What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491271 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 5491271?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491271?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13849546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491271 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 5491271?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491271?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13849546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 13M, 16 Gore Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491271 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491271 — net $850.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 March 2026	$350.00		Rent arrears to 24 March 2026
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1)(a		$1,200.00	Section 45(1)(a
Total award	$350.00	$1,200.00
Net award		$850.00
Bond		$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$850.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491271 — net $850.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 March 2026	$350.00		Rent arrears to 24 March 2026
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1)(a		$1,200.00	Section 45(1)(a
Total award	$350.00	$1,200.00
Net award		$850.00
Bond		$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$850.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 13M, 16 Gore Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, The Oaks is reduced and now ends on 24 March 2026.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $850.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 3 July 2026 remotely. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2026 and was for a fixed term due to end on 12 February 2027.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and refund of the bond.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond. Background
The tenant was overseas on the date that the tenancy commenced and did not arrive in New Zealand until 23 February 2026. The tenant moved into the tenancy that same day.
When the tenant moved in, she identified issues of cleanliness at the property. The tenant produced photographs to the Tribunal showing a heavily stained mattress, dirt and stains in the fridge, an unclean oven tray, dirt and mould in the washing machine and dryer, a stain on the sofa, marks around the edges of the toilet, mould on the shower tiles, rust marks on the towel rail, and mould on the window frame. The tenant also said that there was a cigarette butt in the toilet, but her visitor flushed the toilet before a photograph could be taken.
In her application the tenant referred to other issues but they were not supported by photographs or other evidence.
The landlord produced the outgoing inspection report from after the previous tenant vacated dated 27 January 2026. The issues identified by the tenant are not clearly obvious in the report because the photographs are taken from a distance and in relation to the mattress, it is covered by a mattress protector. The landlord says that the report is evidence that the premises were reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant notified the landlord of the issue in relation to the mould on the window frame on 25 February 2026. At the same time, she advised the landlord that there was no water or power connected to the property. The tenant said that the water supply was there when she checked on 25 February but was not there when she moved in. The tenant was able to arrange for a power connection on 26 February 2026. While the landlord had provided some advice on this it seems that the tenant had not received communication from the third party as the landlord had advised.
On 26 February 2026 the tenant advised the landlord that the mattress had stains, and she asked whether she needed to purchase a new mattress or whether there was another solution. The tenant provided the landlord with photographs of the mattress and the mould on the window frame.
On 27 February the tenant emailed the landlord advising of other issues such as faulty curtains and the cigarette but in the toilet. The tenant asked to meet to discuss matters in relation to the landlord’s responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition. The landlord responded by saying it was best to communicate any maintenance issues or requests by email.
The tenant attended at the property management office on 27 February 2026, but matters were not resolved.
The landlord arranged for a cleaner to attend the premises on 27 February 2026 to clean the mould and the mattress. The tenant said that the mattress was wet after being cleaned and the cleaner advised that it would take three to four days to dry.
The tenant did not stay at the premises when she moved in. She has produced evidence that she stayed at a hotel for two days. She said that she also stayed with friends and then slept on the floor. The tenant said that she did not sleep on the mattress. A photograph was produced showing the mattress after the cleaning. It still had some staining.
At the hearing the landlord said that the tenant was advised there was a possibility that the mattress could be replaced but this is denied by the tenant. The landlord could not explain why the mattress was not replaced if that is what was offered. I got the impression that the offer of replacement was only available if the tenant did not proceed with her application to the Tribunal.
The landlord said that she was not aware that the tenant stayed elsewhere rather than at the tenancy. She said that had she known they could have offered the tenant alternative accommodation. The landlord should have known that the tenant was not able to sleep on the heavily stained mattress and then the wet mattress after it was cleaned.
The tenant said that she showed the photographs of the remaining cleaning issues to the landlord on 27 February and 2 March when she had visited the office of the property management company.
The landlord did not address the other issues contained in the photographs. While the landlord claims not to have seen these photographs before the Tribunal proceedings, they show that the premises was not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy. These issues add to the uncleanliness of the mattress and the mould on the window frame.
At the hearing the landlord said that the tenant flipped the mattress to the stained side before taking the photograph. I do not accept this. The landlord did not have any evidence that either side of the mattress (underneath the mattress protector) was reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
On 28 February 2026 the tenant emailed the landlord expressing her wish to terminate the tenancy as the property was not provided in a reasonable condition. Again, she asked for a face-to-face meeting.
The landlord did not agree to end the tenancy early even though the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition.
On 11 March 2026 the tenant emailed the landlord advising that she had moved out of the premises on 9 March 2026. On 17 March 2026 the landlord emailed to advise that the premises would be advertised to be re-let. The landlord asked for the keys to be returned on 23 March 2026. They were not returned until 24 March 2026 due to the parties having other commitments. Cleanliness of premises
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. While the tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards the issue of mould and cleanliness is a landlord responsibility set out in section 45.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The mattress was heavily stained and should have been replaced rather than cleaned. There were issues at the premises including mould growth on the window frame, the shower tiles were very mouldy and dirty, and the oven tray was unclean. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the premises were not reasonably clean.
I also note that while the landlord arranged for a cleaner to clean the mattress and the window frame mould there was a time when they had asked the tenant to pay this cost. The email dated 13 April 2026 clearly states that the cleaning cost of $206.30 would be deducted from the tenant’s bond. When the tenant questioned this the landlord replied that the cleaning fee would be removed as a gesture of goodwill. The cleaning fee should never have been a cost for the tenant because it was for cleaning that should have been completed before the tenancy commenced.
The landlord should carry out a detailed inspection before a tenancy commences rather than rely on an outgoing inspection from the previous tenancy. The premises should have been provided in a reasonably clean state at the beginning of the tenancy. The failure to do so had a significant impact on the tenant who had just arrived in the country and had to navigate the rights of a tenant when she should not have needed to. It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with the legislation in relation to the condition of premises at the beginning of the tenancy.
I consider that exemplary damages of $1,200.00 is reasonable having regard to the evidence. Reduction of fixed term
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 12 February 2027.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The premises of the tenancy were not supplied to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. While the landlord readvertised and a new tenancy started on 1 May 2026 the landlord is seeking rent arrears to 30 April 2026.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
The tenant moved out of the premises on 9 March 2026 and returned the keys to the landlord on 24 March 2026. I have determined that the tenant should only be liable for rent up until 24 March 2026 and that is the date that the tenancy is reduced to. Compensation
The tenant sought compensation for financial loss. I have considered all issues in total and determine that the awards that I have made compensate the tenant adequately for the impact of the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state. No award is made for compensation. Rent arrears
The landlord applied for rent arrears to 30 April 2026, which is the day before the new tenancy started.
As I have reduced the term of the tenancy the tenant is only liable for rent up until 24 March 2026. Water rates
The landlord sought water rates of $13.79. It was not clear how this amount was calculated but the landlord said that it was done on a pro rata basis.
Section 39(4)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the tenant is responsible for water on the basis of consumption. It is therefore not possible to estimate the water used by the tenant. The invoice also includes a fixed charge, which is the responsibility of the landlord.
I also note that the invoice shows the water reading was from 6 February 2026 until 6 March 2026. The tenancy did not commence until 13 February 2026; therefore it is possible that water was used before the tenancy commenced.
Also, the landlord was unable to provide evidence of when, or if, this invoice was sent to the tenant. The tenant denies ever being provided with the invoice. The landlord should provide the invoice to the tenant before the due date which was 28 May 2026.
Due to the above issues with the water invoice, the tenant is not responsible for the amount sought by the landlord. That claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491271 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 13M, 16 Gore Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491271 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 13M, 16 Gore Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions