What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151052?

The tribunal order states: Louise Lowe of Executive Rentals Limited as agent for the AJ Lowe Family

How much money was awarded in case 5151052?

Compensation: - Breach of quiet enjo…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Breach of vacant pos…: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Premises not in reas…: $1,020.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Stress: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,112.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11813632-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151052?

The tribunal order states: Louise Lowe of Executive Rentals Limited as agent for the AJ Lowe Family

How much money was awarded in case 5151052?

Compensation: - Breach of quiet enjo…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Breach of vacant pos…: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Premises not in reas…: $1,020.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Stress: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,112.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11813632-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

237 River Road, Kawerau, Bay of Plenty 3127 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151052 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151052 — net $504.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.2.25	$4,112.15		Rent arrears to 20.2.25
Compensation: - Breach of vacant possession		$1,170.00	to compensate the tenants two weeks rent. I therefore order the landlord to pay $1170 compensation.
Compensation: - Premises not reasonably clean		$400.00	- Premises not reasonably clean
Compensation: - Premises not in reasonable condition		$1,020.00	- Premises not in reasonable condition
Compensation: - Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,000.00	week for the first month of the tenancy and therefore order the landlord to pay $1000 compensation. Compensation for stress
Compensation: - Stress		$1,000.00	week for the first month of the tenancy and therefore order the landlord to pay $1000 compensation. Compensation for stress
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,112.15	$4,617.00
Net award		$504.85
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$504.85

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151052 — net $504.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.2.25	$4,112.15		Rent arrears to 20.2.25
Compensation: - Breach of vacant possession		$1,170.00	to compensate the tenants two weeks rent. I therefore order the landlord to pay $1170 compensation.
Compensation: - Premises not reasonably clean		$400.00	- Premises not reasonably clean
Compensation: - Premises not in reasonable condition		$1,020.00	- Premises not in reasonable condition
Compensation: - Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,000.00	week for the first month of the tenancy and therefore order the landlord to pay $1000 compensation. Compensation for stress
Compensation: - Stress		$1,000.00	week for the first month of the tenancy and therefore order the landlord to pay $1000 compensation. Compensation for stress
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,112.15	$4,617.00
Net award		$504.85
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$504.85

Order

Louise Lowe of Executive Rentals Limited as agent for the AJ Lowe Family Trust must pay Mandy Martin and Paul Clifford Martin $504.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings in respect of this matter.
These proceedings were heard over two separate hearing days on 14 March 2025 and 2 May 2025 in the Whakatane Registry.
The tenants have applied for compensation of $5000 in relation to a number of alleged breaches of the landlord’s responsibilities.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the RTA by the tenants. The landlord’s application form referred to a claim for damage to the bathroom ceiling however at the hearing this was not pursued and is accordingly dismissed. The landlord’s claim for termination is also dismissed as the tenancy has ended.
These proceedings relate to a rental property in Kawerau. The tenancy commenced on 23 October 2024. The tenancy ended on 20 February 2025.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.”
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind. 1 1 Section 85 of the RTA
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. 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 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 under the RTA. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a. the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b. the effect of the unlawful act, c. the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d. the public interest, e. whether it is just to make the award. 3
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 4
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited 5 , that exemplary damages under the RTA are ordered on a global basis, rather than separately for each and every breach under the same section of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 3 Section 109 of the RTA. 4 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 5 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583

Vacant possession

At the beginning of the tenancy landlords have an obligation to provide the tenant with vacant possession of the property. 6
Tenants are entitled to have full and unimpeded vacant possession of the property that they are renting, not just some of the property.
Vacant possession includes a property being free from the landlord’s goods, if the tenancy is not a furnished tenancy. 7 The Tribunal has also found that the landlord did not give vacant possession at the start of the tenancy where the previous tenant’s belongings were in a shed at the back 8 and in another case, where a shed on the property was filled with the landlord’s goods. 9
At the commencement of this tenancy the previous tenant’s large pool and pump were on the property, and these remained on the property until the end of the tenancy. The was a dispute about whether the tenants said they would remove the pool. This is not the tenant’s responsibility. The items would have been unsightly and would have affected the tenant’s use of the property.
The landlord’s chattels were also in the outside garage, including a fridge freezer and tall boy. The landlord said she left these for the tenants to use. This was not agreed prior to the tenancy commencing and the tenants did not want these items.
The landlord also had some belongings in the spare room and a cupboard, making part of the premises unavailable for the tenants.
The tenant provided photographs which show the landlord’s belongings in the home, on the deck and there is no dispute the landlord had belongings in the garage.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord left a considerable number of items in and outside the premises and that the tenants did not have full use of the premises. These items should have been removed from the property to provide the tenants vacant possession.
The tenant should be compensated for not being provided vacant possession. In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: that this issue should have been evident to the landlord at the start of the tenancy and rectified promptly, the inconvenience to the tenants would 6 Section 37 of the RTA. 7 Kiwi Global Education Ltd v Seo (DC Christchurch CIV-2009-009-1973, 7 December 2009) 8 Shopland & Woods v McConnell & Wadman [2020] NZTT Auckland 4264636 9 Lo v Grenadier Accommodation Centre Limited trading as Harcourts [2015] NZTT Christchurch. have been significant, and there was a loss of amenity and use of part of the premises.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenants two weeks rent. I therefore order the landlord to pay $1170 compensation. Reasonably clean state
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord is required to provide the property in a reasonably clean state, 10 The tenants say the premises was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. The tenant provided photographs and oral evidence in support of the claim.
The tenants say at the start of the tenancy they moved their belongings to the property but could not stay in the house as it was filthy, with mould and cobwebs on windows, rubbish outside, full bins, fly mess on surfaces and a dirty fireplace. The tenants provided photographs in support of the claim from the start of the tenancy.
The tenants say they went back to their previous rental and stayed there until the 29 October 2025 because of the issues with the home. Following this, the tenants say the house was still filthy, there was still rubbish on the property and surfaces and the fireplace needed cleaning for a further month after the tenancy commenced.
The tenants also had to clean the garden and yard by mowing, weed spraying and weed eating at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord says she arranged a professional cleaner to undertake the cleaning of the premises. A cleaner attended at the property on 25 October 2024 and cleaned the oven and undertook some minor cleaning, however the photographs provided show the oven remained dirty after it was professionally cleaned.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenant should be compensated for the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state. The impact for the tenants would be significant and they should be compensated. In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: the inconvenience to the tenants, the loss of amenity in the premises, the risk of hygiene issues from the tenancy being unclean and that the tenants had to undertake some gardening work themselves.
I have reached the conclusion that the landlord should pay $400 compensation to the tenant for the lack of cleaning. 10 See section 45(1)(a) of the RTA. Reasonable condition
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord is required to provide and then maintain the property in a reasonable condition, taking into account the age and character of the building. 11
A landlord must also provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 12
The tenants say the landlord told them a number of repairs and renovations would be undertaken prior to the tenancy commencing, including that the premises would be painted, that there would be a new dishwasher, that the bathroom & toilet would be renovated and that there would be new guttering on the outside of the house.
The tenants say some of the issues at the start of the tenancy included that they could not close windows as there were no locks/latches, the kitchen door lock and handle had to be removed, there was therefore no lock for a period of time, some of the electrical plugs were not working, the light switches were hanging with wiring hanging out, light bulbs hanging with wiring hanging out, there was no guttering around the house, the kitchen sink leaked, the laundry basin was leaking, and walls around the home were plastered but not painted and the landlord had put up makeshift curtains as the house did not have curtains.
As noted above, the tenants stayed at their previous rental for about a week due to the issues with the property.
The tenants say they went back to the premises after a week and not much had changed. I understand the tenants did not have a front door lock for at least two weeks. Over that next month the landlord attended at the property often to attend to the issues, and I refer to this further below.
The tenant says issues persisted, such as the pantry shelves not moving around as they are meant to, the dishwasher not working, the rangehood and bathroom extractor fan not working, the gutters were blocked, the interior walls remained unpainted, the smoke alarms were not installed and working, the window latches were not fixed and working. The tenants went away for a weekend in late November at which time the landlord was able to undertake some of the work required. The tenants say during their time away the kitchen was painted and some of the items outside were removed, but a lot was left to be done. 11 See section 45 (1) (b) of the RTA. 12 See section 46 of the RTA.
The landlord considers the tenant’s expectations were too high. The landlord shifted much of the blame for issues on third parties or minimised some of the issues. For example, the landlord said the rangehood lights were not working but she considered that this was acceptable, as it worked otherwise. The landlord accepted the roof gutter leaked, but said his was onto the garden, not the deck. The landlord said there was no front door lock as the previous tenants did not return the key.
The landlord provided undated photographs as evidence of the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. I consider the tenant’s photographs (for which I was shown date stamps) accurately show the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The photographs provided by the landlord seem likely to have been taken near the end of the tenancy and show painting still needed to be completed.
The landlord’s handyman gave evidence; however, he had some difficulty recalling details and his evidence did not clarify matters.
I am satisfied that at the start of the tenancy the premises was not provided in a reasonable condition. It is clear it still required repairs and renovation for the duration of the tenancy. The tenant should be compensated for the landlord’s breach.
In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: that this issue arose at the commencement of the tenancy, but issues continued to the end of the tenancy, the significant inconvenience to the tenants, the loss of amenity in the premises, particularly unpainted walls and no dishwasher, and a lack of security.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenant $60 per week of the tenancy of 17 weeks, accordingly $1,020 compensation, to be paid by the landlord. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants seek compensation for a breach of their quiet enjoyment.
A tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and a landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” 13 Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord 14 13 Section 38 of the RTA. 14 Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at [6].
Landlords who have persisted in building or other intrusive work or other activity on the premises, or on adjacent or nearby premises, can breach tenant’s rights to quiet enjoyment. 15
Contravention of the right to quiet enjoyment, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. The tenants in this case have not alleged the landlord has harassed them.
The tenants say the landlord attended at the premises for hours at a time every 2-3 days for approximately the first month of the tenancy, regularly doing renovations, limiting their use of the home.
The tenants say they would come home from work and the landlord would be there. The tenants say some nights the landlord was there painting inside or removing her or the previous tenants’ belongings until 10:30pm. The tenants say it was very uncomfortable as there was no privacy.
The tenants say they went away from 21st November 2024 until 25th November 2024, so gave the landlord full access to the premises so that she could undertake the repairs and work required on the premises.
On checking their camera while away they saw that the landlord had a dog on the property and as they have a cat they were concerned, so sent message to the landlord raising their concern, the landlord then left.
The tenants say the landlord emailed them short after requesting further permission to enter premises which they gave her. They said that they would be home around 2pm and asked that she be finished by then. They say they arrived home around 2:30pm with the landlord still there with a friend, again staying late and invading their privacy.
The landlord said that she always had the tenant’s consent to be at the premises. I do not consider this is sufficient to justify the landlord being at the home as often as she was, particularly late at night.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises was breached by the landlord for the first month of the tenancy. The tenant should be compensated for the breach of their quiet enjoyment.
In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: the breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was persistent over a month, the inconvenience to the tenants, and lack of privacy and, the concern for the tenant’s cat by the landlord’s dog being at the property. 15 Neems v Fraser [2025] NZDC 1222
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenant for this breach at $200 per week for the first month of the tenancy and therefore order the landlord to pay $1000 compensation. Compensation for stress
The tenant claims compensation for the stress they have been put under due to the landlord’s breaches.
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 16 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
The tenant said they hoped to make the premises their home and had started doing work on the garden in the hope that they would be there long term.
The tenant say due to high stress levels they were both experiencing, one of the tenants rushed to hospital for a suspected heart attack and the other had to go to the doctor due to a range of symptoms which all related to stress.
The tenants say terminating this tenancy was their only option as they realised it was never going to be their “forever” long-term rental given the circumstances.
The tenants say that if the work required could not be achieved by the start of the tenancy the landlord should have said this, then they could have made other living arrangements until the work could be completed.
I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer stress and hardship in the circumstances. Stress is intangible loss, making it difficult to value. Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens 17 provided bands to apply when making awards for emotional harm. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 18 to take into account inflation: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. 16 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. 17 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 18 A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
Adopting the formula in A v Singh, I consider the tenants have experienced stress, hardship and insecurity as a result of the landlord breaching their obligations. I find that compensation of $1,000.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Moving costs
The tenant claimed $885.50 for moving costs, as the tenants moved out earlier than they would have liked and soon after moving in, as a result of the landlord’s failures of meet their obligations.
I accept that the tenants moved early because of the issues with the premises, but I cannot see that they have incurred a loss. Whether they paid moving costs in February 2025, or at a subsequent time when they decided to move out, those costs would have been incurred one way or the other. Accordingly, I have not made a specific order for the moving costs, but I have taken these into account these costs when making the order for compensation for stress. The claim for moving costs is dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Despite the issues raised by the tenants, they remained obligated to pay rent as and when due. 19 I make an order for the full amount of rent claimed. Tenant not signing the tenancy agreement.
The landlord claims exemplary damages for the tenant not signing the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. 20
The “My rent” portal shows that the tenancy agreement was only sent to the tenants on 11 March 2025. The landlord disputed this however I consider the documentary evidence is clear. I consider it likely that if the landlord had 19 See s 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 20 See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. provided a tenancy agreement to the tenants and required them to sign it before the tenancy started, they would have.
I also consider that failure by the tenant to sign a tenancy agreement is not an unlawful act under the RTA. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim in respect of the tenant not signing the tenancy agreement is dismissed. Tenant not paying the bond.
The landlord claims exemplary damages for the tenant failing to pay the bond. The RTA does not make it an unlawful act if the bond is not paid. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Tenant not paying rent
The landlord claims exemplary damages for the tenant failing to pay rent as and when due. A failure by the tenant to pay rent is not an unlawful act under the RTA for which exemplary damages may be ordered. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
The landlord had witness evidence, which was to support the landlord’s claims. The landlords witness gave evidence that at the end of the tenancy he assisted the landlord with removing the previous tenants pool, a BBQ and some other rubbish at the property. There are no claims by the landlord in respect of rubbish removal and the witness did not see the premises at the start of the tenancy, therefore I have not placed weight on his evidence in determining this matter.

FILING FEE

As the tenants has been substantially successful with their claim, I have awarded them the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 21
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 22 21 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 22 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.
The tenants did not seek name suppression.
The landlord has had some success with her claim, however not in defending the tenants claim and the public interest warrants publication of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151052 — Cleanliness at 237 River Road, Kawerau, Bay of Plenty 3127

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151052 — Cleanliness at 237 River Road, Kawerau, Bay of Plenty 3127

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions