What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532666 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (BN-17503568) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5532666?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532666?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13993283-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532666 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (BN-17503568) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5532666?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532666?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13993283-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Celeste Place, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5532666 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 July 2026.

The tenant applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlords made a claim over the bond for damage they say was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The tenant refuted their claim. Background

The tenancy commenced on 21 July 2024, for a one-year fixed-term tenancy, under the management of Ray White. At the expiry of that tenancy, the owners assumed responsibility for managing the property directly. The fixed term tenancy was renewed for a further year, commencing on 21 July 2025.

On 24 January 2026, the owners received a text message from the tenant advising that, due to personal family circumstances in the Philippines, she wished to terminate the fixed-term tenancy early and intended to vacate the property on 14 February 2026, giving approximately three weeks' notice. <No_Application>2

Out of courtesy and concern for her circumstances, the male landlord telephoned the tenant the same day. During their conversation, the tenant advised that she did not know how long she would be away from New Zealand. The male landlord asked about the tenant’s employment and her then 15-year- old daughter's schooling at Westlake Girls High School. She indicated those matters would be decided later. She also advised that she intended to discuss the situation with her flatmates later that week.

Following that conversation, the male landlord sent the tenant a link to the Tenancy Services website, explaining the process about early termination of a fixed-term tenancy.

On 29 January 2026, the landlord received notification from Tenancy Services that the tenant had lodged application 5432470 seeking a reduction in the fixed term tenancy by two months and raising issues with the toilet seat moving when you sit on it, the lack of hot water in the shower, missing or damaged door knobs, sparking power points in the lounge.

A mediation was scheduled for 12 February 2026. The parties confirmed the mediator encouraged them to try and resolve matters between them, which they agreed to do, and informed the parties she would follow them up to see if they had made any progress when she returned from leave. The parties confirmed to me that on19 March 2026 they told the mediator they had come to an agreement, were both happy, they did not require a consent order, and the tenant withdrew her application. .

The parties also confirmed to me that on 13 February 2026, the tenant made a direct request to the landlords that the weekly rent be reduced from $640.00 per week to $500.00. The landlords offered to reduce the rent to $600.00 per week from 22 February 2026, provided the tenant remained in the property until the expiry of the fixed-term tenancy, on 20 July 2026. The tenant accepted this proposal, and both parties signed a Variation of Tenancy Agreement confirming the reduced rent.

The parties confirmed the repair/maintenance work was completed between 16 and 18 February 2026, and on 19 March 2026, the tenant confirmed to a mediator from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIA) that she was satisfied with the outcome and withdrew her application 5432470.

The landlords were under the reasonable belief that all the repair and maintenance issues raised in application 5432470 had been resolved/ concluded to the tenant’s satisfaction when she withdrew her prior application to the Tribunal on 19 March 2026 and that the tenant was estopped from raising these issues again in the current application.

The tenant confirmed that she had not intended to raised these issues again, as they had been resolved to her satisfaction, but when the landlords decided to make a claim over her bond for the necessary repairs to the range hood <No_Application>3 filter/scree, she decided to re- raise these claims in retaliation , as well as a new claim for the electrical switch board not having a cover for the entire tenancy, which she had recently discovered was unlawful when the electrician repaired some sparking power points.

Generally, a tenant cannot raise a claim(s) that were previously raised and settled in the Tenancy Tribunal. Once a dispute is settled via a binding tribunal order or a sealed mediator's order, the issue is considered final under the legal principle of finality (res judicata). However, in this matter, the agreement made at mediation to reduce the rent was recorded by the parties in a variation to the tenancy agreement, the landlords’ agreement to undertake the necessary repairs/maintenance was accepted by the tenant but not recorded in a sealed order by the mediator nor by the parties. However, the tenant withdrew all claims in application 5432470, after attending 12 February 2026 mediation.

Because the past agreement between the parties was never recorded or sealed as an official order, the tenant might technically be able to apply to the Tribunal again, though she must prove the claims was never validly resolved. It is under this context that I will examine each of the tenant’s current claims.

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. <No_Application>4

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, at the Tribunal’s discretion, when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

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. <No_Application>5 TENANT’S CLAIMS

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) 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”. 1

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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .

There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .

Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.

Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.

Breaching any 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.

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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 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]. 4 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]. <No_Application>6 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. Door knobs

The tenant confirmed: a. The doorknob in the master bedroom was falling off and she had to use masking tape in order for the doorknob to not continuously fall off. She says she raised this at the beginning of the tenancy in July 2024 and that this doorknob was only replaced in February 2026. She stated that she had been forced to use this faulty doorknob, which is she claims was a serious safety/hazard risk. Further, she stated the owners came and tried to fix it a number of times but after a few days it fell off again each time; and b. The doorknob in the closet of the smallest room- was also falling off from the start of the tenancy and this doorknob only got fixed just before the end of the tenancy and the doorknob was still showing signs the fix may not be permanent.

The landlord confirmed the first time the tenant had raised these issues was on 12 February 2026, as part of her first withdrawn application to the Tribunal. The tenant could not provide any evidence that she had raised these issues earlier than in her prior application to the Tribunal nor did she have any evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that these repairs were not successfully carried out between 16 and 18 February 2026 as claimed by the landlord.

It seems unlikely the tenant was still having issues with these doorknobs on 19 March 2026, when the mediator called her for a follow up, and the tenant withdrew her application because she was happy with the repairs the landlord had carried out between 16 and 18 February 2026.

This claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. B. Toilet seat

The tenant claims the toilet seat was loose and wobbly/ moving around when sat on from the start of the tenancy. She state the owners came and visited the property and tightened the seat many times, but it came lose again very quickly and no permanent solution to this issue was ever found.

The male landlord stated the toilet seat has been tightened as much as it could be and that it could not be tightened anymore. He stated that it moved slightly but not enough to warrant the purchase and installation of a new toilet. The toilet seat on a number of toilets cannot be replaced and in order to address an issue such as this the entire toilet needs to be replaced. <No_Application>7

The tenant did not produce any photographic or video evidence to show how bad the issue was, only that from her perspective it was a significant issue. Additionally, she did not produce evidence of when she first raised the issue with the landlord nor did she issue any 14 day notices requiring him to replace the toilet seat or the entire toilet if need be.

Again, it seems unlikely the tenant was still having issues with the toilet seat on 19 March 2026, when the mediator called her for a follow up, and the tenant withdrew her application because she was happy with the repairs the landlord had carried out between 16 and 18 February 2026.

This claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. C. PowerPoint in living room sparking

The parties confirmed the issue with the sparking power points in lounge and kitchen was first raised in the prior application to the Tribunal and was fixed on 16 February 2026.

The tenant says this issue was reported again on 22 June 2026 because the power point in the lounge began sparking again after the tenant used her hair dryer and then removed its plug from the power point.

The male landlord confirmed the tenant had not reported the 22 June 2026 incident to him and the tenant then admitted she had only reported it during the current hearing.

A landlord cannot address an issue that has not been reported to it. In failing to report this issue to the landlord immediately, the tenant was in breach of her s40(1) (d) of the RTA obligation “to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”. This is a serious breach as a sparking power point can pose a fire risk.

This claim is dismissed for the tenant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The male landlord has proven the original sarking power points were remedied with a few days after the 12 February 2026 mediation where the tenant’s first application was clarified. The tenant confirmed that the other alleged breach of the landlords s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligation was in fact the tenant’s breach of s40(1)(d) of the RTA that the landlord could not address in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances as the tenant did not raise it with him in a timely manner. D. Smoke alarm in hallway/living room faulty

The tenant claimed the smoke alarm in the hallway/lounge was faulty and kept going off. She says the most recent time it went off was on 17 June 2026.

The tenant claims she reported this fault to the owners many times and all they did was come to the property and replace the battery. She says she then got <No_Application>8 tired of reporting it, so it never got fixed. Further, she claims that in the end she decided not to use it, and she took the battery out.

The landlords say they put two smoke alarms into the house when it only required one in the living room/ hallway. These smoke alarms have a 10-year life span and were manufactured in 2019. The batteries have an expiry date of 2030.

The landlords confirmed the tenant raised this issue once and so he replaced the battery and tested the alarm and the unit was working well. The male landlord was shocked when he went back on 21 July 2026 to find the top of one alarm had been removed without his knowledge. The male landlord stated he put the top of the smoke alarm back and since this time there the alarm has never gone off. He stated that had he been told it had gone off again after he replaced the battery, he would have investigated it further.

I note that a tenant cannot tamper with, disconnect, or remove a smoke alarm. Doing so is against the law and can result in a fine. If the alarm uses replaceable batteries, the tenant must replace them first and if the alarm keeps beeping or is faulty, the tenant must tell their landlord or property manager right away.

This claim is dismissed for the tenant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. E. Sliding door to terrace did not open or close properly

The tenant states the sliding door in the terrace was stuck and very hard to slide and that it was fixed in February 2026.

The tenant did not produce any evidence of the issue nor or having raised it with the landlord prior to the tenant’s prior application to the Tribunal.

The landlords confirmed the tenant had not reported it to them prior to the tenant’s previous Tribunal application, they had it fixed in February 2026, she had confirmed she was happy with the remediation work when she spoke to the mediator on 19 March 2026 and she had never raised it since.

This claim is dismissed for the tenant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Failure to meet healthy homes standards

The tenant claims that the landlords has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals <No_Application>9 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 21 July 2024. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all of the healthy homes’ standards, being Monday,18 November 2024.

The tenant could not say what of the five healthy homes standards she was alleging the landlords had breached and she did not produce any evidence that supported her claim.

The landlords produced a heathy homes assessment report dated 10 July 2024 that confirms the premise met all of the healthy homes standards.

This claim is dismissed for the tenant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlords having produced compelling evidence that disproves the claim. Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise

The tenant says the landlords failed to meet their obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA as the premise did not meet the building and health and safety laws in relation to the electrical switch board.

The tenant produced a photograph dated 25 June 2026 that proves the electrical switch board was not covered. The landlords produced evidence this was fixed on 16 February 2026, at the same time as the doorknob in master room was fixed.

The landlords stated they were not aware that electrical switchboards in New Zealand must have an enclosure or cover that safely encloses all live internal parts as exposed live wires or unprotected components are strictly illegal and dangerous. All live internal parts must be completely blocked off by physical barriers, insulation, or an outer enclosure so people cannot touch them by accident. <No_Application>10

The landlords stated that the switchboard in their own home was also uncovered and had they known that switchboard assemblies must comply with strict rules like AS/NZS 61439 and the general wiring rules in AS/NZS 3000, they would have addressed this sooner.

The tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlords were in breach of AS/NZS 61439 and AS/NZS 3000 and therefore s45(1)(c) of the RTA, but that this breach was nit intentional and as soon as it was brought to their attention, they had it fixed within days.

I find that, given the landlords have given the tenant a considerable rent rebate from 22 February 2026 to 20 July 2026, for no other reason than she was having financial difficulties, that it would not be fair or just to fine them for this unwitting breach, that the evidence shows did not cause the tenant any issues during the tenancy and was fixed promptly when raised. LANDLORD’S CLAIM AGAINST THE BOND

Should the tenant receive her full bond back without deduction?

The landlords claim the tenant is liable for the cost of the repairs to the rangehood as they state that it was her careless acts or , or the careless acts or omissions of persons in the premise with her permission that caused damage to the filters.

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. <No_Application>11

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.

On 9 April 2026, the tenant reported to the landlords (via WhatsApp message and attaching a photograph that was submitted in evidence) that there are black particles falling from the range hood making it difficult to cook on the stive top without these black particles falling into the food being prepared.

O 10 April 2026, the landlords came to the premise to investigate the cause of the black particles. The male landlord opened the inside of the rangehood and noticed the filter/screen looked torn or ripped. The female landlord told the tenant that it was normal for particles to fall, but noted the inside of the range hood was very greasy and she reminded the tenant that she needed to clean it monthly with a damp cloth. The tenant says she wiped the outside of the range hood regularly but was not aware of the requirement to wipe down the inside as well. The tenant confirmed to the Tribunal that she had not really used the range hood during the tenancy, as she wanted to save money, and that she had instructed any flatmates not to use it. Further, she said that because her tenancy was ending in a few months’ time, she did not comment on the range hood any further but was concerned the landlords did not fix the torn filter/screen. She was concerned that she may cut her fingers on the torn range hood screen/filter if she tried to clean the inside as instructed, so she did not undertake the cleaning.

The tenant informed the landlords that she believed mice had been in the range hood and created the damage. The landlords confirmed there were no rodent droppings or any other signs of mice in the house generally or the range hood specifically. The landlords say the filter/screen was not torn like this at the start if the tenancy and the tenant caused the damage.

The tenant says she never used the range hood, and she never saw an entry inspection report.

The male landlord stated there was an entry inspection report that only shows the outside of the range hood. And that it was installed in 2021 and has a 7-year warranty. <No_Application>12

The tenancy did not commence until 21 July 2024 and there was no evidence to prove the condition of the inside of the range hood in the entry inspection. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied the tenant caused the damage during the tenancy by her careless acts or omissions or that her flatmates did so. Therefore, the landlords claim against the bond for this repair is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the tenant caused it during the tenancy. 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 not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims, I dismiss her application for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons