What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5179372?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5179372?

Gutters And Downpipes: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Vegetation Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179372?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12407743-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5179372?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5179372?

Gutters And Downpipes: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Vegetation Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179372?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12407743-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 2 Atkinson Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5179372 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5179372 — net $989.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Gutters and downpipes	$437.00	Gutters and downpipes
Front and back door frame repairs (agreed by consent	$195.50	Front and back door frame repairs (agreed by consent
Damaged/missing light bulbs (agreed by consent	$69.00	Damaged/missing light bulbs (agreed by consent
Tree trimming due to overgrowth and blocked gutters	$287.50	Tree trimming due to overgrowth and blocked gutters
Net award	$989.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$989.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5179372 — net $989.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Gutters and downpipes	$437.00	Gutters and downpipes
Front and back door frame repairs (agreed by consent	$195.50	Front and back door frame repairs (agreed by consent
Damaged/missing light bulbs (agreed by consent	$69.00	Damaged/missing light bulbs (agreed by consent
Tree trimming due to overgrowth and blocked gutters	$287.50	Tree trimming due to overgrowth and blocked gutters
Net award	$989.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$989.00

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Monte Cecilia Housing Trust must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited $989.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter involves a dispute between Pro Edge Property Management Limited (the landlord) and Monte Cecilia Housing Trust (the tenant), a registered social housing provider.
There were two applications before the Tribunal: • A landlord’s application filed on 4 March 2025, seeking compensation of $2,346.00 for alleged damage to the rental property. • A cross-application filed by the tenant on 7 April 2025, initially seeking $25,430.96 in compensation for work undertaken and breaches of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, later amended to a claim of $11,750.07 in compensation and a claim for exemplary damages.
Before I consider the specific issues raised, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the parties to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that the parties must prove that what they are claiming is more likely than not correct.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented by the parties; however, they can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Background
The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2018 and ended on 10 February 2025. During the tenancy, the tenant sublet the premises to a subtenant who caused significant damage to the property. The tenant applied to the Tribunal, and the subtenant was evicted in June 2024. Following the eviction, the tenant undertook substantial repairs and alterations, acting in good faith that the tenancy would continue. However, the tenant later asserted that because the property did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards, they were left with no option but to terminate the tenancy, which formally ended on 10 February 2025.
The landlord disputes this position. They acknowledge that many of the damages were addressed but maintain that some were either not completed or inadequately remedied. A major concern for the landlord was access. They state that the subtenant kept dogs at the property and repeatedly refused or failed to respond to requests for inspections. The landlord was only able to carry out a full inspection after the subtenant vacated, which took place on 18 December 2024. According to the landlord, the tenant assured them that all damages caused by the subtenant would be repaired. While works were undertaken, these were not completed until September 2024. The landlord also claims they were never informed that extensive renovations were being carried out, but only that repairs were being made. From the landlord’s perspective, the works involving carpet, blinds, tiling, plastering, painting, maintenance, and plumbing were solely the result of damage caused by the subtenant. Accordingly, they decline to reimburse the tenant for those expenses, noting also that full consent or authorisation for all such works had not been obtained.
The landlord further emphasises that they never wished to end the tenancy and were content for it to continue. To support their position, they obtained an independent Healthy Homes compliance assessment from Imperial Insulation, completed on 5 November 2024 and updated on 18 February 2025, which confirmed that the property met the standards. They believe this report was shared with the tenant, though acknowledge there were a number of different representatives involved at the tenant organisation. The landlord explains that any delays were the result of waiting for the tenant to complete their works. Issues
The key issues to determine are: a. Whether the landlord has established that the tenant is liable for compensation amounting to $2,346.00. b. Whether the landlord breached the Healthy Homes obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the RTA”). c. Whether the tenant is entitled to compensation for expenses incurred in remedying the damage and alleged non-compliance. d. Whether the tenant is entitled to exemplary damages. Relevant Law
Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA requires landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Section 45(1A) provides that breach of section 45(1)(bb) is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A RTA stipulates a maximum exemplary damages award of $7,200.
Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 2(2) of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 required social housing landlords to comply with the Standards by 1 July 2024.
Section 40(1) of the RTA outlines tenant responsibilities, including taking care not to damage the premises.
Section 49B provides guidance on determining responsibility for damage caused by a tenant or a person under their control.
The standard for awarding compensation is based on actual loss and causal connection, and the Tribunal must assess whether loss has occurred and whether it is reasonably recoverable. Analysis The landlord’s claims
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,346.00, supported by an invoice from Scope Works NZ Ltd and sub-contractor invoices, as well as photos, inspection reports, breach notices and communication between the parties.
The landlord’s claims for compensation included: •Gutters and downpipes: $380.00 •Front and back door frame repairs: $170.00 •Heat pump servicing: $180.00 •Damaged light bulbs: $60.00 •Tree trimming due to overgrowth and blocked gutters: $500.00 •Front of house repair (impact damage): $750.00 •GST: $306.00
The Tribunal makes the following findings: a. Gutters and Downpipes: The landlord claims that the gutters and downpipes were damaged or detached during the tenancy and that they were not notified by the tenant or subtenant. Photos show detached or missing sections of guttering with some discovered under the house. The tenant disputes the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that there is no clear link to tenant responsibility. However, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence of restricted access for over a year and is satisfied that the lack of access contributed to the deterioration. The Tribunal finds this claim proven on balance. b. Front and Back Door Frame Repair: This item was agreed by consent. The damage was attributed to dogs kept by the subtenant. c. Heat Pump Servicing: The landlord alleges that the heat pump was not cleaned during the tenancy and access for servicing was denied multiple times. However, no evidence was provided as to when the unit was last serviced or whether the damage resulted from tenant neglect rather than fair wear and tear. The unit was installed several years prior (tenancy began in 2018), and no technical report was submitted. This claim is dismissed as there is insufficient evidence of tenant liability. d. Light Bulbs: This item was agreed by consent, as several bulbs were missing or damaged during the tenancy. e. Tree Trimming and Overgrowth: The landlord claims $500.00 for cutting back an overgrown tree affecting the gutters, stating they were denied access from May 2023 to June 2024 despite repeated requests. Photos show substantial overhang above the roofline. The tenant queries the invoices, particularly the fact that one sub-contractor invoice is dated after the principal invoice. The Tribunal accepts that the lack of access contributed to the worsening of the overgrowth. However, the maintenance of trees is ordinarily a landlord responsibility, unless there is evidence that the tenant obstructed access or caused damage. In this case, there was partial obstruction, but no evidence that the tenant was responsible for the initial overgrowth. Accordingly, the Tribunal allows 50% of the claimed amount, acknowledging that part of the cost was related to routine maintenance. f. Front Façade Repair: The landlord says the subtenant informed them that a vehicle had reversed into the front of the house. While a temporary repair was carried out, the landlord says further work was required to bring the wall up to standard. The tenant challenges this, noting the lack of a detailed invoice and stating the work has not yet been completed. The landlord confirmed that structural integrity issues are still under review and they are only claiming for plastering and painting. The Tribunal finds this claim is not adequately supported by documentation or breakdown of costs. There is insufficient evidence of actual work undertaken to justify the full amount claimed. g. GST: The Tribunal is satisfied that the awarded sums are inclusive of GST where applicable.
I declined to consider two additional claims (cleaning and glass repair) raised at the hearing, as they were not part of the original application and not agreed to by the tenant. The tenant’s claims
The tenant sought compensation of $11,750.07 for costs incurred in carrying out substantial works following the eviction of the subtenant, as well as for alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards, supported by invoices, photographs and communication between the parties.
The specific claims included: • Carpet (material): $1,472.00 •Blinds: $1,863.00 •Tiling (50% depreciation): $1,069.50 •Plastering & Painting (50% depreciation): $3,266.00 •Maintenance & plumbing (50% depreciation): $3,815.13 •Healthy Homes report: $264.44
The tenant also sought exemplary damages under section 45(1A) RTA on the basis that the landlord had failed to ensure the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards by 1 July 2024, as required for social housing.
The Tribunal makes the following findings: a. Healthy Homes Compliance: The tenant provided a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 24 June 2024, which identified several areas of non-compliance, including insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. In response, the landlord obtained a separate Healthy Homes assessment from Imperial Insulation, conducted on 5 November 2024 and subsequently updated on 18 February 2025, confirming that the property was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. The Tribunal accepts that as at 1 July 2024—the statutory deadline for compliance for social housing providers—the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord, as required by section 45(1)(bb) RTA, had a legal obligation to ensure compliance by this date. However, the Tribunal also accepts the landlord’s evidence that their ability to achieve compliance was significantly hampered by the tenant’s subtenant, who failed to cooperate with access requests and kept dogs on the premises, which created further barriers to inspection and maintenance. These access issues persisted from approximately May 2023 until the subtenant’s eviction in June 2024. After regaining access, the landlord took steps to obtain an updated assessment and address compliance. The Tribunal also acknowledges that after the subtenant vacated, the tenant carried out significant works on the premises between June and September 2024, which caused further delays in the landlord being able to complete any required Healthy Homes upgrades. While the failure to meet the compliance date of 1 July 2024 constitutes a breach, it occurred in a context where the landlord was actively obstructed and where delays were compounded by the tenant’s own renovation works. The Tribunal therefore finds that the breach, while technically established, is not of a nature or degree that warrants the award of exemplary damages under section 45(1A) RTA. The landlord’s culpability is limited, and the breach does not demonstrate intentional disregard of legal obligations. Exemplary damages are not awarded. b. Compensation for Renovation Costs: The tenant seeks reimbursement for the costs of various works carried out following the eviction of their subtenant, including carpet replacement, blinds, tiling, plastering, painting, maintenance, and plumbing. The tenant also seeks reimbursement for the cost of obtaining a Healthy Homes report. The Tribunal accepts that these works were undertaken in good faith and as part of the tenant’s efforts to restore the property following the subtenant’s occupation. However, the Tribunal finds that the majority of these works were necessary due to damage caused by the subtenant—an individual under the tenant’s control. Under section 40(1) RTA, the tenant is responsible for the actions of individuals they allow onto the premises. The duty to repair this damage rested with the tenant. Moreover, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that they were not properly consulted about the scope or extent of these renovations. The landlord was not provided with an opportunity to approve or oversee the work, nor were they advised that significant alterations were being carried out rather than standard repairs. The landlord had a reasonable expectation to be consulted regarding any work that might give rise to a claim for reimbursement. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds no compelling basis to order reimbursement. The works performed arose from the tenant’s obligation to remedy damage caused by a person under their responsibility. Additionally, the Tribunal does not accept that the landlord should bear the cost of the tenant’s privately commissioned Healthy Homes report, which was obtained unilaterally and without prior agreement. Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for compensation, including the $264.44 report fee, is dismissed in full.
As neither party has been substantially or wholly successful, I decline to order either party to reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is not granted. See sections 102(2) and 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179372 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 2 Atkinson Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179372 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 2 Atkinson Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions