What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5549276 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 5549276?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,894.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5549276?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5549276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14191898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5549276 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 5549276?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,894.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5549276?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5549276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14191898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5549276 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5549276 — net $933.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/6/2026	$1,894.29	Rent arrears to 22/6/2026
Insurance excess for hall carpet replacement	$850.00	Insurance excess for hall carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$933.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The application by [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] for refund of their bond and compensation of $26,280.00 is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $933.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants by telephone.
On 21/7/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Subsequently on 23/7/2026 the tenants sought a refund of their $1,840.00 bond and compensation of $26,280.00 by way of a rent refund for breach of healthy homes standards.
The fixed term tenancy began on 1/7/2021 and was renewed annually to end on 1/7/2026 at a weekly rent then of $510.00. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case the landlord and tenants, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Landlord’s Claim

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 1/7/2026.
However, the landlord only claimed rent arrears of $1,894.29 to 22/6/2026.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants disagreed they owed the arrears because they moved out of the premises on 5/6/2026 believing they could end the tenancy early.
The landlord disputed there was any agreement for the tenancy to end early without a new tenant being found.
The landlord submitted that the tenants had indicated via email on 14/5/2026 that they wished to renew the fixed term, then changed their mind and asked for an early release on 21/5/2026.
The landlord had been unable to re-let the premises before the end of the fixed term.
I am satisfied by the evidence that the tenants were parties to a fixed term tenancy and owed arrears to the end of the tenancy.
An award has been made for the amount claimed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $850.00 compensation for replacement of the hall carpet needed because of staining, possibly by a dog.
In support of the claim the landlord provided an insurance assessment, a quote for replacement carpet, and photographs of the hall carpet taken on 30/6/2021 and 25/6/2026 respectively.
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 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.
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.
There is no dispute that damage was caused during the tenancy to the hall carpet from staining.
The tenants suggested that the damage was wear and tear, and that the carpet was old at the beginning of the tenancy.
However, the tenants did concede that the carpets had been cleaned in 2024 to remove stains, some of which were caused by their puppy, but the cleaning had been unsuccessful.
The entry photographs support that the carpet was not stained and in reasonable condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants are liable for the damage to the hall carpet and have awarded the insurance excess claimed. Tenants’ claim

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations because they felt the house was not a healthy home due to draughts and mould and they wanted compensation by way of a years rent reduction.
In support of their claim the tenants provided photographs taken before they moved out of 3 to 5 windows showing gaps which allowed in draughts, possible mould in the wash house, and an electricity account from June 2026 for $846.09.
The tenants suggested the healthy homes standards compliance certificate from 2021 was inaccurate.
In response the landlord submitted that the premises were compliant at the beginning of the tenancy and provided a copy of the June 2021 report.
The landlord suggested that their records and quarterly property inspections over the term of the tenancy did not record any issues from the tenants about draughts or mould and no problems had arisen until the tenants found a new property and wanted to move before their fixed term tenancy ended.
During the tenancy the landlord submitted that regular maintenance had been undertaken whenever issues were reported, and they considered the mould in the wash house was in fact dirt.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act, despite the tenants’ photographs possibly supporting draughts through windows.
Compliance with healthy homes standards is a continuum which a landlord in particular must be mindful of and address as problems arise.
However, if a landlord is not made aware of issues, then they cannot be expected to remedy problems.
Section 40(1)(d) obliges tenants to notify a landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage or need for repairs.
The tenants have failed to provide any persuasive evidence that they made the landlord aware of the draughts or possible mould issues.
I find there is no breach of the landlord’s obligation to comply with healthy homes standards.
The claim for compensation fails.
As [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression has been granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were wholly successful with the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5549276 — net $933.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/6/2026	$1,894.29	Rent arrears to 22/6/2026
Insurance excess for hall carpet replacement	$850.00	Insurance excess for hall carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$933.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The application by [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] for refund of their bond and compensation of $26,280.00 is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $933.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants by telephone.
On 21/7/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Subsequently on 23/7/2026 the tenants sought a refund of their $1,840.00 bond and compensation of $26,280.00 by way of a rent refund for breach of healthy homes standards.
The fixed term tenancy began on 1/7/2021 and was renewed annually to end on 1/7/2026 at a weekly rent then of $510.00. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case the landlord and tenants, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Landlord’s Claim

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 1/7/2026.
However, the landlord only claimed rent arrears of $1,894.29 to 22/6/2026.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants disagreed they owed the arrears because they moved out of the premises on 5/6/2026 believing they could end the tenancy early.
The landlord disputed there was any agreement for the tenancy to end early without a new tenant being found.
The landlord submitted that the tenants had indicated via email on 14/5/2026 that they wished to renew the fixed term, then changed their mind and asked for an early release on 21/5/2026.
The landlord had been unable to re-let the premises before the end of the fixed term.
I am satisfied by the evidence that the tenants were parties to a fixed term tenancy and owed arrears to the end of the tenancy.
An award has been made for the amount claimed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $850.00 compensation for replacement of the hall carpet needed because of staining, possibly by a dog.
In support of the claim the landlord provided an insurance assessment, a quote for replacement carpet, and photographs of the hall carpet taken on 30/6/2021 and 25/6/2026 respectively.
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 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.
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.
There is no dispute that damage was caused during the tenancy to the hall carpet from staining.
The tenants suggested that the damage was wear and tear, and that the carpet was old at the beginning of the tenancy.
However, the tenants did concede that the carpets had been cleaned in 2024 to remove stains, some of which were caused by their puppy, but the cleaning had been unsuccessful.
The entry photographs support that the carpet was not stained and in reasonable condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants are liable for the damage to the hall carpet and have awarded the insurance excess claimed. Tenants’ claim

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations because they felt the house was not a healthy home due to draughts and mould and they wanted compensation by way of a years rent reduction.
In support of their claim the tenants provided photographs taken before they moved out of 3 to 5 windows showing gaps which allowed in draughts, possible mould in the wash house, and an electricity account from June 2026 for $846.09.
The tenants suggested the healthy homes standards compliance certificate from 2021 was inaccurate.
In response the landlord submitted that the premises were compliant at the beginning of the tenancy and provided a copy of the June 2021 report.
The landlord suggested that their records and quarterly property inspections over the term of the tenancy did not record any issues from the tenants about draughts or mould and no problems had arisen until the tenants found a new property and wanted to move before their fixed term tenancy ended.
During the tenancy the landlord submitted that regular maintenance had been undertaken whenever issues were reported, and they considered the mould in the wash house was in fact dirt.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act, despite the tenants’ photographs possibly supporting draughts through windows.
Compliance with healthy homes standards is a continuum which a landlord in particular must be mindful of and address as problems arise.
However, if a landlord is not made aware of issues, then they cannot be expected to remedy problems.
Section 40(1)(d) obliges tenants to notify a landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage or need for repairs.
The tenants have failed to provide any persuasive evidence that they made the landlord aware of the draughts or possible mould issues.
I find there is no breach of the landlord’s obligation to comply with healthy homes standards.
The claim for compensation fails.
As [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression has been granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were wholly successful with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5549276 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5549276 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.