What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484603 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiliata Tepulolo to pay James Ross $677.90 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5484603?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $407.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484603?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13802120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484603 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiliata Tepulolo to pay James Ross $677.90 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5484603?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $407.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484603?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13802120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Turners Road, Waikawa, Picton 7220 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484603 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484603 — net $677.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$750.00		Rent arrears
Pest control	$407.90		Pest control
Lawns and Garden work	$20.00		Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages – HHS/tenancy agreement		$500.00	Exemplary damages – HHS/tenancy agreement
Total award	$1,177.90	$500.00
Net award	$677.90
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$677.90

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484603 — net $677.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$750.00		Rent arrears
Pest control	$407.90		Pest control
Lawns and Garden work	$20.00		Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages – HHS/tenancy agreement		$500.00	Exemplary damages – HHS/tenancy agreement
Total award	$1,177.90	$500.00
Net award	$677.90
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$677.90

Order

Kiliata Tepulolo to pay James Ross $677.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (BN-00012492) immediately apportioned as follows: James Ross: $677.90 Kiliata Tepulolo: $522.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant has a support person present. A court appointed Tuvaluan interpreter was arranged. The tenant had requested one to assist her “as required” but intended the hearing be conducted in English. The interpreter was expected to be in-person but that did not occur and a remote connection with them was made. This connection was fraught with problems such that the hearing proceeded without active interpreting. This did not appear to disadvantage the tenant who conversed well and no issue was raised at the time.
The landlord application also named the tenant’s partner as a second tenant. The tenancy agreement was solely in the name of this tenant and this order conforms to the parties as stated in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has applied for the return of the bond and orders under the Healthy Home Standard, claiming that during the tenancy she did not have a extraction fan in the kitchen until it was installed two weeks before the tenants moved out. A further claim was that the tenant did not receive any information about the healthy homes when she signed the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered where applicable to the claims lodged. The landlord application
The landlord sought rent arrears of $750.00, compensation for pest control ($407.90) and lawn repairs ($100.00).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 January 2026. The landlord claimed $750.00 rent arrears based on 15 weeks of $50.00 underpayment from October 2025.
The landlord provided a rent reduction during the 2025 colder season of $50.00 to assist the tenant with the extra heating cots that would follow. This was communicated via text message and accepted by the tenant, effective from 17 April 2025. However, the message also clearly states this was a temporary arrangement with rent reverting to the $600.00 from October 2025. Rent continued to be paid at $550.00 until the tenancy ended. I am satisfied the terms of the reduction were clear and it was temporary, leaving the tenant $750.00 in arrears. This is awarded.

Was there a need for pest control?

The landlord claimed $407.90 for the costs incurred in professional pest control during the tenancy. This control was arranged after the tenant raised concerns regarding rodents inside. The three invoices totalling the $407.90 were provided.
The first communication from the tenant to the landlord regarding mice was in May 2025. This was not a significant problem at the time. I heard from regarding mice was the tenant that she managed the situation using traps. There was no more contact between the parties regarding this matter until October.
In October the problem had now worsened with the tenant now advising the landlord there were “mice everywhere”. The landlord arranged pest control. The tenant stated she did not understand that she would be responsible for any subsequent costs incurred.
The landlord stated mice had never been a problem at the premises before. He reacted quickly when so advised and asked the tenant for ongoing updates on the pest control effectiveness, but these were not provided.
The responsibility for costs incurred in pest control depends on the circumstances and the cause of the infestation. The tenant is not automatically responsible.
The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness (see section 45(1)(a) and (b) RTA). If pest control is required and the pests have been present from commencement, found to be a result of some landlord failure to maintain, or some other evidence indicates some failure of the landlord as the underlying cause then the cost would typically be expected to remain with the landlord.
The tenant’s responsibility is to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy (see section 40(1)(c) RTA). If the pest problem arises due to the tenant’s failure to keep the premises reasonably clean such that pests may be attracted to food or rubbish the tenant is more than likely responsible for the costs incurred.
In this instance, there was no obvious mice or rodent problem until May (some five months into the tenancy). Increased presence indoors is not unexpected at that time of the year when the climate becomes cooler. The tenant trapping should have managed any such seasonal entrance and activity. The dramatic rodent population increase and adverse impact on the tenant as reported in October does not appear to have any causation from any landlord failures. Having considered the respective submissions, I accept the problem was more than likely caused by environmental issues inside the premises, these being within the control of the tenant. Therefore, I find the tenant is liable for the pest control cost of $407.90. This is awarded.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the lawn was damaged by the tenant.
The two cited causes of damage were firstly, an old sofa was left on the lawn for an extended period. The landlord stated he requested it moved, concerned it would destroy the grass underneath. Secondly, the landlord claimed lawn indention caused by vehicular use/parking on the lawn.
Photos of the damage confirm the grass was damaged and weeds had become a problem.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
I am satisfied the damage was more than wear and tear.
The landlord repaired the lawn himself using seed and his labour. The application had requested $100.00 in compensation. The evidence does not support such an award but I believe some recognition of the effort and cost in repair should follow and I award $20.00 towards the lawn repair effort of the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved. Did the tenant trespass on the owner’s property/make false accusations?
The landlord lived directly behind the premises in his home. He claimed on 1 December 2025 the tenant entered his property without permission to leave some documents. He also claimed she made false accusations regarding mould and any tenant source Healthy Homes report.
I explained at the hearing that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is limited with regard to actions outside of the premises. The closest provision would be the requirement in s 40 RTA(2)(c) RTA that the tenant shall not “cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.” It is open to the Tribunal to consider a landlord living in close proximity a “person residing in the neighbourhood”.
However, I heard nothing in the submissions that establishes any tenant breach that any such order be made. The parties interacted throughout the tenancy and the entry of the tenant had a purpose and no proven nefarious intent.
With regard to any false accusations, s 97(2) RTA provides a promise to tell the truth can be required and, if after any such promise, false assertions are proven then an offense has been committed (see s 111 RTA).
Any claimed HHS report of the tenant was not tabled. No promise was required during the hearing. As to the purported claims of false accusations by the tenant, I do not consider these, even if proven, to be an act that s 97 can address, nor do I consider grounds for any other order exist.
I find no grounds are established or proven for any orders for the landlord claims here. The tenant application
The tenant sought the return of the bond. The landlord lodged a counterclaim, and the bond is distributed per this order.
The other claim in the tenant application pertained to the landlord’s failure to comply with requirements regarding Healthy Homes Standard (extractor fans) and documentation.
The tenant that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals such as here where the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. It was the lack of extractor fans until late in the tenancy that was cited by the tenant.
It was not disputed by the landlord that the bathroom and kitchen did not have mechanical extraction. The actual compliance required was due in the previous one year fixed-term tenancy that preceded this tenancy. The landlord did dispute the efficacy of the mandated extraction versus opening windows as was the usual and historic practice prior. That is not something I need involve myself in, but I do note the damage to the kitchen ceiling finish cited in communications between the parties (not the subject of any landlord claim) may well evidence a benefit of a kitchen extractor in such a place.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. This is considered further below.
While not claimed in the application, it appears the premises failed to have a ground moisture barrier until installed late in the tenancy. The moisture ingress and drainage standard a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
There was a passing reference to a downpipe problem by the tenant but neither failure, if so, appears to have been an issue during the tenancy. These HHS issues were also resolved by the landlord around the date of the ventilation installations. HHS Documentation
Since 1 December 2020, a landlord must include in all new and renewed tenancy agreements a compliance statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The requirement that the landlord’s compliance statement, under 13A(1CA), be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
A failure to comply with section 13A(1C) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F).
The tenancy agreement as provided appears to lack some expected pages but there are sections relevant to s 13(1C) visible, they are blank and the section is unsigned. The failure to complete the tenancy agreement as provided must be considered intentional.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. This is considered further below.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of 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 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.
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or been unaware, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen.
A failure to provide required documents around HHS was considered by the District Court in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, noting “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
The landlord has breached his obligations around the HHS (ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage standard). Those are all breaches found in section 45. The District Court has confirmed that there can only be one award for a breach of a section, but I should take into account the number and extent of the breaches when deciding the level of exemplary damages to order.
The landlord has also failed to provide the required HHS information in the tenancy agreement. The issue of HHS, or lack of, was prompted by third-party advice to the tenant, rather than any apparent building environment issue.
I consider some exemplary damages are appropriate. The failure appears to predate this tenancy and continued beyond the final statutory date in July 2025 for all private tenancies regardless of start date, negating any claim regarding confusion of when compliance was required. I spent some time hearing from the tenant about the impacts on her from of the lack of extraction. The bathroom required the use of the window. It is reasonable to assume that was less efficient than mechanical extraction and some further moisture management may have been required. This was not expressed as onerous. The lack of kitchen extraction is considered more problematic. I heard the kitchen had a closing door so minimal escape of moisture or cooking byproduct smells into the dining/living area occurred. The landlord raising issues with the ceiling finish in the kitchen appears consistent with a likely outcome of a lack of ventilation.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must also consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome
I have determined that exemplary damages should be awarded but at a low amount. Often the Tribunal may use a 1/3 rd approach to exemplary damages, being 1/3 rd of the maximum award for first time “offenders”, increasing accordingly from there. For the HHS failure, that suggests $2,400.00 and $250.00 for the tenancy agreement failure. I consider such orders would be excessive here. I have considered the landlord’s rent rebate for the benefit of the tenants that was not necessary as the premises had appropriate heating in the living room. This had a value of some $1,200 and was a commendable gesture. I have also considered the tenant’s recounting of what appears to be limited impact from the failures.
For such reasons, I award $500.00 exemplary damages, being $400.00 for the HHS ventilation breach and $100 for the tenancy agreement deficiencies. Filing fee
Given both parties have had some success I leave each to carry their cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. The landlord did not. While substantially successful with her application, the landlord’s successful cross- application and proven tenant liability for those claims means no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484603 — Rent arrears at 7A Turners Road, Waikawa, Picton 7220

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484603 — Rent arrears at 7A Turners Road, Waikawa, Picton 7220

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Was there a need for pest control?

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

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Was there a need for pest control?

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

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions