What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476508 about?

The tribunal order states: Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Jamlt Trust must pay Phillippa Roil-

How much money was awarded in case 5476508?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476508?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13501004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476508 about?

The tribunal order states: Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Jamlt Trust must pay Phillippa Roil-

How much money was awarded in case 5476508?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476508?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13501004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

75 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476508 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

75 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476508 — Smoke alarms | TenantCheck

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 5476508 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage to trees	$1,500.00		Damage to trees
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises reasonably clean		$500.00	Failure to provide premises reasonably clean
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$500.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm		$1,500.00	Failure to provide smoke alarm
Total award	$1,500.00	$2,500.00
Net award		$1,000.00
Bond		$2,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,000.00

Claims and awards for application 5476508 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Damage to trees

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Damage to trees

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises reasonably clean

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide premises reasonably clean

Compensation: Failure to maintain

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Total award

Landlord $1,500.00 · Tenant $2,500.00

Net award

Tenant $1,000.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness Replace Smoke Alarms Property damage

Order

Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Jamlt Trust must pay Phillippa Roil- Glendenning and [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-00067979) to Phillippa Roil- Glendenning and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenants and landlord. The tenancy has ended, and both parties are claiming breaches on the part of the other.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 12 March 2025, and ended on 2 October 2025. The period was reasonably modest at 29 weeks or just under 7 months.
The Landlord is recorded on the tenancy agreement as “JAMLT Trust” (the trustees are not noted), by way of a property manager, Property Brokers, but it was Ms Nelson from Property Brokers who was looking after this property. The two co-tenants are Phillippa and [The tenant/s].
I will address the more specific background below under each claim.
A hearing was convened in Masterton today, 24 April 2026, to consider both applications. Both tenants were in attendance, and Ms Nelson from Property Brokers attended for the landlord.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Compensation for the state of the premises at start of tenancy. c. Exemplary damages for failure to maintain. d. Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarm regulations.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, Ms Nelson confirmed the landlord’s sole claim is as follows: a. Compensation for damage to trees.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages 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 proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims of both parties, claims 1-4 are from the tenants, and claim 5 is from the landlord. Claim 1 – Exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants state that when the premises were rented, they found that there were issues such as shortcomings with drainage, ventilation and draughts.
In response the landlord says that there was an independent HHS assessment undertaken, and the premises passed that inspection.
However, the landlord states that when the tenants complained about the extractor fans, the landlord got a plumber in who recommended upgrading the ventilation, and that work was done.
The landlord also says there was one draught brought to the landlord’s attention with the French Door, a handyman was engaged and further draught stopping was undertaken around the property.
In terms of drainage, again, when it was raised a plumber was called, and a drain was unblocked and the gutters repaired.
In conclusion, the tenants said there were excessive delays with getting the work completed. The owners tried doing work themselves before agreeing to let the Property Manager appoint tradespeople. Analysis
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular, the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
In this case, again I note that the tenancy commenced on 12 March 2025.
Prior to the tenancy commencing, the landlord obtained an independent HHS assessment, and the report has been provided by “The Good Home New Zealand”. The first report is dated 18 January 2025, and records that the premises passed four of the healthy homes standards, but failed as far as insulation is concerned. Top-up insulation was provided, and then the premises were certified as being HHS compliant.
The claim in this case is that there has been a breach of the HHS, for which exemplary damages should be ordered. I have set out the legal criteria above, which apply to claims for exemplary damages. The first requirement is that the breach be committed intentionally. The District Court has confirmed that the requirement for intentional conduct means that the party knew there was a breach, and what the outcome would be, but they committed the breach anyway.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
A second District Court decision of relevance is Peter Stoekeken v Nykala Toheriri and Vince Aso [2022] NZDC 9698, a decision from Judge Tuohy. The dispute in that case was included a claim for exemplary damages because the landlord had rented the premises with an exposed electrical wire. Judge Tuohy accepted that the landlord did not know the wire was exposed, but importantly confirmed that: ...S 109(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally by the person who committed it before exemplary damages can be awarded.... ...assuming that the landlord is liable for the omissions of his agents as well as his own, I am not satisfied that he or his agents intentionally decided not to carry out an inspection which was sufficiently through to reveal the wire. Even if they ought to have noticed it, that is not equivalent to an intentional act. As the Adjudicator in the second decision stated when declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord, the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations. The evidence does not establish that. In summary, I consider that there are insufficient grounds to award exemplary damages against the landlord in relation to the exposed wire.
In this case, I consider that the landlords acted very reasonably by engaging with an external assessor to determine whether the premises were HHS compliant. The assessor identified problems with the insulation, which the landlords addressed before the tenancy started, and the assessor signed the premises off as HHS compliant. The landlord was able to rely on the HHS assessment as being accurate, and it is difficult, therefore, to see that any argument could be made that the landlord knew the premises were not HHS compliant, but rented it to these tenants anyway. I consider that the far more likely situation is that the landlords believed the premises were HHS compliant based on the independent assessment, so there could be no argument for an intentional breach.
While it may be the case that the landlord undertook further works subsequently to replace the extraction fan, and install draught stopping, and undertake work to the gutters, in my assessment, that would fall within the category of maintenance.
Because I am not persuade that there is intentional conduct, whether or not there is an HHS breach in fact, exemplary damages cannot be ordered. Claim 2 – Compensation for state of premises at start of tenancy
The tenants state that the premises had been empty before they took the premises over. The premises were unclean. The cupboards were unclean, the bath was in poor condition, the back of the oven had corroded away, there was kitty litter in the bathroom, the fire had not been cleaned with issues with the cowling. The tenants described an unpleasant odour
The landlord states that the owners moved out about 2 weeks prior to the tenants moving in. The tenants viewed the premises before moving in and did not raise issues with the premises being unclean. The landlord accepts that some of the cupboards did need wiping down. The blue marks on the bath are still there. Ms Nelson says that she did not realise the oven was not attached, it was working but there was some corrosion. Ms Nelson says she did not see any kitty litter in the bathroom. The fireplace had been swept by the owners, and when issues were reported a contractor attended, unblocked the fire and the cowling was replaced. Ms Nelson said that she did not notice an unpleasant odour. Analysis
The landlord is required to provide the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. In particular, section 45(1)(a) and (b) require: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
Use of the word ‘provide’ denotes the situation that must exist when the landlord provides the tenancy to the tenants, at the commencement date.
On 17 March 2025, the tenants emailed the property manager raising concerns regarding the state of the premises when they took the Tenancy over. Reference was made to 12 hours of ”scrubbing”. The email detailed specific issues the tenants took, including.: a. Kitchen drawers and cupboards being very dirty. b. The oven being in a poor and rusted state. c. Bathrooms being clean. d. The toilet in one bathroom being unclean, and working poorly. e. An ineffective ventilation fan in the orange bathroom. f. Dirty floors. g. Water pressure problems. h. Blind by the front door broken. i. Window latches being loose. j. Lock on the front door being broken, and the door not sealing properly. k. No smoke alarms. l. Trees being overgrown.
The property manager responded on 26 March 2025 advising: a. The smoke alarm was installed that day. b. The chimney sweep had been booked. c. A replacement oven has been purchased, and will be installed on 28 March 2025. d. Gutter cleaning and downpipe unblocking had been requested. e. The extractor fan will be installed/replaced when the electrician attends for the oven. f. The french door latch would be repaired also at the time of the oven installation. g. A tradesperson would be in contact regarding the tree trimming to arrange a suitable time to attend
In this case, there are some matters that are not disputed, such as the fact of the kitchen not been reasonably clean, and they’re being no smoke alarm. I will not address the smoke alarm further in this claim, because it is the subject of a separate claim below.
Beyond those matters, the landlord’s position is that some work was undertaken such as replacing the oven, not because it needed to be replaced, but because the tenants were complaining about it, and the landlord wished to maintain a good relationship with the tenants.
Many of the items claimed by the tenants, require an assessment as to whether the situation with that item would be reasonable, such as for example, whether the bathrooms were reasonably clean. These cases are difficult, because one person may consider that the bathroom for instance is very dirty, whereas another may consider it to be reasonably clean. Meeting the standard of something being reasonable is not absolute, it does not have to be immaculate, but it cannot be in a poor state either. What I must do is step back and consider the evidence available, and reach my own view as to whether the item would be reasonably clean or in a reasonable state of repair.
Have carefully considered the photographs provided, and I agree that the kitchen was not reasonably clean, but I’ve been unable to identify any other areas in the house, which I would say are not reasonably clean. Certainly there is staining from the bath taps, but that is very likely to be the effect of copper staining over a long period of time. But that does not mean the bath is not reasonably clean. The onus sits with the tenants to prove that the premises were not reasonably clean, and I find they have not established that beyond the kitchen. In short, the photographs do not establish that the premises are generally unclean, the photographs more likely reflect premises that are clean. Beyond that I can see no reason that I should prefer what the tenants say, above what the property manager says.
In relation to the extractor fans, it is not clear to me what was materially wrong with those units. I can see that the HHS assessor records that the two bathroom fans were in good working order. I am not persuaded that other areas of defect have been identified, which would take the premises outside the expected requirement of reasonably clean and maintained.
The question is whether exemplary damages should be ordered for the premises not being reasonably clean, and I find they should. It is more likely than not that the landlord would have been aware that the kitchen was not reasonably clean, during the pre-tenancy period. The effect for the tenants is that they rented premises that did not meet the required standard, and they would have needed to undertake work to get the kitchen to an adequate standard. They are compelling interests for tenants to rent premises that are clean and hygienic. It is also in the public interest that premises be rented, meeting the necessary standard. I consider it would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of section 45, is $7,200. However, that is the maximum level, and the Tribunal will invariably look to the extent of the breach, and all of the circumstances, and decide what a reasonable level of exemplary damages should be. Taking into consideration that this is a reasonably isolated area of breach, I consider an award of $500 is indicated. Exemplary damages would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages for failure to maintain
The tenants say that the landlord advised that they were told not to do garden work to the premises (other than lawns) but otherwise the landlord did not do maintenance to the outside of the premises.
I asked the tenants what specifically needed to be done. The tenants said that waterblasting was needed to paths as they were slippery, and while the landlord said not to do it, the tenants did the work nevertheless when the landlord did not do that work. The tenants also referred to the issues with flooding. The tenants report putting gravel down themselves.
The landlord disagrees that the premises were not maintained. No 14 day notices were issued, when issues were raised, the issues were addressed. In terms of the path, the tenants said they had waterblasted the path after the fact. The landlord said that this was not raised prior therefore giving the landlord a chance to do the work.
The landlord states that when issues were raised, they had them fixed, such as the gutters and ventilation as set out in the invoices. Analysis
As sent out above, section 45 of the RTA requires that the landlord maintain the premises.
Over the course of the tenancy, the tenants have raised various concerns with the landlord. It seems that some work the tenants proceeded to do themselves without giving the landlord an opportunity to address the issue, but for some other work, that was left for the landlord to address.
I would not say this is a case where the landlord simply refused to undertake necessary maintenance; the evidence does not support that. The invoices show that work has been done, but the point taken by the tenants is that the work was not undertaken with reasonable speed.
In terms of the work that was undertaken, the invoices and records on file confirm that the landlord installed the smoke alarm on or around 26 March 2025.
A replacement oven was installed on or around 28 March 2025. On 2 April 2025, the tenants advised that the oven had been installed, but no other work had been completed, noting the landlord had advised that the extractor fan would be installed or replaced at the same time as the oven, and also the work to the French door would be completed then.
An invoice from 7 April 2025, records, chimney sweeping and unblocking. The contractor notes that the stainless steel cowl required replacement.
An invoice is on file from 23 May 2025, for repairs to the gutter.
An invoice is on file for the replacement of a toilet, the invoice dated 14 May 2025.
On 1 June 2025, the tenants emailed the property manager raising work that had not been completed, including: a. The orange bathroom extractor fan. b. Latches on the French door had not been replaced, neither had the gaps in windows and doors being addressed. c. Hallway blind. d. Roof gutters, while a service person had attended, they advised that the gutters needed to be cleaned as they were full of leaf material [I note here that the invoice from 23 May indicates that significant gutter work had been completed].
The tenants also noted there was flooding around the section, making it difficult to access the shed, and proposing to put down gravel at their cost.
An invoice from 30 June 2025, records a new stainless steel cowl installed (which I understand was for the fire).
On 4 July 2025, the tenants advised the landlord that water was coming into the house, which they suspected was from the blocked gutters.
On 11 August 2025, the tenants again contact the landlord advising various work was required including: a. Bathroom extractor fan having not been replaced. b. Continuing water leak outside the main bedroom. c. Draught stopping. d. Continuing flooding.
An invoice is on file for replacement of the bathroom extractor fan, the invoice is dated 28 August 2025.
An invoice is also on file for draught stopping, that invoice dated 22 August 2025.
Again, I do not consider this to be a case where the landlord has not maintained the tenancy, and I am not persuaded that it would be just to consider an order of exemplary damages.
I do agree with the tenants, that some of the work was not completed in a timely way. The tenants have needed to follow up with the landlord about completing work, tenants should not have to do that. I have determined that it would be reasonable that compensation be provided for the delay in work being completed, and the tenants time needing to engage with the landlord on that basis. The compensation is directed to the fact that the tenants were paying rent for premises that needed to be maintained in a timely way, and they were not receiving that. It is always very difficult to work out what the correct level of compensation should be, the best I can do is step back and consider what a fair order would be in the circumstances. I have determined that compensation of $500, a little under one week of rent would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 4 – Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarm regulations
The tenants say there were no smoke alarms in the house at all.
The landlord agrees this is the case, there was a mistake on the part of the owner where this was not installed at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Those regulations require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational.
Regulation 5 requires that there be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed: a. Within a sleeping space (bedroom); or b. Within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; AND c. On each story or level of the premises.
There is no dispute between the parties that there was no smoke alarm installed at the start of the tenancy; the invoice from the smoke alarm installer indicates that it was only installed on 26 March 2025.
The landlord was aware that there was no smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy, it is not a defence to this claim, to simply state that the landlord forgot to have them installed. Smoke alarms are critical; they save lives.
I have determined that exemplary damages should be ordered. I consider the breach is likely to have been intentional for the reasons discussed above. The effect for the tenants is that they lived in premises without a working smoke alarm, which placed them at significant risk. They are extremely high interests for tenants to have premises provided with working smoke alarms, and that is also an equally important public interest. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
The claim falls within the same unlawful act as the breach of the landlord’s obligations around cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, for which exemplary damages have already been awarded. I note that simply because the maximum level of exemplary damages must take into account all unlawful acts falling within section 45(1A). I consider that further exemplary damages at $1,500 would be indicated, combined these total just over one- third of the maximum. That is ordered. Claim 5 – (landlords claim) tree damage
The landlord states that the tenants took it upon themselves to trim and cut down trees, the trees entirely removed are a well-established Magnolia and Lime trees on the premises. The tenants raised issues with one tree, and the landlord engaged a gardener, who attended and noticed that other trees had been cut down. The landlord said there was a conflict from the tenants with the landlord’s arborist, who refused to then engage with that property.
The landlord said that the tenants advised they had ‘trimmed’ trees, but when they went to the premises, they found much more significant work having been undertaken.
In response the tenants say that when they first met the landlord, they talked about how they always did maintenance work at their premises, and the owners liked that approach.
The tenants said that some of the trees that were trimmed, were trimmed to allow light into the house. The tenants say that the arborist came to the premises once.
The tenants agreed that the Magnolia and Lime trees were cut down. The Lime tree was in poor condition, and blocking the sun from the lemon tree, but that has been replaced, and was sitting in a pot on the deck at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they did not replant it because they did not consider it would have survived if they had done so.
The Magnolia is right next to the deck, and was blocking the sun and vehicle access.
The tenants confirmed that the heavy tree work was undertaken by a gardener they appointed. The tenants also say that they later got an arborist in who confirmed that while the trimming work was not ideal, it would not have harmed the trees (I have not seen evidence from that person).
The tenants agree they did not raise this with the landlord first.
The landlord states that the tenants apologised for removing the trees. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants pay compensation for damage to trees.
There is no dispute between the parties that the tenants did work on the trees, and that was without the express consent of the landlord. Some trees were trimmed, and in the case of the Magnolia and Lime, those trees were cut down completely.
The tenants have provided an email dated 25 November 2025, from the gardener, Kelsey Liddle. Mr Little confirms undertaking the tree work at the property, describing what he had done such as pruning back trees that were affecting vehicles in the driveway, and states: The tree against the deck was extremely close to the house and a concern in high winds that could have caused damage to the balustrade/spouting/deck and doors if a branch were to have broken away. The removal of the tree was a preventative measure.
Based on the information I have available, I understand that reference to the tree by the deck, was the Magnolia tree.
As far as the RTA is concerned, the tenants are responsible for keeping the premises reasonably tidy, which includes the grounds that form part of the tenancy. The RTA does not define more specifically what that means, or the extent of the tenant’s responsibility. But on the other side of the ledger, the RTA requires that the landlord reasonably maintain the tenancy. Again, that is not specifically defined.
It is not particularly uncommon that the Tribunal needs to consider claims relating to work in the gardens of a premises, where there may be a disagreement between the parties as to who would be responsible for particular work. But in this case, that is already defined in the tenancy agreement, which forms part of the contract that exists between the parties. The tenancy agreement records under the heading ‘responsibilities‘ on page 2, that the lawns are the tenant’s responsibility, and under the heading ‘gardens’, records “gardens are the tenant’s responsibilities, trees are the responsibility of the landlord.” That settles the matter. Any work involving the trees was the responsibility of the landlord.
I have no reservation in concluding that the tenants should not have undertaken the work to the landlord’s trees. The work the tenants of undertaken is extensive, including the removal of two well-established trees. If the tenants considered that the trees were and unduely intruding on the property, they need to raise that with the landlord and it would ultimately be for the landlord to decide whether the work would be undertaken. The tenants should not have taken it upon themselves to do the work directly.
The work has I accept, caused the landlord a loss. Trees have been trimmed beyond what the landlord found acceptable, and as it relates to the two trees that have been removed, the loss is more obvious.
The landlord has provided quotations for the replacement of the two trees at $3,400, with an additional $965 to have the trees planted, which would require the use of a digger including for stump removal. I am minded that the landlord has not had that work undertaken, so this is not a case where those amounts have been incurred as a loss. Taking the substantial merits and Justice into account, I have determined that compensation at $1,500 for the trees would be reasonable, and that is ordered.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression, but I must find that neither party has been wholly successful, neither has any party been substantially successful. The parties have had some success in their claims or defence, but not to the extent that would be required to say they were substantially successful. Therefore, name suppression is declined.

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 5476508 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage to trees	$1,500.00		Damage to trees
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises reasonably clean		$500.00	Failure to provide premises reasonably clean
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$500.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm		$1,500.00	Failure to provide smoke alarm
Total award	$1,500.00	$2,500.00
Net award		$1,000.00
Bond		$2,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,000.00

Claims and awards for application 5476508 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Damage to trees

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Damage to trees

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises reasonably clean

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide premises reasonably clean

Compensation: Failure to maintain

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide smoke alarm

Total award

Landlord $1,500.00 · Tenant $2,500.00

Net award

Tenant $1,000.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness Replace Smoke Alarms Property damage

Order

Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Jamlt Trust must pay Phillippa Roil- Glendenning and [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-00067979) to Phillippa Roil- Glendenning and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenants and landlord. The tenancy has ended, and both parties are claiming breaches on the part of the other.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 12 March 2025, and ended on 2 October 2025. The period was reasonably modest at 29 weeks or just under 7 months.
The Landlord is recorded on the tenancy agreement as “JAMLT Trust” (the trustees are not noted), by way of a property manager, Property Brokers, but it was Ms Nelson from Property Brokers who was looking after this property. The two co-tenants are Phillippa and [The tenant/s].
I will address the more specific background below under each claim.
A hearing was convened in Masterton today, 24 April 2026, to consider both applications. Both tenants were in attendance, and Ms Nelson from Property Brokers attended for the landlord.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Compensation for the state of the premises at start of tenancy. c. Exemplary damages for failure to maintain. d. Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarm regulations.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, Ms Nelson confirmed the landlord’s sole claim is as follows: a. Compensation for damage to trees.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages 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 proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims of both parties, claims 1-4 are from the tenants, and claim 5 is from the landlord. Claim 1 – Exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants state that when the premises were rented, they found that there were issues such as shortcomings with drainage, ventilation and draughts.
In response the landlord says that there was an independent HHS assessment undertaken, and the premises passed that inspection.
However, the landlord states that when the tenants complained about the extractor fans, the landlord got a plumber in who recommended upgrading the ventilation, and that work was done.
The landlord also says there was one draught brought to the landlord’s attention with the French Door, a handyman was engaged and further draught stopping was undertaken around the property.
In terms of drainage, again, when it was raised a plumber was called, and a drain was unblocked and the gutters repaired.
In conclusion, the tenants said there were excessive delays with getting the work completed. The owners tried doing work themselves before agreeing to let the Property Manager appoint tradespeople. Analysis
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular, the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
In this case, again I note that the tenancy commenced on 12 March 2025.
Prior to the tenancy commencing, the landlord obtained an independent HHS assessment, and the report has been provided by “The Good Home New Zealand”. The first report is dated 18 January 2025, and records that the premises passed four of the healthy homes standards, but failed as far as insulation is concerned. Top-up insulation was provided, and then the premises were certified as being HHS compliant.
The claim in this case is that there has been a breach of the HHS, for which exemplary damages should be ordered. I have set out the legal criteria above, which apply to claims for exemplary damages. The first requirement is that the breach be committed intentionally. The District Court has confirmed that the requirement for intentional conduct means that the party knew there was a breach, and what the outcome would be, but they committed the breach anyway.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
A second District Court decision of relevance is Peter Stoekeken v Nykala Toheriri and Vince Aso [2022] NZDC 9698, a decision from Judge Tuohy. The dispute in that case was included a claim for exemplary damages because the landlord had rented the premises with an exposed electrical wire. Judge Tuohy accepted that the landlord did not know the wire was exposed, but importantly confirmed that: ...S 109(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally by the person who committed it before exemplary damages can be awarded.... ...assuming that the landlord is liable for the omissions of his agents as well as his own, I am not satisfied that he or his agents intentionally decided not to carry out an inspection which was sufficiently through to reveal the wire. Even if they ought to have noticed it, that is not equivalent to an intentional act. As the Adjudicator in the second decision stated when declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord, the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations. The evidence does not establish that. In summary, I consider that there are insufficient grounds to award exemplary damages against the landlord in relation to the exposed wire.
In this case, I consider that the landlords acted very reasonably by engaging with an external assessor to determine whether the premises were HHS compliant. The assessor identified problems with the insulation, which the landlords addressed before the tenancy started, and the assessor signed the premises off as HHS compliant. The landlord was able to rely on the HHS assessment as being accurate, and it is difficult, therefore, to see that any argument could be made that the landlord knew the premises were not HHS compliant, but rented it to these tenants anyway. I consider that the far more likely situation is that the landlords believed the premises were HHS compliant based on the independent assessment, so there could be no argument for an intentional breach.
While it may be the case that the landlord undertook further works subsequently to replace the extraction fan, and install draught stopping, and undertake work to the gutters, in my assessment, that would fall within the category of maintenance.
Because I am not persuade that there is intentional conduct, whether or not there is an HHS breach in fact, exemplary damages cannot be ordered. Claim 2 – Compensation for state of premises at start of tenancy
The tenants state that the premises had been empty before they took the premises over. The premises were unclean. The cupboards were unclean, the bath was in poor condition, the back of the oven had corroded away, there was kitty litter in the bathroom, the fire had not been cleaned with issues with the cowling. The tenants described an unpleasant odour
The landlord states that the owners moved out about 2 weeks prior to the tenants moving in. The tenants viewed the premises before moving in and did not raise issues with the premises being unclean. The landlord accepts that some of the cupboards did need wiping down. The blue marks on the bath are still there. Ms Nelson says that she did not realise the oven was not attached, it was working but there was some corrosion. Ms Nelson says she did not see any kitty litter in the bathroom. The fireplace had been swept by the owners, and when issues were reported a contractor attended, unblocked the fire and the cowling was replaced. Ms Nelson said that she did not notice an unpleasant odour. Analysis
The landlord is required to provide the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. In particular, section 45(1)(a) and (b) require: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
Use of the word ‘provide’ denotes the situation that must exist when the landlord provides the tenancy to the tenants, at the commencement date.
On 17 March 2025, the tenants emailed the property manager raising concerns regarding the state of the premises when they took the Tenancy over. Reference was made to 12 hours of ”scrubbing”. The email detailed specific issues the tenants took, including.: a. Kitchen drawers and cupboards being very dirty. b. The oven being in a poor and rusted state. c. Bathrooms being clean. d. The toilet in one bathroom being unclean, and working poorly. e. An ineffective ventilation fan in the orange bathroom. f. Dirty floors. g. Water pressure problems. h. Blind by the front door broken. i. Window latches being loose. j. Lock on the front door being broken, and the door not sealing properly. k. No smoke alarms. l. Trees being overgrown.
The property manager responded on 26 March 2025 advising: a. The smoke alarm was installed that day. b. The chimney sweep had been booked. c. A replacement oven has been purchased, and will be installed on 28 March 2025. d. Gutter cleaning and downpipe unblocking had been requested. e. The extractor fan will be installed/replaced when the electrician attends for the oven. f. The french door latch would be repaired also at the time of the oven installation. g. A tradesperson would be in contact regarding the tree trimming to arrange a suitable time to attend
In this case, there are some matters that are not disputed, such as the fact of the kitchen not been reasonably clean, and they’re being no smoke alarm. I will not address the smoke alarm further in this claim, because it is the subject of a separate claim below.
Beyond those matters, the landlord’s position is that some work was undertaken such as replacing the oven, not because it needed to be replaced, but because the tenants were complaining about it, and the landlord wished to maintain a good relationship with the tenants.
Many of the items claimed by the tenants, require an assessment as to whether the situation with that item would be reasonable, such as for example, whether the bathrooms were reasonably clean. These cases are difficult, because one person may consider that the bathroom for instance is very dirty, whereas another may consider it to be reasonably clean. Meeting the standard of something being reasonable is not absolute, it does not have to be immaculate, but it cannot be in a poor state either. What I must do is step back and consider the evidence available, and reach my own view as to whether the item would be reasonably clean or in a reasonable state of repair.
Have carefully considered the photographs provided, and I agree that the kitchen was not reasonably clean, but I’ve been unable to identify any other areas in the house, which I would say are not reasonably clean. Certainly there is staining from the bath taps, but that is very likely to be the effect of copper staining over a long period of time. But that does not mean the bath is not reasonably clean. The onus sits with the tenants to prove that the premises were not reasonably clean, and I find they have not established that beyond the kitchen. In short, the photographs do not establish that the premises are generally unclean, the photographs more likely reflect premises that are clean. Beyond that I can see no reason that I should prefer what the tenants say, above what the property manager says.
In relation to the extractor fans, it is not clear to me what was materially wrong with those units. I can see that the HHS assessor records that the two bathroom fans were in good working order. I am not persuaded that other areas of defect have been identified, which would take the premises outside the expected requirement of reasonably clean and maintained.
The question is whether exemplary damages should be ordered for the premises not being reasonably clean, and I find they should. It is more likely than not that the landlord would have been aware that the kitchen was not reasonably clean, during the pre-tenancy period. The effect for the tenants is that they rented premises that did not meet the required standard, and they would have needed to undertake work to get the kitchen to an adequate standard. They are compelling interests for tenants to rent premises that are clean and hygienic. It is also in the public interest that premises be rented, meeting the necessary standard. I consider it would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of section 45, is $7,200. However, that is the maximum level, and the Tribunal will invariably look to the extent of the breach, and all of the circumstances, and decide what a reasonable level of exemplary damages should be. Taking into consideration that this is a reasonably isolated area of breach, I consider an award of $500 is indicated. Exemplary damages would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages for failure to maintain
The tenants say that the landlord advised that they were told not to do garden work to the premises (other than lawns) but otherwise the landlord did not do maintenance to the outside of the premises.
I asked the tenants what specifically needed to be done. The tenants said that waterblasting was needed to paths as they were slippery, and while the landlord said not to do it, the tenants did the work nevertheless when the landlord did not do that work. The tenants also referred to the issues with flooding. The tenants report putting gravel down themselves.
The landlord disagrees that the premises were not maintained. No 14 day notices were issued, when issues were raised, the issues were addressed. In terms of the path, the tenants said they had waterblasted the path after the fact. The landlord said that this was not raised prior therefore giving the landlord a chance to do the work.
The landlord states that when issues were raised, they had them fixed, such as the gutters and ventilation as set out in the invoices. Analysis
As sent out above, section 45 of the RTA requires that the landlord maintain the premises.
Over the course of the tenancy, the tenants have raised various concerns with the landlord. It seems that some work the tenants proceeded to do themselves without giving the landlord an opportunity to address the issue, but for some other work, that was left for the landlord to address.
I would not say this is a case where the landlord simply refused to undertake necessary maintenance; the evidence does not support that. The invoices show that work has been done, but the point taken by the tenants is that the work was not undertaken with reasonable speed.
In terms of the work that was undertaken, the invoices and records on file confirm that the landlord installed the smoke alarm on or around 26 March 2025.
A replacement oven was installed on or around 28 March 2025. On 2 April 2025, the tenants advised that the oven had been installed, but no other work had been completed, noting the landlord had advised that the extractor fan would be installed or replaced at the same time as the oven, and also the work to the French door would be completed then.
An invoice from 7 April 2025, records, chimney sweeping and unblocking. The contractor notes that the stainless steel cowl required replacement.
An invoice is on file from 23 May 2025, for repairs to the gutter.
An invoice is on file for the replacement of a toilet, the invoice dated 14 May 2025.
On 1 June 2025, the tenants emailed the property manager raising work that had not been completed, including: a. The orange bathroom extractor fan. b. Latches on the French door had not been replaced, neither had the gaps in windows and doors being addressed. c. Hallway blind. d. Roof gutters, while a service person had attended, they advised that the gutters needed to be cleaned as they were full of leaf material [I note here that the invoice from 23 May indicates that significant gutter work had been completed].
The tenants also noted there was flooding around the section, making it difficult to access the shed, and proposing to put down gravel at their cost.
An invoice from 30 June 2025, records a new stainless steel cowl installed (which I understand was for the fire).
On 4 July 2025, the tenants advised the landlord that water was coming into the house, which they suspected was from the blocked gutters.
On 11 August 2025, the tenants again contact the landlord advising various work was required including: a. Bathroom extractor fan having not been replaced. b. Continuing water leak outside the main bedroom. c. Draught stopping. d. Continuing flooding.
An invoice is on file for replacement of the bathroom extractor fan, the invoice is dated 28 August 2025.
An invoice is also on file for draught stopping, that invoice dated 22 August 2025.
Again, I do not consider this to be a case where the landlord has not maintained the tenancy, and I am not persuaded that it would be just to consider an order of exemplary damages.
I do agree with the tenants, that some of the work was not completed in a timely way. The tenants have needed to follow up with the landlord about completing work, tenants should not have to do that. I have determined that it would be reasonable that compensation be provided for the delay in work being completed, and the tenants time needing to engage with the landlord on that basis. The compensation is directed to the fact that the tenants were paying rent for premises that needed to be maintained in a timely way, and they were not receiving that. It is always very difficult to work out what the correct level of compensation should be, the best I can do is step back and consider what a fair order would be in the circumstances. I have determined that compensation of $500, a little under one week of rent would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 4 – Exemplary damages for breach of smoke alarm regulations
The tenants say there were no smoke alarms in the house at all.
The landlord agrees this is the case, there was a mistake on the part of the owner where this was not installed at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Those regulations require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational.
Regulation 5 requires that there be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed: a. Within a sleeping space (bedroom); or b. Within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; AND c. On each story or level of the premises.
There is no dispute between the parties that there was no smoke alarm installed at the start of the tenancy; the invoice from the smoke alarm installer indicates that it was only installed on 26 March 2025.
The landlord was aware that there was no smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy, it is not a defence to this claim, to simply state that the landlord forgot to have them installed. Smoke alarms are critical; they save lives.
I have determined that exemplary damages should be ordered. I consider the breach is likely to have been intentional for the reasons discussed above. The effect for the tenants is that they lived in premises without a working smoke alarm, which placed them at significant risk. They are extremely high interests for tenants to have premises provided with working smoke alarms, and that is also an equally important public interest. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
The claim falls within the same unlawful act as the breach of the landlord’s obligations around cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, for which exemplary damages have already been awarded. I note that simply because the maximum level of exemplary damages must take into account all unlawful acts falling within section 45(1A). I consider that further exemplary damages at $1,500 would be indicated, combined these total just over one- third of the maximum. That is ordered. Claim 5 – (landlords claim) tree damage
The landlord states that the tenants took it upon themselves to trim and cut down trees, the trees entirely removed are a well-established Magnolia and Lime trees on the premises. The tenants raised issues with one tree, and the landlord engaged a gardener, who attended and noticed that other trees had been cut down. The landlord said there was a conflict from the tenants with the landlord’s arborist, who refused to then engage with that property.
The landlord said that the tenants advised they had ‘trimmed’ trees, but when they went to the premises, they found much more significant work having been undertaken.
In response the tenants say that when they first met the landlord, they talked about how they always did maintenance work at their premises, and the owners liked that approach.
The tenants said that some of the trees that were trimmed, were trimmed to allow light into the house. The tenants say that the arborist came to the premises once.
The tenants agreed that the Magnolia and Lime trees were cut down. The Lime tree was in poor condition, and blocking the sun from the lemon tree, but that has been replaced, and was sitting in a pot on the deck at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they did not replant it because they did not consider it would have survived if they had done so.
The Magnolia is right next to the deck, and was blocking the sun and vehicle access.
The tenants confirmed that the heavy tree work was undertaken by a gardener they appointed. The tenants also say that they later got an arborist in who confirmed that while the trimming work was not ideal, it would not have harmed the trees (I have not seen evidence from that person).
The tenants agree they did not raise this with the landlord first.
The landlord states that the tenants apologised for removing the trees. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants pay compensation for damage to trees.
There is no dispute between the parties that the tenants did work on the trees, and that was without the express consent of the landlord. Some trees were trimmed, and in the case of the Magnolia and Lime, those trees were cut down completely.
The tenants have provided an email dated 25 November 2025, from the gardener, Kelsey Liddle. Mr Little confirms undertaking the tree work at the property, describing what he had done such as pruning back trees that were affecting vehicles in the driveway, and states: The tree against the deck was extremely close to the house and a concern in high winds that could have caused damage to the balustrade/spouting/deck and doors if a branch were to have broken away. The removal of the tree was a preventative measure.
Based on the information I have available, I understand that reference to the tree by the deck, was the Magnolia tree.
As far as the RTA is concerned, the tenants are responsible for keeping the premises reasonably tidy, which includes the grounds that form part of the tenancy. The RTA does not define more specifically what that means, or the extent of the tenant’s responsibility. But on the other side of the ledger, the RTA requires that the landlord reasonably maintain the tenancy. Again, that is not specifically defined.
It is not particularly uncommon that the Tribunal needs to consider claims relating to work in the gardens of a premises, where there may be a disagreement between the parties as to who would be responsible for particular work. But in this case, that is already defined in the tenancy agreement, which forms part of the contract that exists between the parties. The tenancy agreement records under the heading ‘responsibilities‘ on page 2, that the lawns are the tenant’s responsibility, and under the heading ‘gardens’, records “gardens are the tenant’s responsibilities, trees are the responsibility of the landlord.” That settles the matter. Any work involving the trees was the responsibility of the landlord.
I have no reservation in concluding that the tenants should not have undertaken the work to the landlord’s trees. The work the tenants of undertaken is extensive, including the removal of two well-established trees. If the tenants considered that the trees were and unduely intruding on the property, they need to raise that with the landlord and it would ultimately be for the landlord to decide whether the work would be undertaken. The tenants should not have taken it upon themselves to do the work directly.
The work has I accept, caused the landlord a loss. Trees have been trimmed beyond what the landlord found acceptable, and as it relates to the two trees that have been removed, the loss is more obvious.
The landlord has provided quotations for the replacement of the two trees at $3,400, with an additional $965 to have the trees planted, which would require the use of a digger including for stump removal. I am minded that the landlord has not had that work undertaken, so this is not a case where those amounts have been incurred as a loss. Taking the substantial merits and Justice into account, I have determined that compensation at $1,500 for the trees would be reasonable, and that is ordered.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression, but I must find that neither party has been wholly successful, neither has any party been substantially successful. The parties have had some success in their claims or defence, but not to the extent that would be required to say they were substantially successful. Therefore, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476508 — Smoke alarms at 75 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476508 — Smoke alarms at 75 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions