What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5544060 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 5544060?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $14,245.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5544060?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5544060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5544060 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 5544060?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $14,245.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5544060?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5544060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5544060 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5544060 — net $12,905.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 September 2026 (reduced for failure to mitigate	$14,245.00		Rent arrears to 11 September 2026 (reduced for failure to mitigate
Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond
Total award	$14,245.00	$500.00
Net award	$12,905.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,905.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5544060 — net $12,905.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 September 2026 (reduced for failure to mitigate	$14,245.00		Rent arrears to 11 September 2026 (reduced for failure to mitigate
Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond
Total award	$14,245.00	$500.00
Net award	$12,905.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,905.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The respondent/s], at 11:59pm on 2 October 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The respondent/s] $12,905.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The respondent/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant requested a stay of proceedings on the basis that a claim relating to the tenancy address had been filed in the Māori Land Court. I have not seen a copy of that claim or any details of it.
However, as discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to considering tenancy matters under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine issues relating to land ownership or matters before the Māori Land Court. Accordingly, I proceeded to consider the tenancy claims.
In addition, at the start of the hearing, the tenant advised that she wished to have a support person present. There had been no prior request or approval for a support person. To accommodate the late arrival of the support person, the Tribunal heard submissions from the landlord first and then took a short break to allow the support person to arrive. The hearing then reconvened, and the Tribunal proceeded to hear the remainder of the evidence with the support person present. Background
The tenancy commenced on 22 December 2023 at an agreed weekly rent of $420.00.
Originally the property was managed by one of the landlords, however, on 20 May 2026, Ray White took over the property management.
On 4 July 2026, the landlord issued a 90-day vacate notice, with the tenancy due to end on 2 October 2026.
The tenant has made an application for compensation and exemplary damages, alleging breaches of the healthy homes standards, failure to lodge the bond, and unlawful entry.
The landlords have made a cross-application seeking termination of the tenancy, an order for rent arrears, and a refund of the bond. Jurisdiction
The Tribunal must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear this matter. Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA excludes any tenancy where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family. In this case, there is evidence that a family member of the landlord resided at the premises during the tenancy, and the exclusion would otherwise apply.
However, section 8 of the RTA provides that nothing in sections 5 to 7 prevents the parties to such a tenancy from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy. The parties in this case entered into a written agreement that sets out the terms of occupation, including the payment of rent, and both parties have treated the arrangement as a tenancy under the RTA. At the hearing, both parties submitted that they always considered that this was a tenancy under the RTA.
The agreement includes a clause stating that disputes will be considered by the Disputes Tribunal. However, section 11 of the RTA provides that any provision of a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the Act, or purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of the Act, is of no effect unless expressly permitted by the RTA. The parties’ conduct in issuing notices and bringing claims under the RTA further supports their intention to be bound by the RTA and to have disputes determined by the Tenancy Tribunal.
I am satisfied that, despite the family relationship and the reference to the Disputes Tribunal, the parties have contracted in writing for the provisions of the RTA to apply to their arrangement.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. General legal principles
Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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, 1 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 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.
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. Exemplary damages
The tenant has sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are 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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 [1986] NZLR 732.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. Landlords’ claims

How much rent does the tenant owe?

The landlords claim rent arrears of $20,350.00 through to 11 September 2026 and has provided rent records proving this amount.
The tenant unilaterally reduced the rent from around 3 January 2025 and arrears have accumulated over around a 21-month period. The landlords and tenant are extended family, and the landlords state they trusted the tenant and did not check the rent account until the arrears had reached a significant amount. The tenant agrees she paid a lesser amount but says she believed this was acceptable, due to their connection and because no one raised any issue at the time.
Under section 40(1)(a) of the RTA, the tenant is required to pay the rent as and when it is due under the tenancy agreement. There was no formal agreement to reduce the rent, and the tenant was not entitled to unilaterally pay a lesser amount.
However, under section 49, the landlord is required to take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss. The landlords’ failure to check the rent account for months was unreasonable, particularly given the significant period over which arrears accrued. Although the tenant remains liable for arrears, I consider that the landlords’ inaction contributed to the extent of the loss.
Taking into account the circumstances, including the relationship of trust and the landlords’ failure to monitor rent payments, I consider it would be unjust to order the tenant to pay the full amount of arrears.
I find it fair and reasonable in the circumstances to reduce the arrears by around 30% to reflect the landlords’ failure to mitigate loss and award the reduced amount of $14,245.00 for rent arrears to 11 September 2026.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that, at the time the application was filed, the rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
Even after making deductions for the landlords’ failure to mitigate loss (as set out above) and the award of exemplary damages (below), the rent was more than 21 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. days in arrears at the time the application was filed. The Tribunal is therefore required to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant has raised submissions regarding the ownership of the land and has requested that any possession order be delayed pending the outcome of other proceedings. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to matters arising under the tenancy agreement and the RTA. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine issues of land ownership or to delay a possession order on that basis.
This decision does not affect the tenant’s ability to pursue any ongoing proceedings regarding the land in another forum, but in this instance, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy in accordance with section 55(1)(a) of the RTA.
The landlords requested that possession be set for 2 October 2026 rather than immediately, and this is ordered. Tenant’s claims
The tenant seeks compensation of $63,250.00. This amount appears to include a claim for a rent refund as well as damages for alleged breaches of the healthy homes standards, failure to lodge the bond, and unlawful entry.
The tenant also raised other issues regarding the state of the property at the commencement of the tenancy and alleged misrepresentation about what was included in the tenancy. However, as no formal claim has been made in respect of these issues, I have not considered these submissions further. Healthy homes standards
Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS requirements in several different respects.
The tenant submits that the house is a 1970s-style Lockwood home with no insulation in the roof or walls. She states that, during colder months, mould regularly develops on the external walls, requiring frequent wiping. The curtains are described as thin cotton material with no thermal backing, there is no double glazing, and the property is draughty. The tenant states that, as a result, she and her children have been sick constantly over winter and the property remains damp and cold. The tenant has provided some photographs showing mould and wood degradation in certain locations to support her claim.
The landlords dispute the tenant’s claim, stating that the property was healthy and compliant. The landlords say significant renovation works were carried out in September 2023, just prior to the tenancy, to ensure the property was warm and comfortable. The landlords also state that the tenant never raised any issues during the tenancy, so they were not aware of any developing problems.
The landlords have provided a report from the renovation construction company to support their position. It details the renovations undertaken and specifically records that: a. There is no access to the roof space to install insulation. b. There is limited space under the floor area.
For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, 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.
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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The presence of mould alone is not sufficient to establish a breach of the healthy homes standards or section 45(1) unless it can be shown that the mould is the result of a failure by the landlord to comply with their obligations (for example, to provide adequate insulation and ventilation).
Having considered all provided evidence, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property does not comply with the healthy homes standards or that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1).
The photographs of mould, while concerning, are not sufficient on their own, or sufficiently linked to a specific breach by the landlords, to establish non- compliance.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the healthy homes standards is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
The tenant says that the landlord failed to lodge the bond in accordance with the RTA.
Section 19 of the RTA requires a landlord to forward any bond received to the chief executive for lodgement within 23 working days of receipt. Failure to do so is an unlawful act.
The tenant has provided evidence that she paid the bond at the commencement of the tenancy in 2023, and the bond was not lodged until 7 July 2026. The landlords do not dispute this but explain that the failure to lodge the bond was not deliberate, attributing it to being busy and simply forgetting. The landlords state that as soon as a property manager was engaged and the oversight was identified, the bond was lodged immediately.
The obligation to lodge the bond within the statutory timeframe is strict, and the landlords’ explanation does not excuse the failure to comply.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe, in breach of section 19 of the RTA.
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) RTA.
There is no evidence that the landlord deliberately set out to avoid their obligations or to retain the bond for their own benefit. The landlord did lodge the bond as soon as the oversight was identified.
Although the failure to lodge the bond was not intentional, the obligation is a fundamental one and a landlord should be aware of their responsibilities. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenant was deprived of the statutory protections that come with the bond being held by the Bond Centre. There is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their obligations regarding bond lodgement.
Taking all of these factors into account, I find that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages, but at a level towards the lower end of the scale given the absence of deliberate intent and the prompt rectification once the oversight was discovered.
I award exemplary damages of $500.00 to the tenant. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy. Entry is permitted with the tenant’s consent, or after giving the required notice for specific purposes such as inspections, but the landlord must act reasonably and respect the tenant’s right to privacy.
In this case, the landlords gave notice for an inspection and the parties agreed that the inspection would occur on 3 July at 4pm, a date nominated by the tenant. The landlord states that the purpose of the visit was to introduce the new property manager, but the tenant was not at home at the agreed time.
The tenant’s concern is less about the timing of the entry, but rather that she was not made aware that additional people (who at the time, were an unknown man and lady) would be attending and entering all rooms to take photographs. The tenant’s son was present and observed this, and the tenant submits that this felt like an invasion of privacy and a lack of transparency.
Although the landlords were entitled to enter the premises for the agreed inspection, section 48(3) requires that the tenant’s consent to entry for the purpose of showing the premises or for other purposes may be subject to reasonable conditions, including being informed of who will be attending. The landlord should have made it clear to the tenant in advance who would be present and the purpose of their attendance.
On balance, I find that while the landlord complied with the notice requirements for entry, there appears to have been a failure to communicate adequately about who would be attending and the full purpose of the visit.
However, I am not satisfied that this amounts to an unlawful entry under section 48(4)(a) of the RTA, as the entry itself was at the agreed time and for a legitimate purpose. The landlords should, however, ensure clear communication and respect of the tenant’s privacy, including advising in advance who will be present during inspections.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for unlawful entry is dismissed. Other matters
As discussed at the hearing, I have granted name suppression to both parties to ensure there is no prejudice in relation to other concurrent claims involving the parties and the tenancy address.
As both parties have had some success in their respective claims, I do not order a refund of the filing fee to either party. The costs of the application should lie where they fall.
For the landlords, the order is issued in the names of the registered proprietors as shown on the certificate of title. R Harvey-Lane 11 September 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5544060 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5544060 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much rent does the tenant owe?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much rent does the tenant owe?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.