What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532960 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 5532960?

22/6: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532960?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14049810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532960 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 5532960?

22/6: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532960?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14049810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

123A Osprey Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5532960 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5532960 — net $1,320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5/8/2026	$3,630.00		Rent arrears to 5/8/2026
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness and repair		$750.00	Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness and repair
Compensation: Cleaning and rubbish removal at start of tenancy		$300.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal at start of tenancy
22/6		$3,900.00	22/6
Total award	$3,630.00	$4,950.00
Net award		$1,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,320.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5532960 — net $1,320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5/8/2026	$3,630.00		Rent arrears to 5/8/2026
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness and repair		$750.00	Failure to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness and repair
Compensation: Cleaning and rubbish removal at start of tenancy		$300.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal at start of tenancy
22/6		$3,900.00	22/6
Total award	$3,630.00	$4,950.00
Net award		$1,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,320.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details..
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $245.00, by way of rent credit, calculated as shown in the table below. [The landlord/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings.
The tenant with a support person at the first hearing.
The property manager attended the second hearing on 5/8/2026 with the landlords/owners of the property and they jointly provided evidence and submissions.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord has cross applied for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy because of those arrears.
The tenancy started on 12 March 2026 and was for a fixed term due to end on 13/3/2027.
When the roof leaked for a second time in April 2026, the landlord agreed to change the tenancy to a periodic tenancy so that the tenants could give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
At a preliminary hearing convened on 19 June, the tenants indicated that they were actively looking for alternative accommodation and wanted to be able to leave when they found somewhere suitable. It was therefore agreed that the tenancy agreement was to be varied so that the fixed term was waived, and the tenancy was to become a periodic tenancy.
As a periodic tenancy also permits a landlord to give 90 days’ notice to end a tenancy (without reason provided the notice is not retaliatory), the landlord agreed not to issue notice, at least until these proceedings are resolved.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a rent summary that confirmed the rent owing until the date of the hearing. The rent awarded is calculated on the basis that it includes the $675 rent recorded on the tenancy agreement.
The tenants explained that the arrears had arisen because they had reduced the rent they had paid because they considered that to be fair, because of the issues at the property, which form the basis of their application. They also said that they had received advice from a lawyer at Citizen’s Advice Bureau that this was an appropriate and proportionate step.
While there are no provisions in the RTA that enable a tenant to withhold rent, and it is a somewhat dangerous strategy, in that the landlord’s application is to terminate the tenancy on account of those arrears, it is simply noted that this was done after receiving legal advice.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations at the beginning of the tenancy?

At the commencement of a tenancy, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair and ensure the premises comply with the healthy homes standards HHS (and provide a declaration that compliance is met). See section 45(1) (a) (b) and (bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
Exemplary damages of $750 can be awarded if a landlord fails to provide the required HHS declaration. Did the landlord provide the required Healthy Homes Declaration at the commencement of the tenancy?
I am satisfied that the landlord provided the required Healthy Homes Standards compliance report at the commencement of the tenancy. I accept the property manager’s affirmed evidence that the report/declaration was left with the tenancy agreement, a pre inspection report for the tenants to complete and return and the keys at the commencement of the tenancy.
Exemplary damages for failing to provide the report cannot therefore be awarded. Did the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards at the commencement of the tenancy?
I am also satisfied that it is likely the premises complied with the HHS requirements at the commencement of the tenancy. The report provided confirmed compliance.
In response to questions about the age of that report (it was completed in September 2020) and continued compliance, the property manager confirmed that a staff member for the large property management company she works for, is an authorised/trained inspector for HHS purposes and went through the property to ensure it complied, before the tenancy began. She said it is a policy of the company that they will not rent/let properties that are not compliant.
Several issues were identified by the property manager, during that inspection, but it was confirmed that the house remained complaint with the HHS before the tenancy began. While the September 2020 HHS report identified that the house had windows but no stays on some windows, window stays are not a HH requirement, provided the windows have latches that enable them to be fixed open.
On the pre-inspection report (in relation to HHS) the tenants completed the day the tenancy commenced, it is noted that the ventilation fan above the stove “only works on one”, that the kitchen curtains “are very dirty and a little mould is starting to grow”. The tenants ticked the box confirming that the bathroom ventilation fan was working and noted that the window latches were “worn n loose”.
The tenants did not provide any firm evidence to support their position that the house was not compliant with the HHS at the start of the tenancy. The report they provided, from the Home Performance Advisor for Te Whatu Ora is dated 5 May 2026 and therefore based on her observations of conditions/compliance after the start of the tenancy and after the roof had leaked on two occasions. It is not evidence of non-compliance at the commencement of the tenancy.
I find there is insufficient evidence to establish the property did not comply with HHS at the commencement of the tenancy.

Was the house provided in a clean and tidy condition with rubbish removed?

The evidence does establish that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy and did not ensure that all rubbish was removed.
The evidence clearly establishes that the house was not sufficiently clean that it met the required “reasonable” standard. In particular the kitchen/lounge surfaces (including the oven and stove and blinds) required cleaning to remove food, grease and fly stains, and the toilet was not properly fixed to the floor meaning the floorboards also required cleaning to ensure the toilet area was sanitary. Rubbish including broken glass at the back of the house needed to be removed
The landlord offered the tenants $100 compensation (for the cleaning and rubbish removal) when notified of the issues at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants said they did not accept that was fair as they did not want to have to do the cleaning (as they also tried to unpack) and did not think that amount was sufficient for the time they would need to spend to properly clean.
The tenants said they had been advised by the property manager when they viewed the house and accepted the tenancy, that the property would be properly cleaned before the tenancy started and that other work would also be done, including replacement of old and grubby curtains. Was the house provided in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy?
I am satisfied that the property was not provided in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants’ identified on the pre inspection report that the toilet was loose and needed to be properly bolted to the ground, the towel rail was broken and not connected to the wall, the front door handle lock and keys needed to be fixed, kitchen drawers were broken, the front deck fence was very loose, the lights were flicking in the bedroom and lounge and some window latches were loose.
The broken towel rail, door handle lock and kitchen drawers are all basic maintenance requirements that should be met at the commencement of a tenancy, to fulfil the obligation on a landlord to ensure the property is provided in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The landlords only real explanation for the failures with respect to rubbish removal and cleaning and basic maintenance was that they had “dropped the ball” as other work at the property had been identified and took priority in the time the property was vacant between tenancies. In particular they had needed to replace the hot water cylinder and fix floorboards that had rotted as a result of the leak which took time and resources. The bathroom ceiling needed to be repainted because the paint was flaking off and curtains needed to be replaced. They did that work and overlooked the cleanliness, rubbish removal and other maintenance issues.
Intention is established. The landlords have many years’ experience as landlords managing properties. Providing a property in a clean and tidy condition and ensuring rubbish has been removed is the most basic of requirements. The District Court decision of TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 stated that “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I am satisfied that compensatory and exemplary damages are appropriate. The landlords knowingly provided a property that was not in a reasonable condition as regards cleanliness, rubbish and required some basic maintenance. While they offered $100 compensation for the cleaning/rubbish removal, I agree with the tenants it was inadequate in quantum and that a preferable response would have been for them to have paid to have paid a cleaner to attend promptly to clean properly and remove rubbish. They did attend promptly to the maintenance issues raised.
The $300 compensation awarded for cleaning costs and rubbish removal is considered a fair assessment of the time taken for the tenants to attend to the cleaning and remove the rubbish.
The exemplary damages acknowledge that the tenants should not have had to do that cleaning/rubbish removal work, and neither is there an excuse for basic maintenance items such as towel rails that are broken/not attached to the wall, a front door handle and lock that is loose not being attended to and the loose toilet. It was a landlord responsibility and an important one if a tenancy is to get off to a good start to attend to these matters prior to the commencement of a tenancy.
The mitigating factor is that the landlord attended promptly to these issues after the tenancy commenced and has continued to respond proactively. It is also likely that the landlord was not aware of some issues. In that regard I accept the property manager’s evidence that she did not recall the issue with the toilet being loose as it was not visibly loose when she showed prospective tenants through the property.
The exemplary damages awarded are considered appropriate having regard to the required factors. Compensation/exemplary damages for roof leaks, significant mould and damp conditions after storms
On 26 March 2026, after a significant storm event in the local area, the roof at the property in the living/dining room leaked for the first time.
The tenants advised the landlord of the leak that night, and the landlord had a specialist roofing contractor attend later that same afternoon. The contractor thought the leak was likely to be coming from an area around an aerial and resealed that area, the same day.
Unfortunately, that repair was not the end of the leaking roof.
On 8 April 2026 Tauranga had another significant rain event over several days, this time with a tornado in the area where the house is located. The roof leaked again in the lounge/dining area, and again the landlord responded promptly on 10 April once notified and when the rain stooped.
This time the landlord considered the damage was likely to be more extensive and lodged an insurance claim, so an insurance assessment was necessary. Insurance covered the interior ceiling repairs but not the exterior repairs which were now identified as significantly more extensive.
The interior repairs involved replacing some areas of the ceiling and plastering and replacing flashings on the exterior of the roof.
That work was completed in early May, partly due to issues with a significant backlog of work required in the Bay of Plenty after the two storms.
The leak in the roof caused issues with water ingress and worsened issues with the electrical circuitry. The electricians report of 29/4 confirming that the “flickering lights issue was caused by the leaking roof and that “all old surface fittings will require replacing once roof repaired”.
On 25 May 2026 the landlord had window stays replaced, wedges added to window handles to ensure they could be shut tight and window handles replaced. The rangehood in the kitchen was replaced and the heat pump cleaned and serviced. A deep clean of the property has also occurred.
Pleasingly the tenants advise that this work has resulted in the cold, damp conditions at the property resolving.
Section 45 requires a landlord to both provide the property in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to its age) and maintain it to a reasonable standard during the tenancy. It also requires on going compliance with the HH standards.
It is apparent that the landlord has responded quickly and appropriately to the tenants’ concerns as they have arisen. It is equally apparent that the significant issues with the roof leaking and the ongoing effect of this at an older property, has been significant for both parties.
While there is insufficient evidence the property did not comply with HH standards at the commencement of the tenancy, there is sufficient evidence to establish a finding that this changed with the roof leak and cold damp air and water entering the house after this. The tenants endured cold damp conditions after the leaks, for a significant period of time and there was also a significant requirement for a fairly constant string of tradespeople to attend at the property from the beginning of the tenancy. This has caused significant disruption to the tenants and their ability to quietly enjoy the property (without interruption by the landlord). As noted above some of that required work should have been attended to prior to the tenancy commencing.
The tenants have claimed for compensatory and exemplary damages as a result of these issues.
More recently the tenants have also claimed exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment and unlawful entry.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said he had attended at the property to inspect progress with the required work after the leaks (as evidenced by the video footage) but confirmed he had not entered the house.
On one occasion, when the plasterers were working on the ceiling of the lounge, he had “called in” without providing formal notice to check progress; although the tenants were aware the tradespeople were there. On all other occasions he was observing work that was in progress or had recently been completed, from outside.
On the day the tenant was suspicious (based on what her son told her) that the landlord had entered the house without permission, he said he had attended at the property, to look under the house to see if there were loose floorboards that needed replacing, as the tenant had raised this as an issue. The tenant was unable to provide evidence to confirm her “suspicion” that the landlord was inside the house without permission.
On the other occasions he was checking on work in progress or work that needed to be done, and only from the exterior of the property.
I am satisfied that the ongoing work required at the property from the commencement of the tenancy and then more acutely, from 19/3 when the roof first leaked, through until June has interfered with the tenants right to quietly enjoy the property, but not that there is intention to “harass” as required for exemplary damages under s 38.
In my view therefore, the appropriate remedy is compensation by way of a rent reduction for the period the work was on going and caused both lack of amenity, significant disruption and the property to be damp and cold to an extent that it breached the landlord’s obligation to ensure compliance with the continuing obligation to comply with healthy homes standards as confirmed by the Te Whatu Ora report..
That is because I am unable to find the landlord has intentionally “harassed” the tenants as required or intentionally failed to attend to required maintenance as those issues have arisen during the tenancy. The landlord has responded appropriately as the significant and compounding issues have arisen.
A roof leak is an urgent issue, and it has been treated as such on both occasions and the repairs and resulting issues also attended to as promptly as was reasonably possible. The tenants were also advised back in April, that the fixed term would not be enforced, and they could leave with 21 days’ notice.
In a real sense, their decision to stay on during the repair period, has contributed to the issues that have arisen. In an equally real sense, the landlord would have been without rent for a reasonably significant period had the tenants exercised that option to leave. The rent reduction attempts to balance these factors whilst taking account of the significant disruption caused by the repairs and the condition of the property until the repairs (including the removal of mould and cleaning of the heat pump) were completed.
The rent reduction is significant but, in my view, proportionate to the lack of amenity, living conditions and disruption that has occurred for the period which it is to apply. I note that as compensation/exemplary damages have been awarded for the cleanliness and maintenance issues identified at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no rent reduction for that period to avoid duplication.
I have also considered the tenants claim that the condition of the property was misrepresented to them at the commencement of the tenancy and find there is insufficient evidence to support that claim, which the property manager denied. Filing fee reimbursement and name suppression
Both parties’ claims are substantially successful, I decline to award that either party is to reimburse the other for the filing fee and approve both parties’ requests for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5532960 — Cleanliness at 123A Osprey Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5532960 — Cleanliness at 123A Osprey Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations at the beginning of the tenancy?

Was the house provided in a clean and tidy condition with rubbish removed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations at the beginning of the tenancy?

Was the house provided in a clean and tidy condition with rubbish removed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.