What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5322779?

The tribunal order states: Denis Rodrigues Rodrigues Ferreira must pay Sian Draper $6,271.71

How much money was awarded in case 5322779?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mould: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,325.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $246.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322779?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974929-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5322779?

The tribunal order states: Denis Rodrigues Rodrigues Ferreira must pay Sian Draper $6,271.71

How much money was awarded in case 5322779?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mould: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,325.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $246.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322779?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974929-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

280B Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322779 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322779 — net $6,271.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$246.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rent arrears	$10,325.71		Rent arrears
Compensation - failure to provide		$500.00	Compensation - failure to provide
Compensation: Mould		$1,000.00	Mould
Total award	$10,971.71	$1,500.00
Net award	$6,271.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,271.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322779 — net $6,271.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$246.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rent arrears	$10,325.71		Rent arrears
Compensation - failure to provide		$500.00	Compensation - failure to provide
Compensation: Mould		$1,000.00	Mould
Total award	$10,971.71	$1,500.00
Net award	$6,271.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,271.71

Order

Denis Rodrigues Rodrigues Ferreira must pay Sian Draper $6,271.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (BN-00114942) to Sian Draper immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord. The tenancy has ended, but there are claims from the parties in relation to proposed breaches both during and at the end of the tenancy.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today, convened in the Auckland District Courthouse.

BACKGROUND

The premises are over two-levels, located in Auckland. On the ground level is an office (which I will discuss shortly), with the remainder of the tenancy in the upper level.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement, for a tenancy to commence on 22 December 2024. The tenancy was a periodic tenancy rented at $760.00 per week.
The premises had an office on the ground level, which was not originally part of the tenancy, but it was available to be rented for $40.00 per week. The landlord states that the office was not habitable space, but could be used for an office or storage space. The landlord said that the tenant took the office for rental from 23 February 2025, although the tenant only paid rent on that part of the dwelling for 4 weeks. The landlord believes that the office space was rented by the tenant to a flatmate, despite the landlord telling the tenant not to use it for living purposes.
The tenancy ended in early September 2024 following notice from the tenant, which would end the Tenancy on 10 September 2024.
Both parties have filed claims in the Tenancy Tribunal.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed his claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for failure to provide vacant possession. b. Compensation for mould. c. Exemplary damages for failure to maintain (fireplace, window, garden).

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed her claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears. b. Damages during tenancy. c. Rubbish removal and gardening.

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 party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 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 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 Act.

ANALYSIS

I will consider the claims confirmed at the hearing in turn, starting with the tenants claims.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Failure to provide vacant possession

The tenant states that the landlord failed to provide vacant possession on the tenancy at start date of 22 December 2024. The landlord had moved all of her belongings into the garage, and that meant the tenant needed to move his belongings into the office at the premises. When it would rain there would be water ingress which has caused mould (which will be discussed in the mould claim further below).
In response, the landlord states that the premises were previously her home. Following discussion with the tenant, it was agreed that she would move everything from the house, and put it into the office space, which was not part of the tenancy (it was an option for a further $40 per week). The landlord said that there is no garage as such, but it is a carport. Ultimately the movers came in January, and some goods were removed by the landlord personally. However, the landlord accepts that there were landlord goods in the carport that were not removed when the tenancy commenced. The landlord accepted that the carport was more or less full with her goods. Analysis
The evidence is that some landlord goods were in both the office and carport at the start of the tenancy.
I find that the landlord had no obligations to provide the office vacant, because that was not part of the tenancy. But the landlord has breached her obligations in relation to the carport.
Section 37 of the Act relates to vacant possession and requires that the landlord provide vacant possession on the date the tenancy commences. In particular, section 37(1) of the RTA holds: The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.
In the District Court judgment of Kiwi Global Education Ltd v Seo (DC Christchurch CIV-2009-009-1973, 7 December 2009) the Court confirmed that failure by a landlord to remove chattels not included in the tenancy agreement may constitute a breach of the tenant’s entitlement to vacant possession.
In this case I find that the landlord has breached her obligation to provide the tenant with vacant possession.
It is not deemed to be an unlawful act, when a landlord fails to provide vacant possession but it is a breach of the landlord’s obligations all the same. Because it is not a defined unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot order exemplary damages for the breach, but the Tribunal can order general damages, or compensation.
In this case, I consider that in order of compensation would be required. The tenant was paying rent to have premises that should have been vacant, he was not receiving that. I consider that compensation of $500 would be reasonable, to offset the loss of amenity in the premises. Claim 2 – Compensation for mould
The tenant said that during the tenancy there was a mould issue with the premises throughout the tenancy. The tenant said that clothing was damaged, including goods such as Pilates balls, magazines, shoes. The tenant said the house was old. The tenants needed to undertake additional cleaning and washing.
I asked the tenant where he considered the mould to arise. The tenant referred to the wardrobe, and stated that when someone checked the house for the landlord, he found a fault with the roof, and that was causing the mould in the upper level of the house. Downstairs the water was coming from floor level.
In response, the landlord said that when she lived in the house, she never had any mould problems. Even when the premises were on Airbnb, the premises did not have mould issues. The landlord said she was surprised at the level of mould at the premises following the conclusion of the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that in the dining room and second bedroom, the windows were not closing properly. A handyman was engaged when this was raised by the tenant, and the landlord assumed this was fixed at the time. However, later the tenant contacted the landlord and advised water was still coming through the window. The landlord said that the handyman was asked to go back, but when the handyman tried contacting the tenant to come to the premises, the tenant would not engage with the handyman.
In terms of the roof, the landlord said that the plumber attended, and found that a flashing was not sealing around a pipe correctly, and that resulted some water flowing down the pipe into the wardrobe.
The landlord considers that she has been responsive with getting any issues assessed and repaired when raised by the tenant. Otherwise the landlord considers any moisture to be the result of normal environmental moisture, particularly given the dwelling is in a bowl with bush surrounding it.
In response, the tenant agreed that at the end of the tenancy he did not engage with the handyman, because the tenancy was then ending soon. The tenant said there were continuing problems with the window.
The landlord again advised she was not aware of continuing issues with the windows. Analysis
The tenant seeks compensation in relation to mould. I have considered the photographs the tenant has provided, and I accept that there was an issue with mould at the premises. Mould can be seen visually on tenant goods, and on the tenancy itself, such as walls and the ceiling. The mould is reasonably extensive.
As I raised with the parties at the hearing, mould of itself is ubiquitous in residential dwellings. All houses have mould to some degree, simply identifying the presence of mould does not necessarily show a breach on the part of the landlord. There is a statutory obligation on tenants to keep the premises reasonably clean, and that would extend to cleaning mould from the dwelling when it arises.
However, if there was a problem with the dwelling that was causing or contributing to the mould, then a liability for the landlord may arise. In this case, I consider that water ingress issues have been identified with the premises, including the issue with the roof flashing causing leaking into the dwelling, and also the window. The tenant has provided photographs showing water on the floor in the office.
The Tribunal recognises that premises which are damp, are more prone to significant mould issues. It must follow that when there are water leaks, the interior of the premises are damper than they would normally be, therefore promoting mould growth.
I doubt that the sole cause of the mould growth was the water leaks to the premises, but it would have been a factor of significance.
The tenant has claimed compensation of $30,000, but that has not been substantiated. I’ve not been provided with receipts, or evidence to establish any losses of that nature. Taking into consideration that there is most likely some contribution from environmental moisture, I consider that compensation of $1,000 would be a reasonable figure in the round. That order is made to cover both goods that have been destroyed, and also additional cleaning that would’ve been required by the tenants. Claim 3 - Exemplary damages for failure to maintain (fireplace, window, garden).
The tenant’s position is that the landlord did not maintain the house. While the landlord sent some workers to the house, they were only for small repairs. The tenant said that some of the door handles broke. The tenant considers that the landlord was not responsive with communications with him.
In relation to the fireplace, the tenant said the fireplace could not be used, because it was broken. A message was sent to the landlord, who was surprised as she would use it. When a service person went to fix the fireplace, he advised that, given the age of the fire, he would not touch it. As a result, the tenant said he had no heating over the winter months.
In relation to the windows, the tenant considers that the whole window was faulty, and was not a proper window, and the glass was thin.
In relation to the garden, the tenant said that the house was set in the bush, and over time trees need to be removed and trimmed.
In reply for the fireplace, the landlord provided a range of communications with the tenant. The landlord confirmed that a service worker had advised the fire was not safe and needed to be replaced, but the landlord considered that was the result of that worker not being experienced with cast iron fires. The landlord referred to a metal plate at the back of the fire, where the panel had been unscrewed. The second repairer advised the disc just needed rescrewing. The landlord states that Mr Tearle reported making efforts to contact the tenant to come to repair the fireplace, but the tenant would not engage with him on that.
In relation to the garden, the landlord agrees that she had agreed to undertake the heavy gardening work, but otherwise the tenant had an obligation to do the lighter garden work. The landlord said that the tenant was asked the tenant to advise what work needed to be undertaken, which she would have attended to, but he would not provide that level of detail. Nevertheless, the landlord considers that when she took back the property, the work that was needed was light work, so it was the tenants responsibility.
In relation to the windows, as above the landlord maintains that the windows were maintained, and when concerns were raised, she had the handyman attend.
The tenant concluded by noting that he is not a fireplace service worker, so he has relied on what the original service worker said, and because of that he did not use the fireplace. The tenant disputes that he received any call from a second fireplace service worker.
The tenant states that the garden was not provided in a tidy state at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said in relation to the windows, that the landlord did not want to spend money. Analysis
The RTA requires that landlords maintain the premises. The extent of maintenance required, does depend on the standard of the dwelling itself, and the period for which it would continue to be used as a dwelling. Fire box
The evidence is that when issues were raised with the fire, the landlord requested a service worker to attend, and fix the fireplace. However, that worker did not consider any further work should be undertaken on the fire, but it should be replaced. It is difficult for me to draw any conclusion in relation to why that assessment was made, because I have not received any report or explanation from the service worker, explaining the basis for that approach.
But the evidence is further that the landlord obtained assistance from a second service provider, that was Philip Tearle. One of the issues with the fire was that a plate had dislodged from the back of the fire box. In relation to that, Mr Tearle stated in an email from 9 July 2025 that: I do have experience repairing those fire. That plate is a removable item which given the appliance the option for a rear chimney. I can repair it.
As I understand matters, the plate had two screws holding it in, it was a cover plate. Should the owner have wished to have the chimney vent from the rear of the firebox, rather than the top. One screw had come loose, and the plate needed to be re-screwed in. Even based on the photographs, that clearly seems to be the issue.
But when I consider the emails from the landlord to Mr Tearle, those strongly support a conclusion that the landlord was active and trying to get Mr Tearle to the premises to maintain the fire. Based on the communications provided by the landlord, I consider the landlord has made reasonable efforts to have the fire serviced and repaired.
I am also minded that the evidence from the landlord, was that Mr Tearle had been making efforts with the tenant to get into the premises, but did not succeed in agreeing on an entry. While that is disputed by the tenant, and I have not received direct evidence from Mr Tearle, if that is the case, that would be an explanation for any delay in the repair being completed, which would be against a view that the delay sit with the landlord. Gardens
The tenancy agreement confirms that the tenant is liable for gardening. The agreement with the landlord was that she would undertake the heavier tree work, that would not be an unusual situation. That is, the tenant undertakes the lighter gardening, but the more significant gardening requiring use of specialised tools such as chainsaws, would be the responsibility of the landlord.
Taking into consideration the evidence that is available, I am not persuaded that there is evidence to show that there was a failure by the landlord to undertake the heavy gardening duties. I find there is no failure to maintain in this regard. Windows
The tenant’s position is that there were issues with the windows, where the catch was not adequate in closing the window, and also that the window itself was deficient, such has having thin glass. The landlord accepts that there were issues with the catch, and the evidence further supports that the landlord engaged the handyman to go and undertake that repair, to properly close the window. But I am not persuaded there is evidence to support that the window was otherwise materially deficient. I’ve not received any evidence from a person qualified in windows to convince me that the structure itself required maintenance (replacement). The tenant has not established this claim for a lack of maintenance.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 4 – Rent arrears

The landlord states that the tenant has fallen into rent arrears, which as of 10 September 2025 totalled $10,375.71.
In response, the tenant considers the house was not livable. However, the tenant does not otherwise dispute the landlord’s calculation or rent ledger. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties in relation to the rent arrears, so this claim is ordered in full. Claim 5 – Damage during the tenancy
The landlord considers that the tenant has been harsh on the tenancy, and caused damage which is in excess of fair wear and tear that would be expected. The landlord in particular described: a. Two broken window catches. b. Two broken doors handles c. Broken light fitting d. Broken door panel which needed reattaching. e. Damage to garden tools (loppers), used by the tenant and not put back so became rusty and damaged.
In response the tenant says: a. The window catches had come away from normal use. b. The door handles broke during the tenancy from normal use. c. The tenant cannot recall any light being broken. d. The door panel came off, it was not glued properly. e. The tenant agreed he may have used the loppers and left them out, but he cannot recall specifically.
In conclusion, the landlord maintained that the damage was resulting from excessively heavy use. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
On the basis of the information I have available, I am not persuaded that the damage described by the landlord is anything beyond fair wear and tear. There is nothing at all unusual about repairs needing to be made to a tenancy during the course of the tenancy. Houses are complicated structures, for the most part the components of a house have a limited life span, and sooner later wear out, or break. When that happens, it is generally considered to be fair. We are in tear, and fall within the landlord’s duty to maintain. It would only be if the evidence supported that the damage was careless or intentional, that the responsibility would move to the tenant to pay for the damage. In relation to all of the damage claims, I find the landlord has not proven that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. That being the case, this claim has not been established. Claim 6 - Rubbish removal and gardening.
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, she found some rubbish dumped at the end of the tenancy, including a metal shelving unit (with the wooden shelf in the carport), a chair and box. The landlord said items were left in the carport. The landlord said the gardens were overgrown and the lawns not mowed. The house was not clean when it was returned. The landlord referred to photographs taken around two weeks following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed for her time at $50.00 per hour, noting that her handyman charges $75.00 per hour.
The tenant said that at the start of the tenancy the premises were not clean and he paid a cleaner at that time, but he accepts that the premises were not cleaned when the tenancy ended. The tenant also refers to the mould issues.
As far as the rubbish is concerned, the tenant agreed that he had not removed some of the rubbish, but he could have taken the removed it if the tenant raised it with him.
Similarly, the tenant said the garden was not provided in a clean and tidy state, and he never got on top of it. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Rubbish
The tenant accepts that rubbish was left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant has breached his obligation to remove those items, when the premises were returned to the landlord.
The landlord has claimed $246.00 for rubbish removal, and given the quantity of rubbish present, I consider that would be a fair claim, and this ordered in full. Cleaning
Taking it into consideration the photographs, I am not persuaded that the premises were returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean state. To be fair the tenant has accepted that he did not undertake further cleaning when the premises were returned.
The landlord has claimed $150 for cleaning, and given the photographs that also seems a fair claim, and ordered in full Gardening
In relation to the gardening, the obligation for light gardening was on the tenant, which includes lawns. Given the photographs available, I am satisfied that the gardens were not returned in a reasonably tidy state. The landlord has claimed $250 for doing the lawns and weeding, that seems reasonable and is ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding.
In this case both parties have applied for name suppression, however, I cannot say that the parties have been substantially successful in the proceeding, certainly they have had some level of success, but not substantial success. Therefore, the Tribunal declined both parties’ applications for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322779 — Rent arrears at 280B Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322779 — Rent arrears at 280B Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions