Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912 — Property damage at 592B Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 1, Hamilton 3493

Published 8 May 2026 · Application 5415912

Tenant favoured

Property damage
Healthy homes
State of repair
Exemplary damages

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Hamilton

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

T Harris

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $3,615.71
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $674.29

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$835.71		Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$315.00		Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: end of tenancy repairs	$180.00		Repairs: end of tenancy repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant		$845.00	Flooring repairs by tenant
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$400.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$300.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation		$600.00	HHS Insulation
Total award	$1,470.71	$2,145.00
Net award		$674.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$674.29

Claims and awards for application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $835.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Replace furnishings: Curtains

Amount: $315.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Curtains

Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant

Amount: $845.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Flooring repairs by tenant

Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages: unlawful entry

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: unlawful entry

Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS Insulation

Total award

Landlord $1,470.71 · Tenant $2,145.00

Net award

Tenant $674.29

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $674.29

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Exemplary damages Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears

Order

Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson $674.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, retaliatory notice, failure to maintain, unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes Standards and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The premises are a self-contained minor dwelling that shares driveway with the landlord’s property. Part of the tenancy included the use of 2 rooms of an unattached American style barn. A lean-to attached to the barn was shared between the parties for storage purposes.
Initially the tenancy was for a short period of time being 2- 3 months and there was no formal tenancy agreement.
When the landlords planned tenancy with a family members fell through the tenancy was extended and it became a periodic tenancy. The parties also had conversations about leasing land to the tenants and extending the living arrangements.
There were discussions and negotiations about a written tenancy agreement, but the tenants refused to sign any agreement until the terms and clauses were agreed to. The result being there was no written tenancy agreement for the resulting periodic tenancy.
Although this tenancy began as a short term tenancy, it continued and became a periodic tenancy, and the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 applies.
The tenancy began on 4 April 2024 and ended on 6 January 2026.
The party bringing the claims to the Tribunal has onus to prove them. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.
For the avoidance of doubt, while I may not have referred to all the evidence and submissions presented in this order, I confirm that I have considered all of the material before me in reaching my decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant agreed that the rent claimed was owing. They said that they had not paid the balance of rent because they were waiting for the landlord to pay an invoice for work, they completed at the premises.
A tenant must pay rent in full when due and unless there is an agreement for work to be done in lieu of rent. No agreement existed.
The parties agreed to pay the rent and the landlord agreed to pay for the work once the invoice was provided to him. The rent owed and the agreement by the landlord to pay is recorded in this orders calculations table. The tenants claim. Bond
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and that the landlord required rent paid 3 weeks in advance.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord cannot require more than 2 weeks rent in advance. See section 23 RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.See Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that at the start of the tenancy, when there was a verbal agreement for a short term rental, they were asked to pay $1350.00 into the landlords account as a bond and one weeks rent in advance. This was never deposited with the bond centre.
The landlord said they did not ask for a bond. This amount was the first weeks rent and the amount to keep the premises 2 weeks in advance.
The landlord provided a copy of the rent summary which records that the initial rent paid of $1350.00 covered three weeks, the first week and then two weeks in advance.
According to the rent summary provided, after the initial set up payment the tenancy changes into normal weekly rent charges. Each week one week rent became due and it was paid by the tenant keeping the rent 2 weeks in advance and no more throughout the tenancy.
The closing balance further supports this conclusion. At the end of the rent summary the balance outstanding is $835.71, which is less than two weeks’ rent and significantly less than three weeks’ rent ($1,350). This is inconsistent with the claim that the rent was required to be kept three weeks in advance at all times.
The tenant was unable to provide evidence supporting the claim that the amount paid to the landlord included a bond, or that the rent was paid 3 weeks in advance.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 24 November 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 6 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 21 November 2025 the tenants had raised issues with the landlord about the contents of the draft tenancy agreement the parties were negotiating. In this email they asked about the progress of list of issues they had sent on to the landlord on 10 September 2025. The list included healthy homes assessment, rent increase suggestions and notice periods and electricity costs that they were willing to pay.
The notice terminating the tenancy was dated 24 November 2025.
The landlord said that they had family members that needed a place to live so they offered it to them. They bought the family through on 1 December to show them the premises and they are now living there.
The tenants disputed that it was family members renting as their daughter was there when they were shown through, and she said it did not seem like they knew each other. No other evidence was provided.
The history of the tenancy is that the tenants originally knew that it was for a short period due to family moving in. This changed when the family members changed their minds, and the tenants requested to stay.
The landlords claimed that the tenants knew the premises were primarily for family use. The premises were put on the market and then withdrawn after which the landlord sought to formalise the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said that they had tried to get a tenancy agreement over a period of time with negotiations starting on 1 September 2025 and had not had a reply from the tenants since 10 September. By the time the tenants replied on 21 November, commenting on their draft agreement, they had decided to rent the premises to family members so did not reply to the tenants’ requests about the terms in the agreement. The tenants said they were not going to sign an agreement until everything was settled.
A tenant has the right to negotiate the terms of a tenancy agreement. The difficulty here was that the tenancy had gone from a short duration to a periodic, the tenants were already living there, and no agreement had been signed.
The tenant has the burden of proof to establish that the landlord was motivated by them exercising a right or power.
The timing of notices is part of what the Tribunal considers in retaliatory notice claims. A tenant has a right to notify the landlord of damages and ask for maintenance. Here the requests for a progress report on issues with the premises was sent on 10 September and an email about the tenancy agreement negotiations on 21 November. This is weighed up against the evidence that the landlord’s family did move into the premises and the landlord confirmed that they were still living there.
The issue is, if it was the actions of the tenants exercising a right that resulted in the tenancy being terminated. I find on the evidence provided that it was more likely than not that the termination was due to the landlord renting the premises to family members, and this was their motivation to end the tenancy. This was the landlord’s original intent and there was no evidence provided that the new tenants are not family members.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord Fail to maintain the premises ?

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
A landlord’s obligation to maintain a premises is balanced with the tenants obligation to inform them of any damage or maintenance as soon as possible. See section 40(1)(d)RTA. Septic Tank
The tenants said the septic tank leaked and provided a video of water gushing from it on 13 December 202.
The landlord said that the Plumber had inspected the septic tank during 2025. A letter was provided to the Tribunal dated 10 April 2026 from Paul Hughes who previously traded as Good Buggers Plumbing. He confirmed they had inspected the septic tank during 2025 but there had been no maintenance required and so not invoices were available. They had previously changed the submersible pump.
The landlord said they did not know about the gushing water from the tank as shown in the tenants’ video provided at the hearing. The tenants could not establish that they had told the landlord about this during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Taps inside
These were replaced by the tenants. Stormwater
There was an open drain on the section the landlord knew about this but it was not attended to by the time the tenancy ended.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Bifold doors
The landlord said that they came off the runners and fixed it at the start of the tenancy. They did not know that it had happened again. The tenants could not establish that the landlord had been told about this. Bedroom two, mould issues
The tenant provided photos of some mould on the wall in the bedroom. It was difficult to assess the size of the patch or location of it. Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high. To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned and excess moisture and humidity reduced.
Landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired while tenants are out.
This is balanced by the tenant’s responsibility to heat and air the premises and to use any extractor fans provided.
The landlord said that there were no problems before and it was a tenant’s responsibility to ventilate the room. No pre tenancy photographs were available.
There was not enough evidence provided by the tenant to establish this claim and it is dismissed. Vanity bathroom and Vanity top
There was some swelling in the base of the unit and laminate. It did not affect the use of the unit and was cosmetic only.
I find that although not new ,it was in a reasonable state of repair and this claim is dismissed. Heat pump
The tenant was concerned that the heat pump had not been serviced yearly. They agreed that that it was rarely used.
An invoice for the install of the heat pump was provided dated May 2022.The landlord confirmed that it was last service prior to the tenancy beginning.
The Healthy Homes Standards require that any heating device provided to meet the heating standard ,including heat pumps must be in good working order at the start of the tenancy and maintained in a good working order throughout the tenancy.
Not servicing a heat pump is not automatically a failure to maintain. There was no claim that the heat pump was not in good working order, just that it had not been serviced.
This claim is dismissed. Holes in the kitchen.
There were holes in the kitchen floor that the landlord knew about but did not fix.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in respect of the open drain and holes in the floor, both of which they knew about but failed to address. A landlord must comply with the requirements of the RTA to ensure premises are safe and habitable for tenants and those that visit them. I find it just to award $400.00 for this breach. Unlawful entry
Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s brother-in-law entered the premises and replaced the vanity top without notice being given. The landlord agreed that no notice would have been given and said that they had a casual arrangement where they would attend to issues as required.
The definition of landlord includes their agents and notice must be given to tenants before entering for repairs and maintenance.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord knew that notice was not given for this repair as required by the RTA. A landlord should know the requirements of the RTA and may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent. I find it just to award $500.00 for this breach.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Insulation

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The insulation in the roof had not been spread out as required so some parts were bare, and the underfloor foil was ripped. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Since 2019 the insulation standard has been in place. The landlord provided healthy Home compliance certificate noting that the underfloor insulation was completed on 16 January 2026 and ceiling insulation on 19 January 2026.The tenancy ended on 6 January 2026.
I find Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord stated that they acted in good faith and were taking steps to comply. That is not the legal requirement. Compliance has been required since 2019 and it was the landlord’s decision to continue with a periodic tenancy and therefore was required to comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award $600.00 for this breach. Landlords claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the gardens reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said they were overgrown at the start of the tenancy. Photos were provided of the gardens before the tenancy started showing tidy driveway and raised garden beds. This claim is awarded.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the decks clean, An invoice from a cleaner for washing it was provided dated 15 January 2026.The deck was discoloured at the start of the tenancy and the landlords evidence did not support this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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. The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Curtains in the outside room, living room and bedroom were removed and not replaced after the tenancy ended. The tenant said that they stored them in a shed jointly used with the landlord and when they came to leave, they were missing.
It was the tenant’s responsibility to care for the curtains and ensure that they were replaced at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord agreed to them replacing the curtains as the ones in the office were old and faded. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord claimed replacement cost break down and provided an invoice from 2021 for the original costs for the curtains in the lounge and bedroom.
The Inland revenue general depreciation rates table, IR265 calculates the expected lifespan of curtains in residential premises at 8 years. These curtains were 5 years at the end of the tenancy. After depreciation has been applied, $315.00 is awarded for curtain replacements.
Part of the fencing was found on the ground at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said the old fencing came down when they removed pool fencing that had been leaning on it which they had used to keep their dogs in. They left the fencing on the ground. I find that this was damaged by the tenants.
Holes in post were made when the tenant attached a screen at the end of the deck as a windbreak and were not repaired at the end of the tenancy.
Trim in office was removed in a small section to put a cupboard against the wall.
The tenant put wallpaper up on one wall and said she had permission from one of the landlords. The landlord agreed that this could have happened.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. An invoice was provided by the landlord for their costs to attend to the end of tenancy repairs at a charge out rate of $35.00 per hour. The award for curtain replacement is made separately and the amount awarded reduced to reflect the dismissing of the claim to remove wallpaper.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenants breach their responsibilities.
Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by moving an unauthorised cabin onto the premises and operating a business without consent. They seek compensation for insurance costs, lost rent and breach of the permitted use of the premises. They also seek compensation for increased personal risk due to the extra people coming to the premises.
Although there was no written tenancy agreement, the parties entered into a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies when the periodic tenancy began. The premises were let as residential premises. In those circumstances, a term limiting use of the premises to residential purposes is properly implied.
It was not disputed by the tenant that their daughter operated a business from a cabin on the premises for a period of time ceasing they claim in January 2025.The landlord disputes the end date of the business and provided a Facebook post they said was current and still advertised the service.
The Tribunal can award compensation for actual loss if the landlord can establish actual quantifiable loss flowing from the breach.
I do not find that the tenant breached s 40(1)(b) RTA by failing to ensure the premises were occupied principally for residential purposes. The premises were residential, and the business was run from the relocated cabin, and if I had the landlord must still establish actual loss flowing from that breach.
The landlord sought compensation by way of the possibility of voided insurance cover, uninsured loss if cover was declined, and additional premiums that should have been paid to cover this change in use. In support of this they provided a letter from their insurance broker stating their policy exclusions and the comparative insurance rates for commercial property and residential property.
The landlord also sought compensation for lost rent because they would have charged a different rental amount for commercial /residential tenancy if they had known the property was being used as a business.
The last part of the compensation claim was for the increased personal risk from unknown persons on the premises who were looking for the tenant’s property and coming onto the landlord’s premises. The landlord said that they felt harassed and unsafe, giving the example of a person coming to their home looking for the massage business.
The claim I have before me is for compensation. When the Tribunal consider claims for compensation what is looked for is, a) Evidence of an actual loss suffered by a party b) A causal connection from the actions of the other party to the loss suffered.
The claim for insurance costs for non-residential use may, in some circumstances, give rise to loss that can be compensated. But in this instance no evidence has been provided of a declined claim, cancellation of cover, or additional premium actually incurred. In the absence of proven financial loss, compensation cannot be awarded.
Rent is determined by agreement and not by use. A landlord is unable to base a claim for compensation on the belief that they would have charged more if they had known. The Tribunal will not retrospectively re-price a tenancy or enforce a hypothetical bargain that was never made.
Finally, the claim for increased personal risk is not awarded. The Tribunal does not award compensation for perceived danger, or hypothetical exposure and there was not enough evidence provided about actual events to support this claim.
The landlord has failed to establish an actual loss has occurred. The amounts claimed are speculative only, based on what might have happened.
This claim is dismissed.
No filing fee reimbursement is ordered as both parties were somewhat successful with their claims.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Healthy homes State of repair Exemplary damages Hamilton

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s08, s1, s109(3), s19(1), s19(2), s2, s2016, s23, s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s48, s48(1), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s52, s53, s54(1), s54(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears
Dispute theme: property damage
Dispute theme: state of repair

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912?

The tribunal order states: Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle

How much money was awarded in case 5415912?

Property Damage: $845.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $835.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $315.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415912?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13423574-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912 — Property damage at 592B Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 1, Hamilton 3493

Published 8 May 2026 · Application 5415912

Tenant favoured

Property damage
Healthy homes
State of repair
Exemplary damages

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Hamilton

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

T Harris

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $3,615.71
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $674.29

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$835.71		Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$315.00		Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: end of tenancy repairs	$180.00		Repairs: end of tenancy repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant		$845.00	Flooring repairs by tenant
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$400.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$300.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation		$600.00	HHS Insulation
Total award	$1,470.71	$2,145.00
Net award		$674.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$674.29

Claims and awards for application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $835.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Replace furnishings: Curtains

Amount: $315.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Curtains

Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant

Amount: $845.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Flooring repairs by tenant

Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages: unlawful entry

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: unlawful entry

Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS Insulation

Total award

Landlord $1,470.71 · Tenant $2,145.00

Net award

Tenant $674.29

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $674.29

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Exemplary damages Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears

Order

Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson $674.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, retaliatory notice, failure to maintain, unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes Standards and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The premises are a self-contained minor dwelling that shares driveway with the landlord’s property. Part of the tenancy included the use of 2 rooms of an unattached American style barn. A lean-to attached to the barn was shared between the parties for storage purposes.
Initially the tenancy was for a short period of time being 2- 3 months and there was no formal tenancy agreement.
When the landlords planned tenancy with a family members fell through the tenancy was extended and it became a periodic tenancy. The parties also had conversations about leasing land to the tenants and extending the living arrangements.
There were discussions and negotiations about a written tenancy agreement, but the tenants refused to sign any agreement until the terms and clauses were agreed to. The result being there was no written tenancy agreement for the resulting periodic tenancy.
Although this tenancy began as a short term tenancy, it continued and became a periodic tenancy, and the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 applies.
The tenancy began on 4 April 2024 and ended on 6 January 2026.
The party bringing the claims to the Tribunal has onus to prove them. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.
For the avoidance of doubt, while I may not have referred to all the evidence and submissions presented in this order, I confirm that I have considered all of the material before me in reaching my decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant agreed that the rent claimed was owing. They said that they had not paid the balance of rent because they were waiting for the landlord to pay an invoice for work, they completed at the premises.
A tenant must pay rent in full when due and unless there is an agreement for work to be done in lieu of rent. No agreement existed.
The parties agreed to pay the rent and the landlord agreed to pay for the work once the invoice was provided to him. The rent owed and the agreement by the landlord to pay is recorded in this orders calculations table. The tenants claim. Bond
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and that the landlord required rent paid 3 weeks in advance.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord cannot require more than 2 weeks rent in advance. See section 23 RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.See Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that at the start of the tenancy, when there was a verbal agreement for a short term rental, they were asked to pay $1350.00 into the landlords account as a bond and one weeks rent in advance. This was never deposited with the bond centre.
The landlord said they did not ask for a bond. This amount was the first weeks rent and the amount to keep the premises 2 weeks in advance.
The landlord provided a copy of the rent summary which records that the initial rent paid of $1350.00 covered three weeks, the first week and then two weeks in advance.
According to the rent summary provided, after the initial set up payment the tenancy changes into normal weekly rent charges. Each week one week rent became due and it was paid by the tenant keeping the rent 2 weeks in advance and no more throughout the tenancy.
The closing balance further supports this conclusion. At the end of the rent summary the balance outstanding is $835.71, which is less than two weeks’ rent and significantly less than three weeks’ rent ($1,350). This is inconsistent with the claim that the rent was required to be kept three weeks in advance at all times.
The tenant was unable to provide evidence supporting the claim that the amount paid to the landlord included a bond, or that the rent was paid 3 weeks in advance.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 24 November 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 6 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 21 November 2025 the tenants had raised issues with the landlord about the contents of the draft tenancy agreement the parties were negotiating. In this email they asked about the progress of list of issues they had sent on to the landlord on 10 September 2025. The list included healthy homes assessment, rent increase suggestions and notice periods and electricity costs that they were willing to pay.
The notice terminating the tenancy was dated 24 November 2025.
The landlord said that they had family members that needed a place to live so they offered it to them. They bought the family through on 1 December to show them the premises and they are now living there.
The tenants disputed that it was family members renting as their daughter was there when they were shown through, and she said it did not seem like they knew each other. No other evidence was provided.
The history of the tenancy is that the tenants originally knew that it was for a short period due to family moving in. This changed when the family members changed their minds, and the tenants requested to stay.
The landlords claimed that the tenants knew the premises were primarily for family use. The premises were put on the market and then withdrawn after which the landlord sought to formalise the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said that they had tried to get a tenancy agreement over a period of time with negotiations starting on 1 September 2025 and had not had a reply from the tenants since 10 September. By the time the tenants replied on 21 November, commenting on their draft agreement, they had decided to rent the premises to family members so did not reply to the tenants’ requests about the terms in the agreement. The tenants said they were not going to sign an agreement until everything was settled.
A tenant has the right to negotiate the terms of a tenancy agreement. The difficulty here was that the tenancy had gone from a short duration to a periodic, the tenants were already living there, and no agreement had been signed.
The tenant has the burden of proof to establish that the landlord was motivated by them exercising a right or power.
The timing of notices is part of what the Tribunal considers in retaliatory notice claims. A tenant has a right to notify the landlord of damages and ask for maintenance. Here the requests for a progress report on issues with the premises was sent on 10 September and an email about the tenancy agreement negotiations on 21 November. This is weighed up against the evidence that the landlord’s family did move into the premises and the landlord confirmed that they were still living there.
The issue is, if it was the actions of the tenants exercising a right that resulted in the tenancy being terminated. I find on the evidence provided that it was more likely than not that the termination was due to the landlord renting the premises to family members, and this was their motivation to end the tenancy. This was the landlord’s original intent and there was no evidence provided that the new tenants are not family members.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord Fail to maintain the premises ?

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
A landlord’s obligation to maintain a premises is balanced with the tenants obligation to inform them of any damage or maintenance as soon as possible. See section 40(1)(d)RTA. Septic Tank
The tenants said the septic tank leaked and provided a video of water gushing from it on 13 December 202.
The landlord said that the Plumber had inspected the septic tank during 2025. A letter was provided to the Tribunal dated 10 April 2026 from Paul Hughes who previously traded as Good Buggers Plumbing. He confirmed they had inspected the septic tank during 2025 but there had been no maintenance required and so not invoices were available. They had previously changed the submersible pump.
The landlord said they did not know about the gushing water from the tank as shown in the tenants’ video provided at the hearing. The tenants could not establish that they had told the landlord about this during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Taps inside
These were replaced by the tenants. Stormwater
There was an open drain on the section the landlord knew about this but it was not attended to by the time the tenancy ended.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Bifold doors
The landlord said that they came off the runners and fixed it at the start of the tenancy. They did not know that it had happened again. The tenants could not establish that the landlord had been told about this. Bedroom two, mould issues
The tenant provided photos of some mould on the wall in the bedroom. It was difficult to assess the size of the patch or location of it. Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high. To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned and excess moisture and humidity reduced.
Landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired while tenants are out.
This is balanced by the tenant’s responsibility to heat and air the premises and to use any extractor fans provided.
The landlord said that there were no problems before and it was a tenant’s responsibility to ventilate the room. No pre tenancy photographs were available.
There was not enough evidence provided by the tenant to establish this claim and it is dismissed. Vanity bathroom and Vanity top
There was some swelling in the base of the unit and laminate. It did not affect the use of the unit and was cosmetic only.
I find that although not new ,it was in a reasonable state of repair and this claim is dismissed. Heat pump
The tenant was concerned that the heat pump had not been serviced yearly. They agreed that that it was rarely used.
An invoice for the install of the heat pump was provided dated May 2022.The landlord confirmed that it was last service prior to the tenancy beginning.
The Healthy Homes Standards require that any heating device provided to meet the heating standard ,including heat pumps must be in good working order at the start of the tenancy and maintained in a good working order throughout the tenancy.
Not servicing a heat pump is not automatically a failure to maintain. There was no claim that the heat pump was not in good working order, just that it had not been serviced.
This claim is dismissed. Holes in the kitchen.
There were holes in the kitchen floor that the landlord knew about but did not fix.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in respect of the open drain and holes in the floor, both of which they knew about but failed to address. A landlord must comply with the requirements of the RTA to ensure premises are safe and habitable for tenants and those that visit them. I find it just to award $400.00 for this breach. Unlawful entry
Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s brother-in-law entered the premises and replaced the vanity top without notice being given. The landlord agreed that no notice would have been given and said that they had a casual arrangement where they would attend to issues as required.
The definition of landlord includes their agents and notice must be given to tenants before entering for repairs and maintenance.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord knew that notice was not given for this repair as required by the RTA. A landlord should know the requirements of the RTA and may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent. I find it just to award $500.00 for this breach.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Insulation

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The insulation in the roof had not been spread out as required so some parts were bare, and the underfloor foil was ripped. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Since 2019 the insulation standard has been in place. The landlord provided healthy Home compliance certificate noting that the underfloor insulation was completed on 16 January 2026 and ceiling insulation on 19 January 2026.The tenancy ended on 6 January 2026.
I find Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord stated that they acted in good faith and were taking steps to comply. That is not the legal requirement. Compliance has been required since 2019 and it was the landlord’s decision to continue with a periodic tenancy and therefore was required to comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award $600.00 for this breach. Landlords claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the gardens reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said they were overgrown at the start of the tenancy. Photos were provided of the gardens before the tenancy started showing tidy driveway and raised garden beds. This claim is awarded.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the decks clean, An invoice from a cleaner for washing it was provided dated 15 January 2026.The deck was discoloured at the start of the tenancy and the landlords evidence did not support this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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. The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Curtains in the outside room, living room and bedroom were removed and not replaced after the tenancy ended. The tenant said that they stored them in a shed jointly used with the landlord and when they came to leave, they were missing.
It was the tenant’s responsibility to care for the curtains and ensure that they were replaced at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord agreed to them replacing the curtains as the ones in the office were old and faded. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord claimed replacement cost break down and provided an invoice from 2021 for the original costs for the curtains in the lounge and bedroom.
The Inland revenue general depreciation rates table, IR265 calculates the expected lifespan of curtains in residential premises at 8 years. These curtains were 5 years at the end of the tenancy. After depreciation has been applied, $315.00 is awarded for curtain replacements.
Part of the fencing was found on the ground at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said the old fencing came down when they removed pool fencing that had been leaning on it which they had used to keep their dogs in. They left the fencing on the ground. I find that this was damaged by the tenants.
Holes in post were made when the tenant attached a screen at the end of the deck as a windbreak and were not repaired at the end of the tenancy.
Trim in office was removed in a small section to put a cupboard against the wall.
The tenant put wallpaper up on one wall and said she had permission from one of the landlords. The landlord agreed that this could have happened.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. An invoice was provided by the landlord for their costs to attend to the end of tenancy repairs at a charge out rate of $35.00 per hour. The award for curtain replacement is made separately and the amount awarded reduced to reflect the dismissing of the claim to remove wallpaper.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenants breach their responsibilities.
Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by moving an unauthorised cabin onto the premises and operating a business without consent. They seek compensation for insurance costs, lost rent and breach of the permitted use of the premises. They also seek compensation for increased personal risk due to the extra people coming to the premises.
Although there was no written tenancy agreement, the parties entered into a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies when the periodic tenancy began. The premises were let as residential premises. In those circumstances, a term limiting use of the premises to residential purposes is properly implied.
It was not disputed by the tenant that their daughter operated a business from a cabin on the premises for a period of time ceasing they claim in January 2025.The landlord disputes the end date of the business and provided a Facebook post they said was current and still advertised the service.
The Tribunal can award compensation for actual loss if the landlord can establish actual quantifiable loss flowing from the breach.
I do not find that the tenant breached s 40(1)(b) RTA by failing to ensure the premises were occupied principally for residential purposes. The premises were residential, and the business was run from the relocated cabin, and if I had the landlord must still establish actual loss flowing from that breach.
The landlord sought compensation by way of the possibility of voided insurance cover, uninsured loss if cover was declined, and additional premiums that should have been paid to cover this change in use. In support of this they provided a letter from their insurance broker stating their policy exclusions and the comparative insurance rates for commercial property and residential property.
The landlord also sought compensation for lost rent because they would have charged a different rental amount for commercial /residential tenancy if they had known the property was being used as a business.
The last part of the compensation claim was for the increased personal risk from unknown persons on the premises who were looking for the tenant’s property and coming onto the landlord’s premises. The landlord said that they felt harassed and unsafe, giving the example of a person coming to their home looking for the massage business.
The claim I have before me is for compensation. When the Tribunal consider claims for compensation what is looked for is, a) Evidence of an actual loss suffered by a party b) A causal connection from the actions of the other party to the loss suffered.
The claim for insurance costs for non-residential use may, in some circumstances, give rise to loss that can be compensated. But in this instance no evidence has been provided of a declined claim, cancellation of cover, or additional premium actually incurred. In the absence of proven financial loss, compensation cannot be awarded.
Rent is determined by agreement and not by use. A landlord is unable to base a claim for compensation on the belief that they would have charged more if they had known. The Tribunal will not retrospectively re-price a tenancy or enforce a hypothetical bargain that was never made.
Finally, the claim for increased personal risk is not awarded. The Tribunal does not award compensation for perceived danger, or hypothetical exposure and there was not enough evidence provided about actual events to support this claim.
The landlord has failed to establish an actual loss has occurred. The amounts claimed are speculative only, based on what might have happened.
This claim is dismissed.
No filing fee reimbursement is ordered as both parties were somewhat successful with their claims.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Healthy homes State of repair Exemplary damages Hamilton

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s08, s1, s109(3), s19(1), s19(2), s2, s2016, s23, s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s48, s48(1), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s52, s53, s54(1), s54(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears
Dispute theme: property damage
Dispute theme: state of repair

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912?

The tribunal order states: Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle

How much money was awarded in case 5415912?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415912?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13423574-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912 — Property damage at 592B Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 1, Hamilton 3493

Published 8 May 2026 · Application 5415912

Tenant favoured

Property damage
Healthy homes
State of repair
Exemplary damages

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Hamilton

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

T Harris

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $3,615.71
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $674.29

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$835.71		Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$315.00		Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: end of tenancy repairs	$180.00		Repairs: end of tenancy repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant		$845.00	Flooring repairs by tenant
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$400.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$300.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation		$600.00	HHS Insulation
Total award	$1,470.71	$2,145.00
Net award		$674.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$674.29

Claims and awards for application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $835.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Replace furnishings: Curtains

Amount: $315.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Curtains

Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant

Amount: $845.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Flooring repairs by tenant

Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages: unlawful entry

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: unlawful entry

Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS Insulation

Total award

Landlord $1,470.71 · Tenant $2,145.00

Net award

Tenant $674.29

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $674.29

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Exemplary damages Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears

Order

Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson $674.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, retaliatory notice, failure to maintain, unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes Standards and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The premises are a self-contained minor dwelling that shares driveway with the landlord’s property. Part of the tenancy included the use of 2 rooms of an unattached American style barn. A lean-to attached to the barn was shared between the parties for storage purposes.
Initially the tenancy was for a short period of time being 2- 3 months and there was no formal tenancy agreement.
When the landlords planned tenancy with a family members fell through the tenancy was extended and it became a periodic tenancy. The parties also had conversations about leasing land to the tenants and extending the living arrangements.
There were discussions and negotiations about a written tenancy agreement, but the tenants refused to sign any agreement until the terms and clauses were agreed to. The result being there was no written tenancy agreement for the resulting periodic tenancy.
Although this tenancy began as a short term tenancy, it continued and became a periodic tenancy, and the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 applies.
The tenancy began on 4 April 2024 and ended on 6 January 2026.
The party bringing the claims to the Tribunal has onus to prove them. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.
For the avoidance of doubt, while I may not have referred to all the evidence and submissions presented in this order, I confirm that I have considered all of the material before me in reaching my decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant agreed that the rent claimed was owing. They said that they had not paid the balance of rent because they were waiting for the landlord to pay an invoice for work, they completed at the premises.
A tenant must pay rent in full when due and unless there is an agreement for work to be done in lieu of rent. No agreement existed.
The parties agreed to pay the rent and the landlord agreed to pay for the work once the invoice was provided to him. The rent owed and the agreement by the landlord to pay is recorded in this orders calculations table. The tenants claim. Bond
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and that the landlord required rent paid 3 weeks in advance.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord cannot require more than 2 weeks rent in advance. See section 23 RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.See Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that at the start of the tenancy, when there was a verbal agreement for a short term rental, they were asked to pay $1350.00 into the landlords account as a bond and one weeks rent in advance. This was never deposited with the bond centre.
The landlord said they did not ask for a bond. This amount was the first weeks rent and the amount to keep the premises 2 weeks in advance.
The landlord provided a copy of the rent summary which records that the initial rent paid of $1350.00 covered three weeks, the first week and then two weeks in advance.
According to the rent summary provided, after the initial set up payment the tenancy changes into normal weekly rent charges. Each week one week rent became due and it was paid by the tenant keeping the rent 2 weeks in advance and no more throughout the tenancy.
The closing balance further supports this conclusion. At the end of the rent summary the balance outstanding is $835.71, which is less than two weeks’ rent and significantly less than three weeks’ rent ($1,350). This is inconsistent with the claim that the rent was required to be kept three weeks in advance at all times.
The tenant was unable to provide evidence supporting the claim that the amount paid to the landlord included a bond, or that the rent was paid 3 weeks in advance.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 24 November 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 6 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 21 November 2025 the tenants had raised issues with the landlord about the contents of the draft tenancy agreement the parties were negotiating. In this email they asked about the progress of list of issues they had sent on to the landlord on 10 September 2025. The list included healthy homes assessment, rent increase suggestions and notice periods and electricity costs that they were willing to pay.
The notice terminating the tenancy was dated 24 November 2025.
The landlord said that they had family members that needed a place to live so they offered it to them. They bought the family through on 1 December to show them the premises and they are now living there.
The tenants disputed that it was family members renting as their daughter was there when they were shown through, and she said it did not seem like they knew each other. No other evidence was provided.
The history of the tenancy is that the tenants originally knew that it was for a short period due to family moving in. This changed when the family members changed their minds, and the tenants requested to stay.
The landlords claimed that the tenants knew the premises were primarily for family use. The premises were put on the market and then withdrawn after which the landlord sought to formalise the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said that they had tried to get a tenancy agreement over a period of time with negotiations starting on 1 September 2025 and had not had a reply from the tenants since 10 September. By the time the tenants replied on 21 November, commenting on their draft agreement, they had decided to rent the premises to family members so did not reply to the tenants’ requests about the terms in the agreement. The tenants said they were not going to sign an agreement until everything was settled.
A tenant has the right to negotiate the terms of a tenancy agreement. The difficulty here was that the tenancy had gone from a short duration to a periodic, the tenants were already living there, and no agreement had been signed.
The tenant has the burden of proof to establish that the landlord was motivated by them exercising a right or power.
The timing of notices is part of what the Tribunal considers in retaliatory notice claims. A tenant has a right to notify the landlord of damages and ask for maintenance. Here the requests for a progress report on issues with the premises was sent on 10 September and an email about the tenancy agreement negotiations on 21 November. This is weighed up against the evidence that the landlord’s family did move into the premises and the landlord confirmed that they were still living there.
The issue is, if it was the actions of the tenants exercising a right that resulted in the tenancy being terminated. I find on the evidence provided that it was more likely than not that the termination was due to the landlord renting the premises to family members, and this was their motivation to end the tenancy. This was the landlord’s original intent and there was no evidence provided that the new tenants are not family members.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord Fail to maintain the premises ?

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
A landlord’s obligation to maintain a premises is balanced with the tenants obligation to inform them of any damage or maintenance as soon as possible. See section 40(1)(d)RTA. Septic Tank
The tenants said the septic tank leaked and provided a video of water gushing from it on 13 December 202.
The landlord said that the Plumber had inspected the septic tank during 2025. A letter was provided to the Tribunal dated 10 April 2026 from Paul Hughes who previously traded as Good Buggers Plumbing. He confirmed they had inspected the septic tank during 2025 but there had been no maintenance required and so not invoices were available. They had previously changed the submersible pump.
The landlord said they did not know about the gushing water from the tank as shown in the tenants’ video provided at the hearing. The tenants could not establish that they had told the landlord about this during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Taps inside
These were replaced by the tenants. Stormwater
There was an open drain on the section the landlord knew about this but it was not attended to by the time the tenancy ended.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Bifold doors
The landlord said that they came off the runners and fixed it at the start of the tenancy. They did not know that it had happened again. The tenants could not establish that the landlord had been told about this. Bedroom two, mould issues
The tenant provided photos of some mould on the wall in the bedroom. It was difficult to assess the size of the patch or location of it. Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high. To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned and excess moisture and humidity reduced.
Landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired while tenants are out.
This is balanced by the tenant’s responsibility to heat and air the premises and to use any extractor fans provided.
The landlord said that there were no problems before and it was a tenant’s responsibility to ventilate the room. No pre tenancy photographs were available.
There was not enough evidence provided by the tenant to establish this claim and it is dismissed. Vanity bathroom and Vanity top
There was some swelling in the base of the unit and laminate. It did not affect the use of the unit and was cosmetic only.
I find that although not new ,it was in a reasonable state of repair and this claim is dismissed. Heat pump
The tenant was concerned that the heat pump had not been serviced yearly. They agreed that that it was rarely used.
An invoice for the install of the heat pump was provided dated May 2022.The landlord confirmed that it was last service prior to the tenancy beginning.
The Healthy Homes Standards require that any heating device provided to meet the heating standard ,including heat pumps must be in good working order at the start of the tenancy and maintained in a good working order throughout the tenancy.
Not servicing a heat pump is not automatically a failure to maintain. There was no claim that the heat pump was not in good working order, just that it had not been serviced.
This claim is dismissed. Holes in the kitchen.
There were holes in the kitchen floor that the landlord knew about but did not fix.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in respect of the open drain and holes in the floor, both of which they knew about but failed to address. A landlord must comply with the requirements of the RTA to ensure premises are safe and habitable for tenants and those that visit them. I find it just to award $400.00 for this breach. Unlawful entry
Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s brother-in-law entered the premises and replaced the vanity top without notice being given. The landlord agreed that no notice would have been given and said that they had a casual arrangement where they would attend to issues as required.
The definition of landlord includes their agents and notice must be given to tenants before entering for repairs and maintenance.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord knew that notice was not given for this repair as required by the RTA. A landlord should know the requirements of the RTA and may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent. I find it just to award $500.00 for this breach.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Insulation

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The insulation in the roof had not been spread out as required so some parts were bare, and the underfloor foil was ripped. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Since 2019 the insulation standard has been in place. The landlord provided healthy Home compliance certificate noting that the underfloor insulation was completed on 16 January 2026 and ceiling insulation on 19 January 2026.The tenancy ended on 6 January 2026.
I find Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord stated that they acted in good faith and were taking steps to comply. That is not the legal requirement. Compliance has been required since 2019 and it was the landlord’s decision to continue with a periodic tenancy and therefore was required to comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award $600.00 for this breach. Landlords claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the gardens reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said they were overgrown at the start of the tenancy. Photos were provided of the gardens before the tenancy started showing tidy driveway and raised garden beds. This claim is awarded.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the decks clean, An invoice from a cleaner for washing it was provided dated 15 January 2026.The deck was discoloured at the start of the tenancy and the landlords evidence did not support this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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. The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Curtains in the outside room, living room and bedroom were removed and not replaced after the tenancy ended. The tenant said that they stored them in a shed jointly used with the landlord and when they came to leave, they were missing.
It was the tenant’s responsibility to care for the curtains and ensure that they were replaced at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord agreed to them replacing the curtains as the ones in the office were old and faded. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord claimed replacement cost break down and provided an invoice from 2021 for the original costs for the curtains in the lounge and bedroom.
The Inland revenue general depreciation rates table, IR265 calculates the expected lifespan of curtains in residential premises at 8 years. These curtains were 5 years at the end of the tenancy. After depreciation has been applied, $315.00 is awarded for curtain replacements.
Part of the fencing was found on the ground at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said the old fencing came down when they removed pool fencing that had been leaning on it which they had used to keep their dogs in. They left the fencing on the ground. I find that this was damaged by the tenants.
Holes in post were made when the tenant attached a screen at the end of the deck as a windbreak and were not repaired at the end of the tenancy.
Trim in office was removed in a small section to put a cupboard against the wall.
The tenant put wallpaper up on one wall and said she had permission from one of the landlords. The landlord agreed that this could have happened.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. An invoice was provided by the landlord for their costs to attend to the end of tenancy repairs at a charge out rate of $35.00 per hour. The award for curtain replacement is made separately and the amount awarded reduced to reflect the dismissing of the claim to remove wallpaper.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenants breach their responsibilities.
Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by moving an unauthorised cabin onto the premises and operating a business without consent. They seek compensation for insurance costs, lost rent and breach of the permitted use of the premises. They also seek compensation for increased personal risk due to the extra people coming to the premises.
Although there was no written tenancy agreement, the parties entered into a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies when the periodic tenancy began. The premises were let as residential premises. In those circumstances, a term limiting use of the premises to residential purposes is properly implied.
It was not disputed by the tenant that their daughter operated a business from a cabin on the premises for a period of time ceasing they claim in January 2025.The landlord disputes the end date of the business and provided a Facebook post they said was current and still advertised the service.
The Tribunal can award compensation for actual loss if the landlord can establish actual quantifiable loss flowing from the breach.
I do not find that the tenant breached s 40(1)(b) RTA by failing to ensure the premises were occupied principally for residential purposes. The premises were residential, and the business was run from the relocated cabin, and if I had the landlord must still establish actual loss flowing from that breach.
The landlord sought compensation by way of the possibility of voided insurance cover, uninsured loss if cover was declined, and additional premiums that should have been paid to cover this change in use. In support of this they provided a letter from their insurance broker stating their policy exclusions and the comparative insurance rates for commercial property and residential property.
The landlord also sought compensation for lost rent because they would have charged a different rental amount for commercial /residential tenancy if they had known the property was being used as a business.
The last part of the compensation claim was for the increased personal risk from unknown persons on the premises who were looking for the tenant’s property and coming onto the landlord’s premises. The landlord said that they felt harassed and unsafe, giving the example of a person coming to their home looking for the massage business.
The claim I have before me is for compensation. When the Tribunal consider claims for compensation what is looked for is, a) Evidence of an actual loss suffered by a party b) A causal connection from the actions of the other party to the loss suffered.
The claim for insurance costs for non-residential use may, in some circumstances, give rise to loss that can be compensated. But in this instance no evidence has been provided of a declined claim, cancellation of cover, or additional premium actually incurred. In the absence of proven financial loss, compensation cannot be awarded.
Rent is determined by agreement and not by use. A landlord is unable to base a claim for compensation on the belief that they would have charged more if they had known. The Tribunal will not retrospectively re-price a tenancy or enforce a hypothetical bargain that was never made.
Finally, the claim for increased personal risk is not awarded. The Tribunal does not award compensation for perceived danger, or hypothetical exposure and there was not enough evidence provided about actual events to support this claim.
The landlord has failed to establish an actual loss has occurred. The amounts claimed are speculative only, based on what might have happened.
This claim is dismissed.
No filing fee reimbursement is ordered as both parties were somewhat successful with their claims.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Healthy homes State of repair Exemplary damages Hamilton

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s08, s1, s109(3), s19(1), s19(2), s2, s2016, s23, s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s48, s48(1), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s52, s53, s54(1), s54(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears
Dispute theme: property damage
Dispute theme: state of repair

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912?

The tribunal order states: Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle

How much money was awarded in case 5415912?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415912?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13423574-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912 — Property damage at 592B Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 1, Hamilton 3493

Published 8 May 2026 · Application 5415912

Tenant favoured

Property damage
Healthy homes
State of repair
Exemplary damages

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Hamilton

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

T Harris

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $3,615.71
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $674.29

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$835.71		Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$315.00		Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: end of tenancy repairs	$180.00		Repairs: end of tenancy repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant		$845.00	Flooring repairs by tenant
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$400.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$300.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation		$600.00	HHS Insulation
Total award	$1,470.71	$2,145.00
Net award		$674.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$674.29

Claims and awards for application 5415912 — net $674.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $835.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Replace furnishings: Curtains

Amount: $315.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Curtains

Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: end of tenancy repairs

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Compensation: Flooring repairs by tenant

Amount: $845.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Flooring repairs by tenant

Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Exemplary damages: unlawful entry

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: unlawful entry

Exemplary damages: HHS Insulation

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: HHS Insulation

Total award

Landlord $1,470.71 · Tenant $2,145.00

Net award

Tenant $674.29

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $674.29

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Exemplary damages Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears

Order

Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson $674.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, retaliatory notice, failure to maintain, unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes Standards and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The premises are a self-contained minor dwelling that shares driveway with the landlord’s property. Part of the tenancy included the use of 2 rooms of an unattached American style barn. A lean-to attached to the barn was shared between the parties for storage purposes.
Initially the tenancy was for a short period of time being 2- 3 months and there was no formal tenancy agreement.
When the landlords planned tenancy with a family members fell through the tenancy was extended and it became a periodic tenancy. The parties also had conversations about leasing land to the tenants and extending the living arrangements.
There were discussions and negotiations about a written tenancy agreement, but the tenants refused to sign any agreement until the terms and clauses were agreed to. The result being there was no written tenancy agreement for the resulting periodic tenancy.
Although this tenancy began as a short term tenancy, it continued and became a periodic tenancy, and the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 applies.
The tenancy began on 4 April 2024 and ended on 6 January 2026.
The party bringing the claims to the Tribunal has onus to prove them. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.
For the avoidance of doubt, while I may not have referred to all the evidence and submissions presented in this order, I confirm that I have considered all of the material before me in reaching my decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant agreed that the rent claimed was owing. They said that they had not paid the balance of rent because they were waiting for the landlord to pay an invoice for work, they completed at the premises.
A tenant must pay rent in full when due and unless there is an agreement for work to be done in lieu of rent. No agreement existed.
The parties agreed to pay the rent and the landlord agreed to pay for the work once the invoice was provided to him. The rent owed and the agreement by the landlord to pay is recorded in this orders calculations table. The tenants claim. Bond
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and that the landlord required rent paid 3 weeks in advance.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord cannot require more than 2 weeks rent in advance. See section 23 RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.See Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that at the start of the tenancy, when there was a verbal agreement for a short term rental, they were asked to pay $1350.00 into the landlords account as a bond and one weeks rent in advance. This was never deposited with the bond centre.
The landlord said they did not ask for a bond. This amount was the first weeks rent and the amount to keep the premises 2 weeks in advance.
The landlord provided a copy of the rent summary which records that the initial rent paid of $1350.00 covered three weeks, the first week and then two weeks in advance.
According to the rent summary provided, after the initial set up payment the tenancy changes into normal weekly rent charges. Each week one week rent became due and it was paid by the tenant keeping the rent 2 weeks in advance and no more throughout the tenancy.
The closing balance further supports this conclusion. At the end of the rent summary the balance outstanding is $835.71, which is less than two weeks’ rent and significantly less than three weeks’ rent ($1,350). This is inconsistent with the claim that the rent was required to be kept three weeks in advance at all times.
The tenant was unable to provide evidence supporting the claim that the amount paid to the landlord included a bond, or that the rent was paid 3 weeks in advance.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 24 November 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 6 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 21 November 2025 the tenants had raised issues with the landlord about the contents of the draft tenancy agreement the parties were negotiating. In this email they asked about the progress of list of issues they had sent on to the landlord on 10 September 2025. The list included healthy homes assessment, rent increase suggestions and notice periods and electricity costs that they were willing to pay.
The notice terminating the tenancy was dated 24 November 2025.
The landlord said that they had family members that needed a place to live so they offered it to them. They bought the family through on 1 December to show them the premises and they are now living there.
The tenants disputed that it was family members renting as their daughter was there when they were shown through, and she said it did not seem like they knew each other. No other evidence was provided.
The history of the tenancy is that the tenants originally knew that it was for a short period due to family moving in. This changed when the family members changed their minds, and the tenants requested to stay.
The landlords claimed that the tenants knew the premises were primarily for family use. The premises were put on the market and then withdrawn after which the landlord sought to formalise the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said that they had tried to get a tenancy agreement over a period of time with negotiations starting on 1 September 2025 and had not had a reply from the tenants since 10 September. By the time the tenants replied on 21 November, commenting on their draft agreement, they had decided to rent the premises to family members so did not reply to the tenants’ requests about the terms in the agreement. The tenants said they were not going to sign an agreement until everything was settled.
A tenant has the right to negotiate the terms of a tenancy agreement. The difficulty here was that the tenancy had gone from a short duration to a periodic, the tenants were already living there, and no agreement had been signed.
The tenant has the burden of proof to establish that the landlord was motivated by them exercising a right or power.
The timing of notices is part of what the Tribunal considers in retaliatory notice claims. A tenant has a right to notify the landlord of damages and ask for maintenance. Here the requests for a progress report on issues with the premises was sent on 10 September and an email about the tenancy agreement negotiations on 21 November. This is weighed up against the evidence that the landlord’s family did move into the premises and the landlord confirmed that they were still living there.
The issue is, if it was the actions of the tenants exercising a right that resulted in the tenancy being terminated. I find on the evidence provided that it was more likely than not that the termination was due to the landlord renting the premises to family members, and this was their motivation to end the tenancy. This was the landlord’s original intent and there was no evidence provided that the new tenants are not family members.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord Fail to maintain the premises ?

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
A landlord’s obligation to maintain a premises is balanced with the tenants obligation to inform them of any damage or maintenance as soon as possible. See section 40(1)(d)RTA. Septic Tank
The tenants said the septic tank leaked and provided a video of water gushing from it on 13 December 202.
The landlord said that the Plumber had inspected the septic tank during 2025. A letter was provided to the Tribunal dated 10 April 2026 from Paul Hughes who previously traded as Good Buggers Plumbing. He confirmed they had inspected the septic tank during 2025 but there had been no maintenance required and so not invoices were available. They had previously changed the submersible pump.
The landlord said they did not know about the gushing water from the tank as shown in the tenants’ video provided at the hearing. The tenants could not establish that they had told the landlord about this during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Taps inside
These were replaced by the tenants. Stormwater
There was an open drain on the section the landlord knew about this but it was not attended to by the time the tenancy ended.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Bifold doors
The landlord said that they came off the runners and fixed it at the start of the tenancy. They did not know that it had happened again. The tenants could not establish that the landlord had been told about this. Bedroom two, mould issues
The tenant provided photos of some mould on the wall in the bedroom. It was difficult to assess the size of the patch or location of it. Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high. To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned and excess moisture and humidity reduced.
Landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired while tenants are out.
This is balanced by the tenant’s responsibility to heat and air the premises and to use any extractor fans provided.
The landlord said that there were no problems before and it was a tenant’s responsibility to ventilate the room. No pre tenancy photographs were available.
There was not enough evidence provided by the tenant to establish this claim and it is dismissed. Vanity bathroom and Vanity top
There was some swelling in the base of the unit and laminate. It did not affect the use of the unit and was cosmetic only.
I find that although not new ,it was in a reasonable state of repair and this claim is dismissed. Heat pump
The tenant was concerned that the heat pump had not been serviced yearly. They agreed that that it was rarely used.
An invoice for the install of the heat pump was provided dated May 2022.The landlord confirmed that it was last service prior to the tenancy beginning.
The Healthy Homes Standards require that any heating device provided to meet the heating standard ,including heat pumps must be in good working order at the start of the tenancy and maintained in a good working order throughout the tenancy.
Not servicing a heat pump is not automatically a failure to maintain. There was no claim that the heat pump was not in good working order, just that it had not been serviced.
This claim is dismissed. Holes in the kitchen.
There were holes in the kitchen floor that the landlord knew about but did not fix.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in respect of the open drain and holes in the floor, both of which they knew about but failed to address. A landlord must comply with the requirements of the RTA to ensure premises are safe and habitable for tenants and those that visit them. I find it just to award $400.00 for this breach. Unlawful entry
Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s brother-in-law entered the premises and replaced the vanity top without notice being given. The landlord agreed that no notice would have been given and said that they had a casual arrangement where they would attend to issues as required.
The definition of landlord includes their agents and notice must be given to tenants before entering for repairs and maintenance.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord knew that notice was not given for this repair as required by the RTA. A landlord should know the requirements of the RTA and may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent. I find it just to award $500.00 for this breach.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Insulation

Gary Jackson and Michelle Jackson claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The insulation in the roof had not been spread out as required so some parts were bare, and the underfloor foil was ripped. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Since 2019 the insulation standard has been in place. The landlord provided healthy Home compliance certificate noting that the underfloor insulation was completed on 16 January 2026 and ceiling insulation on 19 January 2026.The tenancy ended on 6 January 2026.
I find Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord stated that they acted in good faith and were taking steps to comply. That is not the legal requirement. Compliance has been required since 2019 and it was the landlord’s decision to continue with a periodic tenancy and therefore was required to comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award $600.00 for this breach. Landlords claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the gardens reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said they were overgrown at the start of the tenancy. Photos were provided of the gardens before the tenancy started showing tidy driveway and raised garden beds. This claim is awarded.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the decks clean, An invoice from a cleaner for washing it was provided dated 15 January 2026.The deck was discoloured at the start of the tenancy and the landlords evidence did not support this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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. The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Curtains in the outside room, living room and bedroom were removed and not replaced after the tenancy ended. The tenant said that they stored them in a shed jointly used with the landlord and when they came to leave, they were missing.
It was the tenant’s responsibility to care for the curtains and ensure that they were replaced at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord agreed to them replacing the curtains as the ones in the office were old and faded. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord claimed replacement cost break down and provided an invoice from 2021 for the original costs for the curtains in the lounge and bedroom.
The Inland revenue general depreciation rates table, IR265 calculates the expected lifespan of curtains in residential premises at 8 years. These curtains were 5 years at the end of the tenancy. After depreciation has been applied, $315.00 is awarded for curtain replacements.
Part of the fencing was found on the ground at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said the old fencing came down when they removed pool fencing that had been leaning on it which they had used to keep their dogs in. They left the fencing on the ground. I find that this was damaged by the tenants.
Holes in post were made when the tenant attached a screen at the end of the deck as a windbreak and were not repaired at the end of the tenancy.
Trim in office was removed in a small section to put a cupboard against the wall.
The tenant put wallpaper up on one wall and said she had permission from one of the landlords. The landlord agreed that this could have happened.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. An invoice was provided by the landlord for their costs to attend to the end of tenancy repairs at a charge out rate of $35.00 per hour. The award for curtain replacement is made separately and the amount awarded reduced to reflect the dismissing of the claim to remove wallpaper.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenants breach their responsibilities.
Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by moving an unauthorised cabin onto the premises and operating a business without consent. They seek compensation for insurance costs, lost rent and breach of the permitted use of the premises. They also seek compensation for increased personal risk due to the extra people coming to the premises.
Although there was no written tenancy agreement, the parties entered into a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies when the periodic tenancy began. The premises were let as residential premises. In those circumstances, a term limiting use of the premises to residential purposes is properly implied.
It was not disputed by the tenant that their daughter operated a business from a cabin on the premises for a period of time ceasing they claim in January 2025.The landlord disputes the end date of the business and provided a Facebook post they said was current and still advertised the service.
The Tribunal can award compensation for actual loss if the landlord can establish actual quantifiable loss flowing from the breach.
I do not find that the tenant breached s 40(1)(b) RTA by failing to ensure the premises were occupied principally for residential purposes. The premises were residential, and the business was run from the relocated cabin, and if I had the landlord must still establish actual loss flowing from that breach.
The landlord sought compensation by way of the possibility of voided insurance cover, uninsured loss if cover was declined, and additional premiums that should have been paid to cover this change in use. In support of this they provided a letter from their insurance broker stating their policy exclusions and the comparative insurance rates for commercial property and residential property.
The landlord also sought compensation for lost rent because they would have charged a different rental amount for commercial /residential tenancy if they had known the property was being used as a business.
The last part of the compensation claim was for the increased personal risk from unknown persons on the premises who were looking for the tenant’s property and coming onto the landlord’s premises. The landlord said that they felt harassed and unsafe, giving the example of a person coming to their home looking for the massage business.
The claim I have before me is for compensation. When the Tribunal consider claims for compensation what is looked for is, a) Evidence of an actual loss suffered by a party b) A causal connection from the actions of the other party to the loss suffered.
The claim for insurance costs for non-residential use may, in some circumstances, give rise to loss that can be compensated. But in this instance no evidence has been provided of a declined claim, cancellation of cover, or additional premium actually incurred. In the absence of proven financial loss, compensation cannot be awarded.
Rent is determined by agreement and not by use. A landlord is unable to base a claim for compensation on the belief that they would have charged more if they had known. The Tribunal will not retrospectively re-price a tenancy or enforce a hypothetical bargain that was never made.
Finally, the claim for increased personal risk is not awarded. The Tribunal does not award compensation for perceived danger, or hypothetical exposure and there was not enough evidence provided about actual events to support this claim.
The landlord has failed to establish an actual loss has occurred. The amounts claimed are speculative only, based on what might have happened.
This claim is dismissed.
No filing fee reimbursement is ordered as both parties were somewhat successful with their claims.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Healthy homes State of repair Exemplary damages Hamilton

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s08, s1, s109(3), s19(1), s19(2), s2, s2016, s23, s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s48, s48(1), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s52, s53, s54(1), s54(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears
Dispute theme: property damage
Dispute theme: state of repair

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415912?

The tribunal order states: Braedon Makgill and Kylie Makgill must pay Gary Jackson and Michelle

How much money was awarded in case 5415912?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415912?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13423574-Tribunal_Order.pdf.