What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425204?

The tribunal order states: Alvin Relph As Trustee For The A G Relph Family Trust must pay Lanika

How much money was awarded in case 5425204?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425204?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425204?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13746588-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425204?

The tribunal order states: Alvin Relph As Trustee For The A G Relph Family Trust must pay Lanika

How much money was awarded in case 5425204?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425204?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425204?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13746588-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 15/17 Upper Lewisville Tce, Thorndon, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425204 — Exemplary damages

Order

Alvin Relph As Trustee For The A G Relph Family Trust must pay Lanika Mereana Tui Smith $3,889.87 immediately, less any money owed from the order dated 9 February 2026, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant and her two children moved into a flat that is in a small complex which is run by a Body Corporate. The tenancy started on 27 October 2025. When the tenant moved in she found the flat full of the previous tenant’s belongings and bagged up rubbish. Both parties served 14 day notices and the landlord applied to end the tenancy. An order was made on 9 February 2026 giving the landlord possession, making an order for rent arrears and refunding the bond. That order records that the landlord took possession on 22 January 2026. The matter was adjourned and both parties have filed further claims.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy so he cannot claim the cost of finding a new tenant. The tenant withdrew some claims at the hearing. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the tenant get vacant possession? • Should the tenant get compensation for the clean up and exemplary damages? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? • Were there breaches of the rights and obligations for entry? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Did the tenant leave the flat in a reasonable condition? • Did the tenant cause damage? • Did the tenant take the landlord’s chattels?

Did the tenant get vacant possession?

It is agreed evidence that the landlord left the previous tenant’s belongings in the flat. The landlord also left chattels that were not recorded on the chattels list, such as two large armchairs, a single bed mattress and a bassinet. The landlord provided a text message sent by the tenant where she thanked the landlord for leaving some clothes. He said this is evidence the tenant agreed the landlord could leave the flat full of someone else’s belongings and bagged up food out of the kitchen. He said he did this to help the tenant.
The tenant said she only knew the landlord was leaving some clothes that might fit her children. When she arrived at the flat she said it was like the last tenant had just moved out. The tenant put everything she did not want outside, took photos and sent the photos to the landlord. The landlord came the next day and there was an argument because the tenant had put two armchairs that belonged to the landlord outside. Given these were dirty and not on the chattels list I’m not sure how the tenant was supposed to know they belonged to the landlord. The belongings were taken away by the landlord on 29 October but this interaction set the tone for the tenancy.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. There is a requirement under section 37 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that the landlord provide vacant possession. This means the flat should have been empty except for the chattels listed in the tenancy agreement. I find tenant has proved there was no vacant possession.

Should the tenant get compensation for the clean up and exemplary damages?

The tenant asked the landlord for compensation for cleaning and removing all the rubbish at the time. The landlord said the tenant could have three days free rent. This was not accepted.
Under section 45 RTA landlords are required to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have seen the photos taken when she moved in. I find the house was not provided in a reasonable condition. The tenant has proved she had to clean the fridge and freezer, the microwave, the toilet, walls, doors, windowsills, and floors. I allow compensation in the amount of $250, which is 10 hours at the Tribunal’s standard rate for this kind of work. I also allow a four day rent reduction because of the time spent moving everything outside and dealing with the landlord.
The tenant has not proved the house was contaminated with mould. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for loss of earnings because the tenant had to spend the time doing the landlord’s job Is not proved. The tenant has not provided me with sufficient information to show she was prevented from working because of the landlord’s breach. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant has proved the that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 knows the requirement to provide the premises in a reasonable condition. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenant said she felt abused and the landlord’s actions created unnecessary work and stress. It is in tenants interests that properties are cleaned and there is public interest in a penalty when there is such a fundamental breach of the RTA. The amount of exemplary damages is lower than I would usually allow because the tenant left the tenancy in rent arrears and without cleaning. $1000 is allowed. Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The tenant claims that the landlord breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. The tenancy should have complied with the HHS when the tenancy started.
The ventilation standard requires that the kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said the bathroom fan did not work when she moved in and there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. The landlord said he was not able to check the bathroom fan before the start of the tenancy because the power was not connected. He also said the tenant agreed that a rangehood in the kitchen was not necessary there was a window above the stove.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Regulation 6 of the HHS states the landlord must ensure that the extractor fans are in good working order and replaced within a reasonable time if they cannot be maintained. The landlord did not check the bathroom fan before the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not install an extractor in the kitchen and did not provide supporting evidence of an exemption. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The landlord is an experienced landlord with many rental properties. He tried to persuade the tenant to give up her rights. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant was frustration at having to research and serve a 14 day notice for the breach. She said she expected the house would comply when she moved and she felt misled. It is in tenants interests that houses meet the minimum standards set by parliament. There is public interest in the landlord paying a penalty to encourage compliance. I allow $3000 in exemplary damages.

Were there breaches of the rights and obligations for entry?

The tenant claims the landlord came to the complex without giving her any notice. The landlord said the tenant denied access for maintenance. I find there was no breach by the landlord because the law allows the landlord to visit the outside and fix a gutter. I have read all the emails and messages and I am not persuaded the tenant denied access. These claims, including the claim for the $41 for the electrician, are dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The landlord claims the tenant disturbed the neighbours in the complex. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with a few emails from disgruntled neighbours, and I accept the tenant was louder than she should have been on occasions. However, I am not persuaded there was a breach of quiet enjoyment sufficient to allow compensation or exemplary damages. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims the landlord harassed her during the tenancy. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000. See section 38 and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read the emails and messages. In the first days of the tenancy the landlord wrote a very long email obviously upset that the tenant put the two chairs – not on the chattels list – outside. He wrote more long emails explaining that the tenant should not have sent 14 day notices about maintenance and the HHS breaches because he would have complied with the RTA if she had asked – ignoring the fact he had not cleaned, given vacant possession or provided working extractor fans. It is obvious that the landlord took the neighbour’s side and sent emails to the tenant without checking for himself what was going on at the complex. As a result the tenant felt frustrated, undermined, and under surveillance. I find there was harassment because there was a pattern of the landlord sending long and dismissive emails which interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and use of the flat.
The landlord committed an unlawful act. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally. I find the tenant lost all faith in the tenancy. Tenants have a right to enjoy living in the homes they pay rent for and there is public interest in the landlord paying a penalty. $1500 is allowed.

Did the tenant leave the flat in a reasonable condition?

The landlord has claimed the cost of cleaning after the end of the tenancy. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have evaluated the photographs provided by the landlord. The landlord has proved the claim for cleaning the kitchen and the appliances. I have allowed four hours of cleaning at $25 an hour plus cleaning products. There are no photos supporting the other claims for cleaning and these are dismissed.

Did the tenant cause damage?

The landlord claims the tenant damaged the premises. The tenant does not agree. The landlord is required to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy and to establish the damage is more than fair wear and tear. See section 40(2) and 49A and 49B RTA.
This is the landlords’ claim to prove. There are no photos of the gouges, the timber strip or the wardrobe door and these claims are dismissed. I am not persuaded the wardrobe unit or the white unit were damaged because the photos I have seen suggest reasonable wear and tear. These claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded by the tenant’s evidence the dryer vent was taken down because of bees. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the keys is allowed because the tenant did not return these. Did the tenant take the landlord’s chattels?
The landlord said the tenant stole a number of the chattels listed on the tenancy agreement. A police report was made at the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not agree. The landlord’s own evidence about the chattels has been so inconsistent that I am wary of making an order against the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Other
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425204 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 6, 15/17 Upper Lewisville Tce, Thorndon,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425204 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 6, 15/17 Upper Lewisville Tce, Thorndon,

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant get vacant possession?

Should the tenant get compensation for the clean up and exemplary damages?

Were there breaches of the rights and obligations for entry?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenant leave the flat in a reasonable condition?

Did the tenant cause damage?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant get vacant possession?

Should the tenant get compensation for the clean up and exemplary damages?

Were there breaches of the rights and obligations for entry?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenant leave the flat in a reasonable condition?

Did the tenant cause damage?

Property management