What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509511 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 5509511?

Compensation: Failure to maintain DV…: $3,428.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $1,130.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509511?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13896372-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509511 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 5509511?

Compensation: Failure to maintain DV…: $3,428.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $1,130.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509511?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13896372-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5509511 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5509511 — net $4,425.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (with a 10% discount applied for failure to mitigate loss	$1,130.62		3. The landlord made a cross application for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of th…
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$1,500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Failure to maintain DVS		$3,428.57	Failure to maintain DVS
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond held by landlord and not lodged		$600.00	Balance of bond held by landlord and not lodged
Total award	$1,130.62	$5,556.57
Net award		$4,425.95
Bond		$2,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,425.95

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5509511 — net $4,425.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (with a 10% discount applied for failure to mitigate loss	$1,130.62		3. The landlord made a cross application for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of th…
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$1,500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Failure to maintain DVS		$3,428.57	Failure to maintain DVS
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond held by landlord and not lodged		$600.00	Balance of bond held by landlord and not lodged
Total award	$1,130.62	$5,556.57
Net award		$4,425.95
Bond		$2,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,425.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant] $4,425.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 July 2026. Both parties had support people present.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for the water consumption and wastewater charges and not the fixed water charges. The landlord confirmed that the amounts set out in the water rates records did not contain the fixed monthly fee.
The landlord confirmed she had Watercare send the tenant a copy of the water rates invoices directly and she required the tenant to calculate out what she owed and pay it to the landlord because the landlord paid the full invoices by direct debit to Watercare each month.
The landlord says the tenant paid the water rates for the first year of the tenancy and then stopped in the second year of the tenancy. The tenant says this is because she would get the invoice from Watercare and then it would be forwarded to her by the landlord, but she lost track of what she owed as she did not get given any invoice for her portion of the cost from the landlord. She never got around to doing the calculations and then had financial difficulties that meant she could not afford to pay the water rates as they fell due.
There is no evidence of the landlord following the tenant up and asking for the late water rates or issuing the tenant with a 14-day notice in relation to this breach of the tenancy agreement and section 39(3) of the RTA, which says, “the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
The landlord has proven that the tenant did not pay $1,256.24 water rates for water she used during the tenancy. However, s49 of the RTA states “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract”. A landlord therefore cannot sit on its laurels and not issue the tenant invoices for the exact amounts owed and then fail to follow the tenant up in a reasonable timeframe where the tenant is breaching her s39 of the RTA obligations to pay for water consumption charges in full and on time, and then make a claim against the tenant’s bond at the end of the tenancy to cover these utility costs incurred in the year prior to the end of the tenancy.
Equitable legal principles in New Zealand require the Tribunal to provide equitable remedies in these types of circumstances. The tenant has an equitable defence that the landlord should have provided her with regular invoices for the exact amount of water owed each month and she did not. Additionally, the landlord has not taken any steps to follow up the overdue amounts for over a year and only did so after the end of the tenancy when the tenant was seeking a refund of her bond. The tenant has had the benefit of these utilities during her tenancy and should be required to contribute to these costs but should also receive a discount for the landlord’s failure to mitigate her loss.
I find it just to award the tenant reimbursement of ninety percent of the water rates costs she owes to the landlord, being $1,130.62

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the $350.00 she spent getting the premise deep cleaned on 20 October 2025 (7 weeks after the end of the tenancy and the landlord stating she was happy with the state of cleanliness of the premise at the exit inspection).
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The landlord could not provide photographs to support this claim, stated she had not seen any cleaning issues during the exit inspection and that she had the premise cleaned when the real estate agent that was trying to re-tenant the premise told her that prospective tenants had said the curtain rods needed dusting and the premise given a general clean with no specific general cleanliness issues being noted or photographed. The invoice states, “cleaning services” and does not specify what cleaning was undertaken for the $350.00 charged.
The tenant provided two witness statements that confirmed, the tenant is a professional cleaner by trade and runs a cleaning business, one of her contractors had assisted her to undertake the exit clean and confirms the house was cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard and that the standard they clean to is higher than is required and always meets other property managers standards when they clean for clients exiting other rental properties.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving her claim and because the tenant has provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost, being witness statements that confirm the 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the tenant’s daughter damaged the bedroom curtain rail during the tenancy and that the repair the tenant had done was not sound, so the curtain rail fell off again in the weeks following the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $116.78 compensation for the refixing of the curtain rail to the concrete wall. The landlord did not produce an invoice for this repair but had a payment going out of her account for this amount on 5 January 2026. She also produced a photograph of a glued curtain rail that she says was taken a few weeks after the tenancy ended. The curtain rail is not loose in the photograph but there is evidence of glue around the end of the rail.
The tenant produced evidence she had paid a registered builder to do this repair and stated that had she been told the repair failed, she would have insisted he went back to repair it at no extra cost. The landlord never raised the issue with the tenant at the time she discovered the faulty repair, being a week or two after the tenancy ended. I find that it would not be equitable to require the tenant to be held liable for paying for this repair twice, when if the landlord had raised the issue with her at the time, the repair would have been covered by the initial cost paid to the builder by the tenant. This claim is dismissed for failure to produce sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and for the landlord’s failure to mitigate the loss by raising it with the tenant in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and allowing the repair to be completed under the builder’s warranty. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 3
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
[The tenant] gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Gaps in window-frames
The tenant claims there were gaps in the windows that required draught stopping tape that was never installed. The tenant proved she first raised this issue with the landlord on 17 February 2024.
The landlord proved she asked her handyman to address this issue on 15 March 2024, after they had both investigated what type of tape may be suitable for sash type windows. They found that brush tape, rather than standard draught stopping tape was the only option, but after trying to order this for Mitre10, the landlord and her handyman found that it was not available in New Zealand and was likely to cause the sash windows to jam.
The landlord provided a healthy homes assessment report dated 21July 2022, that passed the sash windows as they were for this same reason. It appears that this issue with the brush-based draught stopping tape was never conveyed to the tenant. The healthy homes inspector had informed the landlord that sash windows on a house this age (circa 1904) often shake a bit and rattle in the wind but there is no way to stop this other than to stop the windows being able to open and close, which would be a breach of the ventilation standard. The landlord also confirmed that the normally opening and closing windows all had draught stopping tap on them at all times during the tenancy.
The tenant followed the landlord up again on 30 July 2024, as it was getting colder, and the house was hard to keep warm and dry. The landlord told the tenant there was nothing that could be done, but the tenant remained concerned that nothing had been tried and questioned whether or not the landlord had taken all practicable steps to find a solution.
I am satisfied the landlord had investigated the issue and tried to find a solution and that her handyman and the healthy homes assessor had confirmed to her that the house met the draught stopping standard and that there was no suitable product for sealing these old sash windows any more than they were at that time. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and because the landlord provided evidence to disprove the claim. B. Gaps between back French doors
The tenant claims the French doors at the back of the house had a large gap where the doors meet, that let cold air into the premise.
The tenant could not produce any communications to show she had raised this issue with the landlord, nor did she provide any photographic evidence of the gap. The tenant says this gap was part of the window gap issue raised with the landlord. On review, doors are never mentioned in any of the communications to the landlord about the window gaps.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. C. Leaks
The tenant claims there were two leaks during the tenancy. The first was in the hallway and entrance to the kitchen and the second n her daughter’s bedroom.
The first leak was raised by tenant on 23 March 2024 and the landlord proved she got the gutters cleaned several times during the tenancy as her handyman’s April 2024 investigation had found that the issue was caused by the internal guttering’s becoming congested with leaves causing overruns. The landlord produced evidence that showed that on 10 April 2024, the landlord’s handyman replaced the flashing, found no other roof issues and thereafter regularly cleaned the gutters if another leaf blockage occurred. This issue was caused by the design of the house, a design fault that could only be managed and not eliminated. The landlord made the point this issue happened twice during the tenancy and the landlord had the trees trimmed and the guttering cleaned as necessary. After the litigation commenced, the landlord sent the tenant the email from the handyman confirming the remedy he had undertaken on 10 April 2024 and the photographic evidence he sent the landlord that day as part of her defence to this claim.
The second leak occurred on 29 May 2024, in the tenant’s daughter’s room. The landlord confirmed this room was at the opposite end of the house. This issue was investigated and remedied by another building contractor at the beginning of July 2024 and then on 7 August 2025 the contractor confirmed to the landlord there was no other roofing issues and was told the roof/concrete rib tiles were fine, the flashing were good and done correctly and there was nothing could be done.
The tenant said whenever it rained it would leak but accepted the landlord did try to clear the gutters but thought repeated leaks might mean there was a bigger issue.
The landlord says the communications between the parties proves the tenant only raised the kitchen leaks twice and the bedroom leak once and the landlord’s invoices and messages between her and her contractors proves that the landlord took steps to address these leaks in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and because the landlord provided sufficient evidence to disprove the claim. D. DVS system
On 8 May 2024, the tenant messaged the landlord informing her the DVS home ventilation solution needed its filter changed as it is flashing and not working. The tenant wanted to use this system to reduce condensation, prevent mould, and improve indoor air quality.
The landlord responded saying the DVS home ventilation system was on an annual service cycle, but she would follow up with provider.
On 30 July 2024, the tenant followed the landlord up as nothing been done about the faulty DVS. The landlord responded to the tenant informing her: a. She had a quote for $2,000 to fix the DVS; b. She did not have the money to do the repair; and c. That she needed to open the windows each morning before she leave the house to keep air moving and stop the dampness.
The landlord says the DVS was not a necessity and was a luxury and so she did not fix it.
The tenant says that due to the house’s age the DVS was essential to keep the house from being damp and cold and creating a breeding ground for mould.
The tenant confirmed she did ventilate the house every day, except days it was raining, and it would get so cold in the house she would see water tricking down the walls. The tenant confirmed she ran her one dehumidifier all the time to try to reduce the significant condensation that built up in the house, but it was not strong enough to cover whole house. She says she moved it around, but really needed multiple dehumidifiers and couldn’t afford to buy and run them.
A landlord is not required to install a DVS ventilation system and DVS systems do not meet the ventilation standard because they are a positive-pressure system that is not externally venting. However, if a DVS (or similar ventilation system) is installed in a rental property, the landlord is responsible for maintaining it in a reasonable state of repair and ensuring it is in good working order. This means the landlord must service the system, repair any mechanical or electrical faults, and replace broken or non-working items.
I find the landlord failed to remediate the DVS issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period of 68 weeks and 4 days (8 May 2024 to 31 August 2025) she has suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having the use of the DVS and living in a cold, damp home and having to pay increased power usage to constantly run a dehumidifier, being a rent rebate of $3,428.57.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because the breach was intentional because the landlord knew about the issue, had it investigated and quoted and did nothing to address the known issue. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and try to remind her of her obligations under the RTA to no avail. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, and inconvenience caused, and it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations. However, the Tribunal is statutorily barred from awarding exemplary damages for a breach that occurred more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 9 October 2025 application to the Tribunal. This breach occurred on 8 May 2024, 5 months prior to the cut off date. Therefore, the tenant’s exemplary damages claim is dismissed. Breach of healthy homes standards
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 2 February 2024. The compliance date for healthy homes standards was 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy, being Thursday 2 May 2024. Draught stopping standard
The tenant claims the house never met the draught stopping standard from the compliance date to the end of the tenancy.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case I have determined that the landlord had a healthy homes assessment report that proves the premise was compliant with all the standards and that the windows she complained of being draughty had been assessed as being exempt based on there being no way to address the shaky sash windows that let in some cold air at times due to the nature of the window and age of the house. The tenant failed to prove the French doors did not meet the standard on compliance date, as set out in the failure to maintain section of the Order above.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and because the landlord provided sufficient evidence to disprove the claim.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

[The tenant] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Section 19(1)(a) of the RTA requires a landlord to give the tenant a written receipt, signed by the landlord, showing: (i) the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and (ii) the amount and nature of the payment; and (iii) the date of the payment; and (iv) the name of the tenant.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA requires the landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre from the start of the tenancy on 13 February 2024 to 9 October 2025, being 604 days. Even then, the landlord short paid the bond by $600.00. She claims this was due to a systems error, but it was not remedied by 14 July 2026.
The landlord confirmed she was an experienced landlord who is well aware of her obligation to lodge the bond within 23 working days of receiving it and that this was a genuine error that was caused by there being a delay in the payment of the bond while the landlord applied to be an accredited WINZ provider of rental accommodation.
The landlord proved the tenant’s parents had paid the bond for the tenant around 15 February 2024 and that the landlord had repaid this money to them when she received the bond from WINZ on 23 February 2024.
The parties also proved the landlord has asked the tenant to complete the bond lodgement form on 3 March 2024 and again on 4 May 2024, despite the tenant having completed it and sending it to the landlord on 3 March 2024. This was one of several signs that the landlord was disorganised with her management of the tenancy and the statutorily required administration processes.
The landlord only lodged part of the bond on 9 October 2025 because the bond centre had contacted her on 18 September 2025, after the tenant applied for her bond to be refunded and found that it had never been lodged.
The landlord has confirmed she was aware of the requirement to lodge the bond but was distracted and so failed to do it.
I find the landlord has 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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after her receipt of it and that she did not.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlords to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 13 February 2024 and still had not lodged the $600.00 remainder of the bond with the Bond Centre as at the date of the hearing; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting her bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. $2,300.00 of the tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 86 weeks and 2 days and a further $600.00 was not protected for an additional 40 weeks (from 10 October 2025 to 14 July 2026) and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond. The tenant called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy and that was the first she knew that the bond had never been lodged; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I consider the award of 100% of the maximum penalty available because of the duration of the breach, the continuity of breach after the landlord became aware of the breach when the tenant raised her concerns and the increased risk to the tenant of not being able to recover her bond when the money should have been on trust for her with the Bond Centre. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claims. Her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord also applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s breaches of her obligations under the RTA. The benefit potential future tenants will gain from knowing about the landlord’s conduct in this matter outweighs any detriment to her of having her name and identifying details published.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509511 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509511 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions