and this is also an aspect of the case that must be proven when compensation is sought. I do accept that the tenant would have spent time ensuring the drain was not blocked and she should have had a drain that did not need frequent cleaning by her or her family. I award the tenant the sum of $200 to reflect this. Failure to maintain the roof

The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the roof above the bay window in the lounge. She says it was not a severe leak but it was definitely a leak causing damage to the walls by the bay window including mould and a crack in the wall. It was left for an extended period of time. If it was raining she says that water would come inside.

She discovered the leak when she was exercising near the window. She heard drip and then found water all over the bottom wall of the bay window. She says she notified Mr Fabish in a telephone call in roughly November 2022. Mr Fabish said he would come around and he did so on the same day. She says he inspected the room and said he would send a specialist.

She says no further action was taken until 20 February 2023 when she sent Ms Fabish a follow up text message. The message asked when the builders were coming to fix the roof part of the lounge to stop the leaking. She referred to the leak getting worse after weather. Ms Fabish’s text response was to apologise and say that Mr Fabish had “forgot”. She refers to “[the maintenance person]” coming around that day to measure it. I heard how [the maintenance person] did come that day and then the tenant says she waited. It was then fixed, she says, about 2 months later. She says it could have been fixed sooner if the issue had not been forgotten about. Due to this happening the tenant says some of the wallpaper by the bay window peeled off (this is further considered below).

The landlord’s position was far from consistent here. Counsel for the landlord first put forward that as soon as the landlord was contacted about the issue (being after the text message in February) Mr Fabish arranged for [the maintenance person] to go around and he applied a temporary fix. It was also said that Ms Fabish arranged for [the maintenance person] to go around. I heard how the issue was then fixed within a two-month period.

When asked about this further, because this did not account for the tenant’s position that Mr Fabish had come to the property earlier before [the maintenance person] visited, counsel then put forward that Mr Fabish’s recollection was that this call was about a leaking shed and text messages on that issue were referenced. It was further referenced again that it was after the February text message that [the maintenance person] went around. The landlord repeated that the first notification they had of the leak was when the text message was received (on 20 February 2023).

The landlord’s position then changed to acknowledge that the tenant had in fact called the landlord earlier. The landlord then said [the maintenance person] went around on that day or the next (rather than in February). The landlord also said it was Mr Fabish who went around after the tenant called and that he looked at the roof and found a rusted part with a hole about the size of 50 cents. While Mr Fabish said [the maintenance person] sealed it in February this position was inconsistent with the landlord saying it was sealed after the first telephone call. Counsel reiterated there was an interim fix and then there was a final fix on the roof. The landlord says the final fix was finished by the end of March and early April.

I prefer the tenant’s evidence because it is consistent and is supported by the text message which refers to [the maintenance person] being sent around in February. The tenant’s text and the reply shows that the landlord clearly knew about the leak earlier than the February. The landlord did, in due course, admit an earlier telephone call and attendance but could not say with any certainty or clarity what was done at this point.

I find it more likely than not that [the maintenance person] in fact attended the property in February 2023, after the follow up text message. This is consistent with the landlord’s initial evidence and the text message itself.

In the absence of other evidence, I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s position the initial telephone call was in or about November 2022.

I therefore accept that the tenant has proven that she had a leaking roof which the landlord was aware of between November 2022 and February 2023. There is no probative evidence to prove the leak continued beyond February 2023 and that the temporary fix was not adequate. I find the delay between November to February to amount to a landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. A roof leak is a serious problem relating to weathertightness.

I award the tenant $500 in compensation in respect of this breach. This award takes into account the rent the tenant was paying at the time, the nature and extent of the issue that has been proven and the time taken to respond to the issue.

THE LANDLORD APPLICATION

Rent arrears

The tenant agreed she still owed $350 of rent and so this is ordered by consent to the end of the tenancy on 23 April 2026. Methamphetamine test costs

The landlord seeks $690 in Methamphetamine testing costs. The landlord does not seek remediation / decontamination costs.

The landlord says that the tenant is liable for testing costs as the property has been used for unlawful purposes namely using methamphetamine. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for this unlawful use. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant says she finds it insulting to be accused of this. There was no one using methamphetamine in the property. She says she did not understand the results, but she considers them to be under contamination levels in any event.

Under section 40(2)(b) RTA the tenant must not use or, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Smoking methamphetamine is an unlawful act. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12).

The tenant vacated the property prior to the end of the tenancy and left the keys for the landlord on 16 March 2026. A composite methamphetamine test was undertaken and the results, dated 19 March 2026, show a methamphetamine reading of 19μg/100cm². A detailed analysis was then undertaken and this identified methamphetamine levels of 2.4μg/100cm² in the kitchen, 13.3 μg/100cm² in the main bedroom, 0.11 μg/100cm² on the meter board,

3μg/100cm² in the sunroom and 0.41μg/100cm² in the front room.

A separate methamphetamine sample was taken of the carpet in the main bedroom on 20 April and this had a methamphetamine reading of

1μg/100cm². The landlord says that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy and I accept this as it is supported by evidence. An invoice has been filed to support this. The landlord says this proves that the tenant unlawfully used the premises to consume methamphetamine.

In this case, the landlord did not test the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy starting. If there is no testing of the premises before, or at the start of the tenancy, as is the case here, the immediate hurdle is proving that the contamination at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant. In the absence of a baseline test, it is much harder for a landlord to establish that the contamination / use occurred during the tenancy.

I note two District Court decisions where the court has confirmed that in the absence of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, it would be very difficult for a landlord to prove the tenant contaminated the premises.

In Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical smells arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises often, as well as regular visits from the police. On appeal the District Court did not accept that evidence was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises during that tenancy, and concluded that the difficulty with the landlords claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy. The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the Court considered that there was no evidence to support that the tenants in that case caused the contamination.

In the earlier case of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. In that case, the landlord reports finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing.

In Yan v Weggery TT 4303380, 12 January 2022 the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage where the premises concerned were brand-new at the start of the tenancy. It was accepted that of itself did not prove that there could not have been methamphetamine contamination before the start of the tenancy. The Tribunal noted that methamphetamine use does occur from tradespeople: just like it does in almost any element of society. The fact that the property was new at the start of the tenancy was insufficient to prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.

Finally, by way of example, in Lodge City Rentals Limited v Hamilton TT4242075 6 July 2020, the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage. One of the ways in which the landlord sought to prove methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy concerned an oven that had been installed during the course of the tenancy. A methamphetamine sample was taken from the oven. Analysis of the sample returned a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine with a reading of 0.41 μg/100cm². The Tribunal had the benefit of an expert report. The author considered that the area from which the sample was taken was one not typically handled and that hand to hand (object) contamination would be unlikely. The author stated that in their opinion, on the balance of probabilities, the oven was not contaminated when it was delivered, and the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The Tribunal disagreed finding that the area was one that could have been touched daily. The Tribunal was also unable to rule out the possibility that the contamination may have been left by those delivering or installing the oven at the property.

There was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy. The authority set out above makes it clear that the absence of this significantly weakens the landlord’s case against the tenants in this claim. The landlord is therefore left with circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence presented was simply that the carpet was new. However, I consider this not to be sufficient, without further evidence to establish it was the tenant (or someone she permitted) who used methamphetamine during the tenancy. There was no evidence (expert or otherwise) to inform me as to the likelihood (or not) of pre-contamination of the carpet prior to installation or during installation, or the likelihood (or not) of transference of residue from other surfaces in the house to the carpet, had the other surfaces already been contaminated.

I consider that the absence of a pre-let methamphetamine test, prior to or at the start of this tenancy, substantially weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is simply not possible to conclude on the civil balance of probabilities that the tenant, or someone she permitted, used the property unlawfully by consuming methamphetamine. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation (for testing), and exemplary damages resulting from methamphetamine use must be dismissed Cleaning of the heat pump

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish (section 40(1)(e) RTA).

The landlord claims $278 for the cleaning of the heat pump undertaken after the tenancy had ended.

From the photographs shown I accept the heat pump is not reasonably clean. However, the work done and claimed for not only involves the cleaning of the filter which is a tenant obligation but also a general service of the heat pump and that is a landlord maintenance obligation.

I therefore award the landlord the sum of $25 which is a sum I consider to be reasonable for the cleaning of the heat pump filter which is the work the tenant is responsible for. Missing smoke alarm

The landlord says the smoke alarm in the lounge was missing at the end of the tenancy. A tenant must not remove a smoke alarm (see s40(2)(ab) RTA). The tenant disagrees that a smoke alarm was ever there.

There is no probative evidence to prove the existence of a smoke alarm in the room at the start of the tenancy. Notably a reference to alarms is missing from the very limited ingoing property inspection report.

I find that the landlord is unable to prove this part of its claim and it is dismissed. Net curtains

On the termination of the tenancy the tenant must leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant (s 40(e)(v) RTA).

The landlord says the tenant took the net curtains that they say were put up by them when the previous tenants were at the property. The tenant says she put up the net curtains. She knew the landlord did not have to do this and so she took it upon herself to put up the curtains.

Both parties provided written documents from others seeking to support their own position. However, I found these to carry little weight as the witnesses did not attend for cross examination. Statements from previous tenants about what was at the property when they were there are often not helpful as matters can easily change between tenancies. There are no full property inspection reports, including photographs, from the beginning of the tenancy. the only such report is extremely limited.

This is the landlord’s case to prove and the absence of probative evidence about net curtains at the start of the tenancy ultimately means that the claim is not proven and it is dismissed.

I add that, in any event, there was no evidence before me as to the condition of the said net curtains provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord said they were installed in 2021. Given their age and absence of evidence as to condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, any compensation claim would be subject to significant depreciation (see below for more details relating to depreciation) and would likely have resulted in only a nominal award, if any. Damage – general observations and damage claims

Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant (which is not alleged to have been caused by a pet following legislative changes in December 2025, see below), the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.

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 sections 40(2), 49A and 49B RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal takes into account depreciation and betterment. This is because items like curtains, carpets, decoration and other fittings and fixtures in a house do not last forever. They age and deteriorate through ordinary use and through the passage of time. These fixtures, fittings, and chattels gradually lose their value. The Tribunal recognises this. In assessing compensation claims for replacement chattels or remedying damage the Tribunal will generally consider the extent to which the value of the item concerned has been reduced, taking into account evidence concerning its age, expected useful life, and pre-existing condition. This makes sure that any award reflects actual loss suffered and does not place the landlord in a better position than they would have been in had the damage not occurred. Compensation is therefore commonly reduced to account for depreciation and the remaining useful life of the damaged item. Broken sensor light

The landlord says a sensor light was broken at the end of the tenancy and provides a photograph. The tenant says the light was always broken.

There is no probative evidence as to the condition of the light at the start of the tenancy. There is also no evidence as to the age of the light.

I find that the landlord is unable to prove that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy or that this is anything other than fair wear and tear. Also, in the absence of sufficient evidence as to age or condition at the start of the tenancy any compensation that might have been awarded, if liability was established, would have been significantly depreciated in any event.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Broken clothesline

The landlord replaced a rotary clothesline after its steel post was broken. They say the tenant broke it. The tenant admitted this was broken by her daughter swinging on it.

I find the damage occurred during the tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. I find it more likely than not to be intentional damage.

The landlord claims $392.19. He replaced the pole and the rotary part of the line and says that the whole unit had to be replaced. The landlord could not say how old the clothesline that was damaged was, but I can see from the photographs that it is a steel, older style rotary line which remains otherwise serviceable.

Taking into account betterment and depreciation I consider it fair that the tenant contribute $150 towards the replacement cost of the clothes line. Damage to the carpet – cleaning and replacement (and exemplary damages for dog at premises)

The landlord says that the carpet at the house was damaged by pet urine and after they had tried to remedy the issue by cleaning (for which they claim $270) they replaced the living carpet in the lounge, dining room, 3 bedrooms and hallway (at a cost of $9,059). Invoices were provided for both amounts. The landlord seeks these sums from the tenant.

The landlord also seeks exemplary damages due to the tenant keeping a dog at the premises (without it being allowed in the tenancy agreement and without consent). It is convenient to deal with this claim alongside the carpet claim for damage as both relate to the keeping of a dog.

As pet damage was raised in this part of the claim it is appropriate here to set out the position in relation to damage caused by pets. New provisions were recently introduced into the RTA in relation to tenant liability for pet damage. They came into force on 1 December 2025. The new rules mean that tenants are responsible for pet-related damage caused during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear (unlike non-pet related damage, there is no distinction between different types of damage e.g. careless or intentional). However, given the Tribunal’s findings below about when the dog left the property, I find it more likely than not that the damage I have found proven here relating to a pet was done before 1 December 2025. Therefore, the new pet provisions do not apply. The relevant law is therefore that as set out above (at paragraphs 96-100).

The landlord explained that the carpet in 5 rooms had been accepted as damaged by their insurer. The information from their insurer about the damage was very scarce. For example, there was no assessor report. The email provided simply referred to damage to carpets and other damage/payouts and the sums the insurer would pay and then referred to an excess applying to each room. 5 excesses were applied.

Given the mismatch between number of rooms where work done (6 rooms) and the number of rooms on the insurance report (5 rooms) I asked the landlord to further clarify this. The landlord said that the insurer accepted the carpet claim for the living room, main bedroom, bedroom 2 and 3 and the hallway. The dining room did not form part of the insurance claim.

The landlord referred to letters provided to the Tribunal from the carpet providers/installers [the carpet installers] and the professional carpet cleaners who attempted to clean the carpet about the damage. a. The cleaners noted that they tried different chemicals (used for different smells) but the stains could not be removed. They note “once pet urine gets into the underlay of the carpet it is almost impossible to remove the odour if at all”. b. The letter from the carpet provider refer to the carpet being damaged and contaminated with dog urine. It refers to significant damage due to pet related events, specifically dog urine which “has resulted in both visible staining and pervasive odour. The presence of pet urine has also created potential health concern, including the growth of bacteria and black mold [sic], which was evident on the underside of the carpet when lifted. I affirm that the damage was caused by pet activity, and the contamination has compromised the integrity of the carpet, rendering the carpet unsalvageable”.

As set out above, I heard how the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy in 2022 and how the smell was so strong the carpet could not remain. I heard that the cleaners had commented to Ms Fabish how bad it was and that the landlords did not expect anyone to live in it so they had to replace it. The carpet was 3.5 years old at the end of the tenancy. I heard how, when the carpet fitter came to lift the carpet in the main room, Ms Fabish says, the stench was unbelievable. I heard how had to get his gloves and mask and get two other people to come and assist him.

The landlord explained that the dining room carpet was replaced because whilst there was not urine there were marks on the carpet and to match the other areas. I was shown photographs of three marks. Two, the landlord said, were burn type marks and another was a pale stain. One was about 10cm across, another like a 50-cent piece and another about 15cm.

The landlord says that the urine damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord says four different neighbours told them the dog had been at the premises since it was a puppy, and it was there all the time. The tenancy agreement had stipulated no pets, but I heard how the landlord had become aware that the tenant had a dog. They were notified of this by neighbours with it coming to their attention after a Facebook post about a dog roaming in the area on 11 October 2025. A copy of this was provided. They say they tried to talk to the tenant about it, but she denied having a dog. The landlord says they did not identify the existence of a dog at inspections as the tenant would have windows open and be burning incense. This is recorded in their inspection notes. The landlord’s inspection record neighbours advising on 13 February 2026 that the dog had not been seen since “our last visit” (being on 14 October 2025).

The tenant says that the damage to the carpet was not dog urine but at the same time conceded that possibly some of it could have been. But, she says, most should have been from her daughter spilling juice in the lounge and second bedroom. She said there were no stains in the dining room (although once she saw additional photographs she acknowledged the marks saying it had been her son’s bedroom for a while). She says the carpets were left reasonably clean but takes full responsibility for stains in the lounge.

Regarding incense she says she just likes it. it was not to cover anything up. She says that the dog was not owned by her. It was not there since it was a puppy. It was her mother-in-law’s dog who she looked after from time to time while her mother-in-law could not look after it. She said she had looked after it about six times, when her mother-in-law had illness and was in and out of hospital, but emphasised it was not physically her dog. She was aware she was not supposed to have a dog at the premises. The tenant says the dog “could have significantly impacted the carpet. Not denying that fact. However, he was not my dog physically”. She says that the dog never came back after the landlord’s turned up at the property after the Facebook post – the dog was gone within 24 hours. Mr Fabish rang the next day to check if it had gone. The tenant acknowledged that the Facebook post regarding the stray dog related to her.

I will first consider the presence of the dog at the premises. This is established. The tenant says the dog visited 6 times did but not specify the length of the visit. However, this is sufficient to amount to keeping a dog at the premises. Ownership/registration is not the test for whether or not a pet has been kept at the premises (or if it has caused damage). This interpretation is supported by the legislative amendments which came into force on 1 December 2025 which sets out at section 2(4) that “For the purposes of this Act, the tenant of a premises keeps a pet on the premises if the tenant permits the pet to be kept there even if the tenant is not the owner of the pet”.

Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the dog did not return to the premises, and was therefore not kept there, after October 2025. The tenant’s oral submission that she removed the dog is supported by the landlord’s own position that the neighbour did not see the dog again either.

This is important both in relation to ensuring the relevant test for pet damage is applied (although given my findings below that the pet damage was intentional the legislative change would not have changed the outcome in any event) but also in relation to the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages relating to the tenant keeping a dog at the premises.

The landlord has claimed exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant had kept a dog at the premises and that was not permitted (either in tenancy agreement or by consent). This claim is dismissed because, although the RTA now provides that this is an unlawful act (potentially giving rise to an award of exemplary damages - see 42C RTA) this provision was not in force prior to 1 December 2025 and does not have retrospective effect.

In this case, the dog was removed prior to this section of the RTA (and therefore the ability to be awarded exemplary damages for the breach) coming into force.

Turning to the compensation claim for the carpet, the landlord must prove their case and broad generalisations are not sufficient.

I accept that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy.

I also accept that the carpet needed commercial cleaning. The tenant kept a dog at the premises. Given the report from the carpet cleaner I accept the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy. It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake this work. It would have been an important step in seeing whether the carpet needed to be replaced at all. I award the sum sought of $270.

I accept that the landlord has proven that the lounge, master bedroom and hallway carpet were all damaged during the tenancy. These areas were all documented by a number of photographs which I accept show showing staining, most significantly in the living room.

I accept the position that the damage in these rooms was more likely than not pet urine not given the photographs and the written statements from more than one professional supporting this. The tenant also admitted that there could have been some dog urine and that the dog could have impacted the carpet.

I accept that this is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. I am satisfied that the damage was done prior to December 2025. Given the repeated nature of the problem I consider this more likely than not to be intentional damage. It was reasonable to replace the carpet.

The carpets for the six rooms were replaced at a cost of $9,059. There is no breakdown of costs on a room by room basis so I have divided the sum sought into six to reflect the fact that six rooms were replaced. The landlord has established liability for three carpets that were 3.5 years old. I consider that an expected life span for a carpet in a residential tenancy to be between 10 and 12 years. Two of the rooms impacted are areas that would be impacted to a faster rate of fair wear and tear given footfall would be heavier in the lounge and hallway. Therefore, taking into account depreciation, I consider a reasonable sum to be $3,030. The sum ordered is proven.

The tenant admits to the damage in the dining room. However, I do not find that this was pet/urine damage. This was more isolated damage. I am satisfied that this is more than fair wear and tear, but I find that this is most likely to be careless damage. Therefore, the tenant’s liability for this room is capped at the insurance excess which is $550.

The difficulty for the landlord here is that they have failed to comply with their statutory responsibilities because they did not provide the tenant with details of the insurance excess in the insurance statement. The requirement to include the amount of the insurance excess in an insurance statement is at 13A RTA. Although seemingly technical the requirement is an important one. Parliament designated a failure to provide a compliant insurance statement as an unlawful act (and as such has made exemplary damages available for non-compliance). That legislative response shows the significance of the information. It makes sure that tenants are provided with full insurance information at the commencement of the tenancy. It is important because it tells tenants how much they may need to pay if they cause damage carelessly to their rental property. Some tenants may even obtain their own insurance to protect them from that amount.

As the landlord did not comply with this statutory obligation and the tenant had no notice of the insurance excess she would be liable for I decline to award the insurance excess here.

This approach is in line with other Tribunal decisions. For example, in Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039 the tenancy agreement recorded a landlord insurance excess of $400. At end of tenancy landlord claimed for damage to walls of $1,200 (careless damage). Landlord then stated the excess was actually $2,150, and it had been a mistake to record $400 on tenancy agreement. Tribunal found the landlord was bound by $400 given that they were required by law to record in the tenancy agreement the excess level that applied.

Finally, I must now consider to bedrooms 2 and 3. There were no photographs to support a finding that these rooms were damaged either by a pet or otherwise. The statements that have been given by the professionals about pet urine are very broad. They do not break down the type of damage to each room but give a sweeping statement across the property. The broad comments they made do not apply to the dining room (there was no pet damage here) yet there was no carve out for that room to distinguish it (when there ought to have been).

I accept that juice was split in the second bedroom, because the tenant admitted that. However, that admission is not enough for the landlord to prove the tenant is liable to replace the carpets in the two additional bedrooms.

I have carefully considered whether the decision of the insurer to accept the claim for five rooms (including bedrooms 2 and 3) is sufficient proof to establish damage in these two rooms but I conclude it does not. I heard how there was no assessment done by the insurer and the claim was just accepted. An insurer may choose to accept a claim for a variety of reasons and is not bound by the civil burden oof proof or liability as set out in the RTA. The evidence I was provided with from the insurer was very scant despite me requesting documentation from the insurer in advance of the hearing.

I find the claim in relation to these two rooms is not sufficiently proven. Remedying damage to living room walls

The landlord seeks compensation for damage it says the tenant has done to the walls in the lounge. They say the whole room had to be prepped and then was painted. The room was previously wallpapered. The landlord says the tenant ripped off wallpaper in the bay window and referred to remedying a crack in a corner in that area. The tenant had repaired two holes over the top of wallpaper but those patches were not adequate. They fell out when the wallpaper was removed.

The landlord seeks $1,296 for gib stopping and an additional sum for painting. Invoices have been provided. The plasterer’s invoice details the work done: sand areas for plastering, apply tape to all cracked joins, apply plaster to those, supply and skim entire walls ready for painting work.

The tenant admits the damage to two holes in the walls. She says she did her best to fix them. I find this damage to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproven liability for the damage. The damage is most likely, from the explanation given, is intentional damage.

She says that her young daughter did rip some of the wallpaper in the bay window, but says it was damp and damaged from the leak (referred to above in relation to the roof). She says she should not be responsible for the crack in the plaster by the bay window. That was due to the leak.

I am not satisfied the tenant is liable for any work to remedy the crack in the plaster work in the bay window. I consider this more likely than not to be fair wear and tear (potentially caused by the leak). In relation to a section of the wallpaper, the landlord admits that part of the wallpaper in the bay window area had been damaged by the leak in one particular area. The tenant is not liable for that damage. However, I consider allowing her child to rip off additional wallpaper to be more than fair wear and tear and is intentional damage.

That said, I do not consider that the tenant is liable for the redecoration costs for the whole room. The room needed redecorating because: a) the inadequate patching and b) the ripped wallpaper including the wallpaper that was already damaged in part by the leak.

The room was wallpapered, and I heard how it was last redecorated about 5 years ago. After the end of the tenancy the landlord has decided instead to paint the room. This has caused it to need to be prepared for painting including extensive gib work. I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the extensive gib work which allowed the room to be painted rather than wallpapered. Her liability is limited to the gib work for two poorly patched holes.

I therefore award $200 for the patching of the two holes which is a sum I consider to be reasonable.

Turning to the painting costs, I decline to award any further sum. This is because the decoration in the room is now 5 years old and this is in a high use area (living room) meaning it would be subject to a high level of wear and tear already. Without any probative evidence as to the condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy its condition at the start of the tenancy is unclear. In these circumstances alone I would consider the wallpaper to being close to, if not fully depreciated. However, on top of this, some of the wallpaper was already damaged in part by the leak and a crack in the wall needed repairing too. This leads me to find that the decoration had fully depreciated in any event by the end of the tenancy.

No further award is therefore made. Exemplary damages for not leaving property tidy/damage

This claim by the landlord was not pursued. It is dismissed.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Both parties seek suppression of their identifying details.

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 considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (see s95A RTA).

Neither party has been substantially successful so suppression cannot be awarded on this basis. Both parties have only had limited success in relation to the claims they bought.

Section 95A(4) RTA allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

I have carefully considered whether suppression ought to be granted on this basis and conclude by a narrow margin that the tenant should nevertheless be granted name suppression because it would be unduly harsh to publish the tenant’s name regarding methamphetamine use when it has not been proved that she caused or permitted its use at the property.

I make no suppression award to the landlord on this basis as I consider that the impact of the landlord being associated with a methamphetamine claim that it has bought would not have the same impact as it would on an accused tenant. I see no other reasons to grant suppression to them.

Both parties have been at least somewhat successful with their claims. I therefore make no order for one party to reimburse the other’s filing fee. Filing fee costs may lie where they fall.

Total award	$4,025.00	$850.00
Net award	$2,015.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,015.00

Total award

$4,025.00

$850.00

Net award

$2,015.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$2,015.00

Total award	$4,025.00	$850.00
Net award	$2,015.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,015.00

Total award

$4,025.00

$850.00

Net award

$2,015.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$2,015.00

Tenancy Tribunal case 5468654 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE LANDLORD APPLICATION

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5468654 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE LANDLORD APPLICATION

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Dismissed claims

Dismissed claims