What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514175 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 5514175?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514175?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514175?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14197230-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514175 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 5514175?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514175?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514175?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14197230-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5514175 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514175 — net $605.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Repairs to tiles and walls	$402.50	Repairs to tiles and walls
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$605.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$605.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514175 — net $605.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Repairs to tiles and walls	$402.50	Repairs to tiles and walls
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$605.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$605.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The party] and [The party] must pay [The landlord] $605.50 by payments of $20.00 per week. The payments are to begin the week following the full payment of the balance of rent arrears, also being paid by weekly payments of $20.00.
The amount to pay is calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$175.00 Repairs to tiles and walls$402.50 Filing fee$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$605.50

Reasons

[The party] and [The party] attended the hearing. [The party] and [The party], [The party]’s father, emailed that he had moved out, but did that not formally applied to end the tenancy. The tenant did not apply for a change of tenant or a new tenancy when her boyfriend moved in. It is appropriate for his name to remain on the order.
Both parties have made applications.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. At mediation the parties reached settlement of the rent arrears and payment of the bond to the landlord. The Tenant’s application
In her application the tenant set out ways in which she considered the landlord had breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). These mainly involve repairs and maintenance and a claim that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The tenant 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 and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant also 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).
I will deal with each issue in the order that the tenant has set out in her application. The Firebox
The tenant claims that the firebox was unsafe and a breach of HHS because of its condition. The landlord stated that throughout the tenancy the tenant did not make any complaint to the landlord about the firebox. The tenant said that the condition of the firebox was raised with a different property manager than the one who appeared at the hearing. There is no evidence from the tenant that supports that she raised the issue of the firebox.
The landlord stated that since the tenancy ended the firebox has been tested and it has been confirmed that it is working satisfactorily. He stated that the tenants used it to burn rubbish. There was evidence of that in the photo taken at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the firebox and breached HHS fails because: a. The tenant has not produced sufficient evidence for me to make a finding that the firebox was faulty. b. The tenant has not produced evidence that she informed the landlord about a fault with the firebox. c. If the firebox was faulty, that was not a breach of HHS because there was a heatpump that met the heating standard for the living room. d. The landlord cannot be found to have failed to maintain the firebox if the tenant has failed to inform the landlord of a problem. e. The evidence suggests that the landlord was not informed of the tenant’s complaint about the firebox until the tenant’s Tribunal application, lodged after the tenancy ended. Draughts not repaired.
The tenant claimed that the premises was draughty and therefore did not meet HHS.
The landlord stated that the tenant did not inform the landlord of any issues with draughts during the two year tenancy.
I have checked the evidence available and do not find any texts or emails showing that the tenant requested maintenance regarding draughts at the premises. There are texts where the landlord asks to repair an external door, and the tenant agrees that the landlord can enter the premises the next day.
Unless a tenant can prove that there was an issue with draughts and that the landlord was informed of the problem, the claim for compensation and exemplary damages will fail.
There is insufficient evidence of draughts in the premises and therefore the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Mould
The tenant stated that the premises failed HHS because of moisture causing mould.
The landlord stated that in the last six months of the tenancy there was more mould in the bathroom.
The appearance of mould does not prove that premises has a moisture problem. Mould is a common problem in the Wellington region because of the humidity causing condensation. It requires that tenants clean any mould when it appears. To prove that mould was caused by damp premises with high moisture levels, the tenant would need to have provided a report showing moisture levels in walls etc.
The evidence is insufficient to prove that the premises failed HHS regarding moisture. The mould is consistent with condensation forming as a result of normal use of premises.
When the landlord was informed of a leak that could cause mould, the landlord employed a plumber who attended to fix the leak and check the bathroom for leaks. The landlord provided the invoice for that work dated March 2026. The tenant did not report any leak after that date.
The claim that the landlord failed to maintain and that the premises failed moisture HHS is dismissed. The condition of the premises when the tenancy began
The tenant stated that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean condition when the tenancy commenced on 24 May 2024. She provided photos of the premises that are date stamped. The property manager changed to the current property manager in July 2024. The tenant has not provided evidence showing that she communicated with the original property manager, RentCare, about the condition of the premises.
When a landlord is in breach of a condition of the Tenancy Agreement of the RTA a tenant must give the landlord an opportunity to rectify the problem. There is evidence that the tenant informed the landlord of a shower leak and requested the cost of a shower rose. There is no evidence that the tenant informed the landlord that the property was not reasonably clean. If the tenant believed the landlord was in breach of the RTA regarding cleaning, one would expect that there might be reference to that in the email. The claim regarding this issue is dismissed. Water damage in the property
The tenant claims that there was water damage in the premises. She referred to a wall where the wallpaper had lifted.
The landlord submitted that there was no leak at the property in the area of that wallpaper during the tenancy. He pointed to the initial report of the condition of the premises which shows that the wallpaper lifted due to a leak, prior to this tenant’s tenancy.
There is insufficient evidence of an unrepaired leak at the premises causing wallpaper to lift. The claim is dismissed. Moss on the path.
The tenant claimed that there was moss on the pathway that the landlord did not clean off. The landlord responded that it was not until the application after the tenancy that the tenant complained of moss on the pathway.
As stated earlier, a landlord’s responsibility to maintain arises when the tenant informs the landlord of maintenance that is required. Unless a tenant can prove that the landlord was informed of the problem, the claim for compensation and exemplary damages will fail.
There is insufficient evidence that the tenant informed the landlord during the tenancy of maintenance needed on the pathway and therefore the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Oven
The oven failed in the first two months during the time of the previous property manager. It failed a second time in 2024. The property manager arranged for a contractor to repair the oven. The tenant did not inform the landlord that there was a problem with the oven after the second repair.
In her application the tenant claimed that the oven repair carried out was unsatisfactory. She said that after she moved out she realized that the oven took far longer to cook food than the oven she used in the next property.
The landlord reasonably believed that the repair was successful after the contractor carried out work and the tenant made no further complaint about the oven after 2024. The claim is dismissed. Shower rose
The tenant requested compensation from the previous property manager in 2024 because she purchased a new shower rose. However, because purchase was without the property manager’s approval, the property manager declined to pay for the rose.
The new rose was the tenant’s property because she paid for it and had not been compensated for it by the landlord. The tenant’s option was to take the rose with her when she left the property and attach the old defective rose to the shower. In that way she would not have suffered any loss, and the landlord would not have received any benefit.
The Tribunal orders compensation where a landlord has agreed to pay a tenant for repairs and has failed to make the payment. That case does not apply, and the claim must be dismissed. Door repairs
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to repair the external door. The panel within the door frame had come loose. She has claimed that it became a HHS issue due to a possible draught.
The landlord stated that there was no draught into the premises from the door. The landlord stated that the tenant told him that her ex-boyfriend who was living with her at the time, was a builder and could fix the door. However after 3 months, at an inspection, the landlord noticed that the door was not fixed. The landlord stated that at the inspection there was a disagreement between the tenant and her ex-boyfriend about whether he would fix the door. As a result, on 24 March the tenant agreed to have a builder fix the door. There is text evidence for that approval. The landlord stated that the builder attended to fix the door but the ex- boyfriend sent the builder away, stating that they were going to move out and they did not want anything fixed before the tenancy ended.
There is insufficient evidence that the landlord failed to repair the external door. The balance of probability is that the landlord was willing to repair the door but was discouraged from doing so when the builder went to do the work. The claim is dismissed. The Landlord’s application

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) RTA.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
I have noted from the tenant’s evidence that at the commencement of the tenancy there were areas of the premises that do not appear to have been reasonably clean. Her claim is that she should not have to pay for cleaning and should be compensated for the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. However, I am satisfied that by comparing the 2024 photos supplied by the tenant and the end of tenancy photos, more cleaning was needed at the end than the beginning. The photos taken by property manager at the start of the tenancy show a clean oven. The photos at the end of the tenancy show an oven needing cleaning.
The cleaning work was carried out by the owner. The owner has claimed $45.00 per hour and cleaning materials of $50.00. I accept that there was 5 hours of cleaning. However, the landlord can only claim a loss, not a profit. The owner is not a cleaning business with overheads, GST and tax. For that reason, where an owner carries out work at the property, the Tribunal generally allows $25.00 per hour for that work.
Having considered the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that $150.00 of the landlord’s claim for $275.00 is reasonable compensation. The $150.00 is to cover general cleaning and oven cleaning.

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.
The landlord provided photos of patched walls and damaged tiles. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The invoiced amount for a contractor to carry out repairs is $402.50. That is a reasonable charge for the work involved.
The amounts ordered are proved. Summary
All matters raised in the parties’ applications and evidence provided in support of their claims have been considered in reaching this decision. Filing fee
Because only the landlord has been successful with a claim, the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 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 landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted. The tenant also applied for name suppression but did not substantially succeed in proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514175 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514175 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.