Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5434331 — Property damage at 23A Serrita Avenue, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010
Published 3 June 2026 · Application 5434331
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Edison
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $8,393.86
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $693.86
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent and water charges to end of tenancy | $1,193.56 | Rent and water charges to end of tenancy | |
| Compensation for tenant damage | $3,350.30 | Compensation for tenant damage | |
| Breach of quiet enjoyment | $400.00 | Breach of quiet enjoyment | |
| Failure to maintain heat pump/HRV system | $2,950.00 | Failure to maintain heat pump/HRV system | |
| Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond | $500.00 | Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond | |
| Total award | $4,543.86 | $3,850.00 | |
| Net award | $693.86 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $693.86 |
Claims and awards for application 5434331 — net $693.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent and water charges to end of tenancy
- Amount
- $1,193.56
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent and water charges to end of tenancy
Compensation for tenant damage
- Amount
- $3,350.30
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation for tenant damage
Breach of quiet enjoyment
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Breach of quiet enjoyment
Failure to maintain heat pump/HRV system
- Amount
- $2,950.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to maintain heat pump/HRV system
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
Total award
Landlord $4,543.86 · Tenant $3,850.00
Net award
Landlord $693.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $693.86
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: Julia Han: $693.86 Kelly Ann Loftus: $1,706.14
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearings on 5 and 26 May 2026. The tenant’s application, filed on 28 January 2026, related to smoke alarms, heating, and lodgement of the bond.
- The landlord filed a cross-application on 4 May 2026, for rent arrears, water, and vacated damages.
- The bond of $2,400.00 was lodged on 8 May 2026. Tenant’s Application Bond
- The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 18 June 2024 to 17 June 2026. The tenancy ended on 16 January 2026.
- The landlord accepted that the bond was not lodged. The landlord said this was an oversight.
- The failure to lodge the bond within the required time was an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages up to $1,500.00 may be awarded, in accordance with section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- I can accept that the landlord overlooked the need to lodge the bond, but it might have been expected that the landlord would realise this at some point over the following months, or when the tenancy ended. The landlord filed an application claiming money from the bond without having lodged it.
- I acknowledge that the landlord complied with the Tribunal’s direction, at the first hearing, to immediately lodge the bond.
- I find that it would be just to award exemplary damages, however at a moderate level. The landlord knew the bond needed to be lodged and has ultimately done so. The tenant said that she could not afford the bond for her next property. I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Heating
- The tenant said the heat pump / HRV system at the premises did not work. The landlord said this was working at the start of the tenancy but then it would not turn on. The landlord said that the control panel was damaged, but it also seemed that this was not the reason why the heat pump was not working. The landlord said she was told a part needed to be replaced. There were also difficulties gaining access for the tradesperson to perform repairs, due to the tenant changing her phone number.
- The emails provided show the landlord asking the tenant on 31 October 2024 to provide a suitable time for a heat pump technician to attend and quote. The tenant referred to the lack of heating in the main living area in an email on 14 July 2025.
- The Healthy Homes Statement identified the required heating capacity for the main living room at 3.6kW and indicated that there was a 4kW heater.
- In my view, this was a maintenance issue rather than a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. There is limited evidence, but it does seem that the tenant was without functioning heating in the main living area for a lengthy period.
- The weekly rent for the 2-bedroom property was $600.00. I award compensation to the tenant of $50.00 per week from 30 November 2024 to 16 January 2026 (59 weeks) in the sum of $2,950.00. Smoke Alarms
- The tenant said there were no smoke alarms at the premises. The tenant said she bought her own smoke alarms but did not know how to install them. In an email dated 14 July 2025, the tenant informed the landlord that there were no smoke alarms and there had not been any since the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord said they always ensured there were smoke alarms. When she conducted her final inspection, the smoke alarms had disappeared.
- There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there were smoke alarms at the premises and if there were, what happened to them. The tenant called a witness who said she could not see any smoke alarms. The purchase of smoke alarms by the tenant might suggest that this was because smoke alarms were missing. The invoice shows that the smoke alarms were purchased online on 18 June 2025, but does not show the tenant (or anyone else) as the purchaser.
- I find that a breach of the requirements relating to smoke alarms has not been proved. Unlawful Entry
- The tenant said the landlord entered the premises on several occasions without permission. In an email dated 22 June 2025 the tenant stated: “You keep turning up without warning and twice you’ve actually opened the door yourself and come in as well.”
- The landlord said there were two occasions when she had to visit the tenant when she could not get hold of her by telephone. The landlord needed access to repair the heat pump and to fix the fence. The landlord would arrange for the tradesperson to be on site but then could not contact the tenant. Because of these frustrations, the landlord went to the house, and the tenant’s daughter opened the door. The landlord found the tenant asleep.
- Section 38 of the Act protects the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
- Section 48 sets out the landlord’s rights of entry. As I understood it, the tenant has two children. Although the tenant’s daughter opened the door for the landlord, I cannot interpret this as “...consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry...” (section 48(1)(a)).
- I appreciate the difficulties the landlord was having arranging access to the property for repairs. However, a better way of proceeding was to serve 24 hours’ notice on the tenant, in accordance with section 48, for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs and/or for the purpose of complying with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord had a right of access to the premises for these purposes. While it was understandable that the landlord wanted to liaise with the tenant about the timing of visits by tradespeople, so that this was convenient, when the tenant did not cooperate it was necessary to rely on the mechanisms available under the Act.
- I find that entering the premises without notice when the tenant was asleep was a breach of her quiet enjoyment. There was interference with the reasonable peace and privacy of the tenant. I award compensation of $400.00 for these incidents. Landlord’s Application Rent and Water
- The landlord claimed $1,193.56 for outstanding rent and water charges.
- I accept the rent and water summary as being an accurate record of the rent and water payments. Tenant Damage
- The landlord said that there was tenant damage at the end of the tenancy. She provided a schedule which appears to show a total cost of $10,190.00 and an insurance excess of $5,850.00. The landlord however said that $10,190.00 was her claim.
- The landlord provided a quote from a property services company totalling $9,775.00 for various repairs, rubbish removal, and carpet removal.
- A “Scope of damage and cost estimate form” was provided from the insurance loss adjuster. This was divided into a “Malicious damage claim” totalling $9,151.17 and an “Accidental damage claim” totalling $0.00 because the claim was covered by application of the insurance excess of $650.00.
- The tenant made a report to Police on 30 January 2026 concerning theft from the premises by a homeless man she had been helping. The tenant reported the theft of some of her belongings between 12 and 14 January 2026: I was moving house, Keith would come over and visit from time to time...on about the last day of moving with the only things left I wanted to take with me where I was going to stay, because all my other stuff would be going to storage as I didn’t have anywhere to go at the time, Keith came and robbed me, he poped [sic] the bathroom window lock ...And for some stupid unknown reason he went around the inside of the property putting holes in the walls all over the house.
- I consider it is reasonable to infer that some of the “Malicious damage claim” related to the burglary. The “Accidental damage claim” was for replacement carpet in bedroom 1 and the living area. An external door was reglazed. The tenant accepted that they had damaged the glass.
- A report from the insurance loss adjuster referred to carpets stained with coloured markers. Other damage reported and ascribed to the tenant included vinyl flooring painted over by the tenant, a skylight cover removed by the tenant, a 1m² section of vinyl flooring ripped from the bathroom, and a cabinet door removed in the kitchen. The report appended photographs.
- The landlord’s photographs show damage to kitchen cupboards and a missing kickboard in the kitchen. These are not obviously related to the burglary: the tenant said the damage to the cupboards and kickboard had been caused by flooding from the shower (the landlord also referred to flooding from the kitchen sink). The tenant said she took the pantry door down because the hinges were old and broken. The landlord’s photographs also show reddish paint over the bathroom door and vanity.
- I find that the oven, rangehood, and kitchen cupboards were not left reasonably clean. However, it appears that there is no separate costing for this, and the issue must have been resolved through remediation, the entire kitchen being replaced.
- I find that the damage to the carpets and the exterior door was caused carelessly by the tenant. I award the insurance excess x3 for the carpet damage and door glass replacement ($1,950.00).
- I find that the damage to the vinyl, skylight and kitchen cabinetry door was caused carelessly by the tenant. I award the insurance excess of $650.00 for the vinyl, $370.30 for the skylight, and $380.00 for the kitchen door, a total of $1,400.30. These figures are taken from the “Malicious damage claim” schedule from the loss adjuster.
- Given the burglary and the complete reinstatement of the kitchen, I consider that it is not possible to determine liability for the remaining damage. I tend to share the tenant’s concern that the premises were older and already in need of some reinstatement, and in addition there had been some flooding. Filing Fee and Suppression
- Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.
- Both parties sought name suppression. Neither has been “wholly or substantially” successful. I decline name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s15, s38, s48, s48(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5434331?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 () immediately apportioned as
How much money was awarded in case 5434331?
Breach Of Quiet Enjoyment: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Maintain Heat Pump/HRV Sy…: $2,950.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,350.30 awarded to landlord; Rent And Water Charges To End Of Ten…: $1,193.56 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434331?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434331?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13690230-Tribunal_Order.pdf.