What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4900837?

The tribunal order states: Melissa He must pay Ghaleb Qtaishat $131.85 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4900837?

Compensation: Swimming pool maintena…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $23.62 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $94.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900837?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900837?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11826779-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4900837?

The tribunal order states: Melissa He must pay Ghaleb Qtaishat $131.85 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4900837?

Compensation: Swimming pool maintena…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $23.62 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $94.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900837?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900837?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11826779-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900837 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900837 — net $131.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
8 Light bulbs	$23.62		8 Light bulbs
Water rates	$94.53		Water rates
Compensation: Swimming pool maintenance		$250.00	Swimming pool maintenance
Total award	$118.15	$250.00
Net award		$131.85
Bond		$5,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$131.85

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900837 — net $131.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
8 Light bulbs	$23.62		8 Light bulbs
Water rates	$94.53		Water rates
Compensation: Swimming pool maintenance		$250.00	Swimming pool maintenance
Total award	$118.15	$250.00
Net award		$131.85
Bond		$5,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$131.85

Order

Melissa He must pay Ghaleb Qtaishat $131.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,400.00 (3479254-006) to Ghaleb Qtaishat immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended a case management conference with Adjudicator Walker as recorded in a minute dated 4 July 2024. Adjudicator Pollak conducted a hearing on 28 August 2024, which was adjourned part heard. On 4 March 2025, Adjudicators Woodhouse and Pollak heard the parties claims together from the beginning.
At the 4 March 2025 hearing, the landlord confirmed her claims were for rent in lieu of notice, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Specifically, the landlord confirmed her compensation and/or exemplary damage claims relate to: a. Failure to allow entry to premises; b. Changing locks; c. Cleaning; d. Light bulbs; e. Lock change costs; f. Water bill; g. Make good camera removal; and h. Advertising costs.
The tenant applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Specifically, the tenant’s confirmed his compensation and/or exemplary damage claims relate to: a. Healthy Homes breaches; b. Failure to maintain; c. Breach of quiet enjoyment; and d. Reimbursement of the cost of the healthy homes assessment report.
The Tribunal must consider the applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The applications are extensive, and the pre-hearing process has also been involved. However, the matters were considered from the beginning at a hearing on 4 March 2025 with both parties in attendance.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, we do not need to be completely certain, but we need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, we must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). We must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

We will set out the background only briefly here and will address specific aspects of the background below when considering the individual claims.
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Melissa He, and the tenant Ghaleb Qtaishat. The premises are located at 27 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland.
The tenancy commenced on 10 May 2021, initially as a fixed term tenancy of one year duration. The rent was $1,350.00. Then on 9 May 2022 the parties agreed to extend the fixed term tenancy for two further years as follows: a. 26 June 2022 to 26 June 2023, for rent of $1,400.00 per week; then b. 26 June 2023 to 26 June 2024, for rent of $1,450.00 per week.
Following the November 2023 hearing of prior applications 4661232 and 4606689, they met in a café where they agreed on how matters would progress at the tenancy. They recorded in an agreement signed and dated by the Parties 4 December 2023. We will refer to this as the ‘December agreement’, but it states: “The fixed term tenancy agreement expires on the 24 th of June 2024 (expiry date) and the Tenant will vacate the property on the expiry date unless vacated earlier under the proposal below. The Landlord will carry out one property inspection on the week of the 11 th of December 2023, one final property inspection prior to the expiry date or if the agreement is terminated earlier, then at the final inspection date (There will be no other inspection). If any unseen emergency events occur, the Tenant will notify the Landlord immediately and provide access as soon as possible so the Landlord is able to rectify the issue. The pool valet will be covered by the Landlord and done by Pool Valet professionals. The frequency of the pool valet will be every 2 weeks from 1 st of December 2023 till the 31 st of March 2024. The pool valet frequency will then change to 4 weeks from 1 st of April 2024 till the end of the tenancy. There may be some slight variation in the actual dates and around the Christmas/New year period depending on when the valet company is working. After 1 st February 2024, the Landlord agrees that the Tenant can opt to terminate the fixed tenancy earlier than the expiry date by giving 28 days’ notice of termination. Upon receiving the 28 days’ notice the Landlord (within 28 days prior to the expiry date) the Landlord will advertise the property for rent and the Tenant will provide access for viewing, which will be set within reasonable conditions to be discussed at the time. The Landlord will provide a written and verbal reference when requested to help the Tenant to find the next property. The Landlord agrees to forfeit the water bill of $82.04. The Landlord has paid $747.50 on 30/11/23 directly to the Tenant’s bank account in full and final settlement of the Tribunal Order. The Tenant will forthwith cancel all enforcement action by 5pm on 5 December 2023. If the tenant fails to do so by this time, then this agreement will be automatically cancelled and of no effect and the parties’ rights remain as they were prior to this agreement.”
It is plain that things have not gone smoothly during the tenancy, and there have been disagreements and friction between the parties on a range of matters, which will have contributed to some of the issues arising in the claims before us.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rent in lieu of notice

The landlord’s position is that the tenancy agreement was clear that the fixed term tenancy would end on 24 June 2024. The December agreement further confirms that the parties never varied that tenancy end date.
The evidence shows the tenant refused to allow the landlord to advertise the premise and that he wanted to stay on past the agreed 24 June 2024 date, which the landlord declined. Not only would the tenant not allow the premises to be advertised, but he also refused to allow the premises to be inspected or marketed. However, it is the case that the tenant vacated the premises on 24 June 2024, without notice.
The tenant confirmed that an agreement was reached, following a meeting at the coffee shop on 4 December 2024 and the December agreement made it clear that the tenancy would end on 24 June 2024. In short, the tenant’s position is that the tenancy ended as was agreed and after the landlord declined to extend the agreed date, he was not required to give notice as both parties were clear the agreed date the tenancy would end was 24 June 2024. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant must pay rent in lieu of notice.
We have considered the landlord's application, but we cannot see any basis upon which further rent should be ordered.
In our view, the effect of the December 2023 agreement, must be applied. What that agreement did, was to expand things. Firstly, it was a notice to terminate the tenancy on June 24 June 2024, and secondly it was a variation of the contract.
What has occurred, is that on 24 June 2024, the tenant vacated the premises and possession was returned to the landlord that day. That is precisely what the December agreement required.
We can see that post the December agreement there were a range of ancillary discussions between the parties, such as extending the tenancy, or other matters, but none of those were agreed. What remains, is that the agreement on 4 December 2023 has not been varied by the parties, and from what we can see the landlord has complied with it.
We have considered the landlord’s argument that advertising should have been allowed earlier, but we are not convinced by that. The December agreement records express provisions around advertising the property, but that only applied during the currency of the tenancy, the tenant gave earlier notice to end the tenancy. In our assessment, because the December agreement did not provide any specific ability for the landlord to advertise the tenancy earlier, the contrary position that the parties did not anticipate earlier advertising is likely to be the situation.
Ultimately, the onus to establish the claim sits with the landlord, and we are not persuaded that the landlord has established any basis to receive rent in lieu of notice. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Claim 2 – Failure to allow entry
The landlord states that the tenant failed to allow the landlord entry to the premises, such as allowing entry to show the premises to prospective tenants. Further if the landlord requested to go for other reasons, the tenants refused this, going as far as issuing the landlord a trespass notice.
Of the inspections agreed in the 4 December 2023 agreement the landlord confirmed: a. The landlord conducted an inspection on 11 December 2023; and b. An inspection on 30 May 2024, at which the New Zealand Police (“police”) were present.
The landlord’s position is the 30 May 2024 inspection was blocked by the tenant’s unreasonable conduct and were it not for the intervention of the police, that inspection could not have taken place.
The tenant says there was in fact an inspection on 3 April 2024. The landlord confirmed that this was not a property inspection. In fact, she says it was no more than her accompanying a pool valet contractor, whom she had asked to quote for pool valet services.
The tenant says by the 30 May 2024 inspection, things were getting out of hand between the parties. Analysis
The parties entered into an agreement around landlord attendances at the premises, that agreement was set out in the December 2023 agreement.
What the December 2023 agreement required, was that the landlord be allowed entry for an inspection in December 2023, and again prior to the expiry of the tenancy. The evidence before us is that those two inspections did in fact occur.
The landlord does not take issue with the entry in December, but she still states that the tenant was difficult in facilitating the 30 May 2024 inspection. The landlord might be right in that regard, but at the end of the day the inspection did occur, and to that extent the tenant has complied with what he agreed in the December agreement, that was two inspections.
Given that we consider the tenant has complied with what was agreed in the December 2023 agreement, we cannot see any basis to conclude that the tenant has unreasonably refused entry for the purpose of inspections. This claim has not been established. Claim 3 – Unlawful change of locks
The landlord claims exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant unlawfully changed the locks, particularly the lock to the front door. The landlord states that during the 30 May 2024 inspection, she found that the front door lock had been changed, and this was apparent because the tenant had changed the lock.
The tenant disputes that he changed the front door lock, stating that when the landlord took possession of the premises on 24 June 2024, the landlord used her key to get into the premise.
The landlord states that during the tenancy she could not at any time enter the premises using her key and that the police confirmed the landlord’s key did not work on 30 May 2024. The landlord also confirmed that when the tenancy ended her key did work and stated that this is evidence that the tenant must have changed the lock back to the original lock when he vacated the premise.
The landlord insists the Police confirmed to her that her key was not the correct key for the front door lock when they attended the 30 May 2024 inspection, but there was no compelling evidence presented to support the landlord’s claim. Analysis
Section 46 of the RTA relates to locks, and confirms that: Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out.
The RTA is clear, that during a tenancy a tenant (or landlord) cannot change the locks to the premises without the consent of the other. This case turns on a finding of fact, that is whether the tenants did in fact change the lock during the tenancy. At best the position of the landlord is that at some stage during the tenancy the lock was changed, but at the end of the tenancy the lock was changed back to the original lock. As we have set out above, the tenant denies that is the case.
The evidence is that the landlord attempted to use her key on 30 May 2024, and that the lock did not work. The claim is finally balanced, but we consider that the landlord has not proven the lock barrel has been changed. Perhaps the lock had been changed as the landlord says, or they could be other explanations that are valid for why the existing lock did not work. Because the onus is on the landlord to prove that the lock barrel has been changed, and as we find that she has not proven that this claim must be dismissed. Claim 4 – Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that when the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy, the tenant did not return the premises in a reasonably clean state. The landlord seeks the cleaning costs for this work.
The tenant’s position is that the premises were returned in a reasonably clean state. The tenant states that there was a mould problem with the premises. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Broadly, we consider the landlords claim as advanced on two grounds, one relates appliances in the kitchen being unclean, and the other around mould.
In relation to the kitchen appliances, the landlord has not provided photographs of those appliances at the start of the tenancy, but the tenant has. We have carefully evaluated those photographs, and our assessment is that the photographs are materially similar. To put that another way, our impression is that the tenant returned the premises to the landlord at a materially similar standard to how it was rented.
The claim in relation to the mould, is more finally balanced. Undoubtedly there have been water ingress issues at the tenancy when the premises flooded. We do not consider that to be the fault of the landlord of course, but the premises were flooded, nonetheless. In those circumstances, we have been unable to escape the impression that there would likely have been a contribution, at the very least to the development of the mould, from environmental moisture associated with that flooding.
The landlord may well be correct that the tenant was not properly ventilating the premises, and ventilation is a critical means to avoid mould development, but it was likely a joint contribution. Because we do not consider that the causation of the mould can be attributed to acts or omissions by the tenant, we cannot find the tenant liable for the cleaning costs of the mould.
The landlord has not established the cleaning claim. Claim 5 – Light bulb replacement
The landlord’s position is that a number of bulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that she replaced more than 8 bulbs but is claiming for 8 bulbs at the cost of $23.62.
The tenant’s position is that some bulbs were missing at the start of the tenancy, but during the tenancy he replaced a number with LED bulbs, which he took with him at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
There is an expectation that when a tenancy is rented, all the lights work, and because light bulbs are a consumable item, the tenant should return the tenancy in a similar position to how he got it.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that there were lightbulbs not working at the start of the tenancy. If that was an issue, it was of course open to the tenant to raise this with the landlord, or to have brought a claim in the Tribunal should he wish to do so.
What is not disputed is that at the end of the tenancy they were at least eight light bulbs not working. Because lightbulbs are a consumable item, we find the tenant must be liable for the light bulb replacement cost, which is ordered based on the receipted charges. Claim 6 – Compensation for lock changes
The landlord seeks costs for changing the front door lock. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, she found that her key did work, but was stiff. The landlord was concerned that the lock had been changed or interfered with by the tenant, so a locksmith recommended the lock be changed.
The landlord confirmed that all keys were returned at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that all keys were returned, the lock was the same so there is no basis for this claim. Analysis
Section 40(1)(e)(iv) sets out the tenant’s responsibilities at the end of the tenancy, as it relates to the locks, and that hold: on the termination of the tenancy [the tenant must] return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
In this case the landlord has confirmed that the tenant has returned the keys for the dwelling, and that extent the tenant has complied with the above obligation.
It is not particularly uncommon that at the end of the tenancy landlord decides to change locks for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean that the tenant is liable for that cost. Providing the tenant complies with their obligation to return the keys, or other associated devices, then the tenant has made to their legal obligation, which is the case here.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that the tenant changed the front door lock, nor that he retained keys to the premise. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the cost of changing the front door lock is dismissed. Claim 7 – Water rates
The landlord states that the outstanding water account is $94.53.
The tenant does not dispute this claim, so it is ordered by consent. Claim 8 – Make good camera removal
The landlord states there were a number of cameras installed by the tenant, and the landlord seeks costs of $200.00 toward making good these costs. The landlord disputes that this damage was made good.
The tenant says that he made good any wall damage when he removed the cameras, and he removed the cameras, and the holes were filled and painted. The tenant states that the photographs provided by the landlord did not include photographs showing the situation with the ‘holes’ when the premises were returned, her photographs were of the cameras in place during the tenancy. Analysis
It is not at all in common that during a tenancy a tenant will do things like affix pictures to walls, or in this case security cameras, that type of act is part of living in the dwelling. There is no problem with that, but at the end of the tenancy the tenant must make good any damage that has been caused by the picture hooks, or in this case in the holes from installing the cameras.
The landlord says that damage has been incurred from the cameras, and on the other side of the ledger the tenant says that while there was some damage, he has made that damage good.
The difficulty for the landlord is that we have not been presented with any photographs showing the damage, so that we could be satisfied that there is a basis for awarding compensation to the landlord.
We note here that if the damage was very minor, we may very well have concluded that the damage is simply fair wear in tear, particularly considering this was a reasonably long tenancy.
However, even if we were wrong in that assessment, we have reservations as to whether the landlord has in fact incurred a loss. We note that it is over half a year since the tenancy ended, the premises have since been re-tenanted, and the landlord has not provided any proof that she has had the alleged damage repaired, so it is not at all certain that the landlord has or will incur any loss for a repair.
Our conclusion is that this claim has not been established and is dismissed. Claim 9 – Advertising costs
The landlord states that she spent $218.00 advertising the premises, but the tenant then contacted the provider and requested that the advertisement be taken down. The landlord refers to the email from MyRent in support of this claim. The landlord considers that the tenant has acted unreasonably with blocking the adverting the premise.
The tenant’s position is that, yes, the advertising during the tenancy was taken down, but the landlord used that same ‘payment’ with MyRent after the tenancy ended and that she has not incurred any loss.
In response the landlord confirmed that it is correct that MyRent advertised again for no extra cost. Analysis
We find this claim must be dismissed, for the simple reason that the landlord has not established a loss. The evidence is that the premises were advertised for rent, that of course incurred a charge, but the advertisement was run again effectively as a credit from that first advertisement. To this extent the landlord has not needed to pay an additional charge for the second set of advertising, and we find she has not therefore incurred any loss.
Compensation can only be awarded to put right a loss that a person has incurred. The landlord’s claim is thereby dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 10 May 2021, initially as a fixed term tenancy of one year duration. The rent was $1,350.00. Then on 9 May 2022 the parties agreed to extend the fixed term tenancy for two further years as follows: a. 26 June 2022 to 26 June 2023, for rent of $1,400.00 per week; then b. 26 June 2023 to 26 June 2024, for rent of $1,450.00 per week.
The tenant says the tenancy agreement was renewed and not extended and therefore the landlord had to comply with the healthy homes’ standards by the 120 th day after the renewed tenancy agreement dated 26 June 2023. Analysis
The key issue for us to decide is whether the tenancy was extended or renewed.
The RTA does not specifically define nor clarify the difference between a renewal or extension of a tenancy agreement. Neither does the Healthy Homes Standards give clarity on the terms nor define them.
Over the years, the courts of general jurisdiction have established that the two terms are distinct from one another, although the terms can sometimes be confused with each other, by loose use of the terminology by the parties.
An extension of a tenancy means any covenants previously agreed to on the tenancy carry over to the extension of the tenancy and privity of that contract remains. Whereas a renewal of a tenancy acts as an entirely new contract where all previous agreements between the parties on the previous tenancy are no longer in force. A renewal essentially acts as an entirely new agreement between the tenant and landlord.
The agreements made between the parties after the initial fixed term tenancy period show that the tenancy was extended and not renewed and that the key tenets of that tenancy agreement was not varied by the extensions to it. The extension confirmed the new rental rates and new fixed term dates for the following two-year period. In addition, the document is titled “extension to tenancy agreement for property: 27 Vincent Street Remuera.
We find this claim must be dismissed, for the simple reason that the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to ensure the premise met the healthy homes standards, given the tenancy commenced prior to 1 July 2021, being 10 May 2021. Claim 2 - Costs for HHS reports
For the reasons indicated above, the healthy homes standards did not apply to this tenancy. That being the case, there would be no basis to consider reimbursing and HHS report obtained by the tenant, but the tenant acknowledged that would be the situation at the hearing.
This claim is dismissed. Claim 3 - Failure to maintain.
The tenant’s position is that the premises were poorly maintained, such as having water leaks and mould. The tenants consider the premises were not property ventilated, causing that mould. The tenant considers that there were issues with the pool. The tenant describes health issues including with breathing, and that their general practitioner recommended that they be careful with mould. The curtains were mouldy, and there was mould forming on the ceilings. The tenant considers that may be related to the extractor fan ventilating into the ceiling.
The tenant referred to the flooding issues addressed at the earlier hearing, which has caused them inconvenience.
The tenant considers that the gas heaters were not working properly and needed to be properly serviced, otherwise they could smell gas in the premises. The tenants needed to use ventilation in the house when the heaters were being used.
In fairness, the tenant accepted that some maintenance needs were addressed.
In response the landlord considers that that property was well build and properly maintained. The landlord notes that the flooding event was the result of extraordinary weather, but those were the only two times that water has got into the house. The landlord further notes the flooding claims were addressed at the last hearing.
The landlord considers that in this case the tenant has blocked the landlord accessing the premises.
The landlord states that the fence is not a security issue.
It is disputed by the landlord that there is an inherent mould issue in the premise. She expressed a view that the mould complained of is most likely an absence of ventilation to the premise.
With the pool, the landlord states that pool has always been professionally valeted.
In terms of the gas, the landlord states that the premise has been assessed by professionals as part of the regular inspection / maintenance of the premise. When they were recommended to replace the gas stove, it was replaced. Otherwise Rinai has recommended that the gas heaters be serviced every two years, and the landlord confirms she has done that.
The landlord states that whenever the tenant has raised a need for maintenance to be completed, it was actioned, but that is in the context of the tenant blocking reasonable access to the premise for some such repairs and maintenance to be carried out.
The landlord also states that the tenant’s position is inconsistent with his decision to remain in the premises, despite being given an opportunity to leave the tenancy early.
In short, the landlord disputes that she has failed to maintain the rental premise and says she ensured the premise was maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances.
In concluding submissions, the tenant states that the HHS inspection report indicated there was mould to the ceiling of a downstairs curtain, which is unusual. The tenant disputes the mould would simply be a ventilation issue.
Otherwise, the tenant agrees that the fence and flooding had been addressed at the earlier hearing and could therefore not be raised again at this hearing.
With the pool, the tenant considers there were issues with flaking of the surface of the pool that were not addressed in a reasonable timeframe. Analysis
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA sets out the landlord’s obligations, and that includes a requirement that the landlord maintain the premises. The provision requires that the landlord: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
We have considered the matters raised by the tenant, and conclude as follows: a. Water leaks: the evidence as we understand it, is that there were water leaks associated with the extreme weather events in January and February 2023, which resulted in water ingress at the premises. That is not in doubt and has been addressed in the previous order of the Tribunal, so in accordance with the Henderson v Henderson rule, we have not jurisdiction to deal with those matters again. This Rule arises from a decision issued long ago, in 1843. That Judgment, Henderson v Henderson (1843) 2 HARE 100, states in part: In trying this question I believe I state the Rule of Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which ought to have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have from negligence, inadvertence of even accident omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in some cases, not only to the points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but their every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. There is also no reference before us that there was any outstanding maintenance that the landlord needed to attend to following the previous hearing, that we could consider now. For these reasons a maintenance deficiency around the water leaks has not been proven. b. Mould: As far as the mould is concerned, as we have indicated above, it is possible that some mould was attributable to moisture resulting from the flooding, but we are not convinced that is the entire course. Again, we consider the evidence to be that the mould is a mixed contribution between the flooding, and normal living at the premises with the tenants. For these reasons a maintenance deficiency around the mould has not been proven. c. Extraction fans: the tenant is concerned that the extraction fans are not externally ducted. If the HHS applied, there would be an obligation for externally vented extraction fans for the kitchen and bathroom, but for the reasons set out above the HHS does not apply to this tenancy. Otherwise, we have not been presented with any other evidence showing a breach of some building requirement as far as the existing extraction fans are concerned. For these reasons a maintenance deficiency around the extraction fans has not been proven d. Gas heaters: the tenant’s position is that the landlord has not properly maintained the gas heaters. The landlord on the other hand considers that the gas heaters have been serviced regularly, as recommended by the manufacturer. On balance, we find the evidence fell short of proving a deficiency with maintenance here. We have not received any evidence from a gasfitter or other appropriately qualified person, showing that different maintenance should’ve been provided to that which the landlord undertook. For these reasons a maintenance deficiency around the gas heaters has not been proven. e. Fence: the evidence is that the fence was in poor condition, but we are unable to consider this claim any further, because it is associated with a claim that the tenant advanced at the November 2023 hearing. The tenants claim at that time related to reimbursement for repair work he did to the fence, which was declined for technical reasons, that certainly this was a claim that could have been advanced at that time. The rule of Henderson v Henderson applies, and this claim is dismissed. f. Swimming pool: the tenant’s position is that the pool was in poor condition, and that parts of the surface of the pool would come loose, causing a risk to the swimmers. A 14-day notice was issued in relation to that work, and not complied with. We accept that professional pool contractors had recommended repainting of the pool surface, and that was not completed. We conclude that there has been a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation in relation to the pool. g. Swimming pool valet: the tenant’s position is that the landlord has not properly maintained (valeted). We note that the agreed valet schedule in December 2023 agreement was fortnightly from one December 2023 until 31 March 2024, and then monthly from one April 2024 until the end of the tenancy. We have reviewed the information available on the phone and conclude that this schedule was not fully complied with.
We have determined above that there is a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation as it relates to the swimming pool. We have considered whether exemplary damages should be ordered, and our conclusion is that the criterion for exemplary damages is not established. Exemplary damages are in order that the Tribunal make to punish a wrong door. In deciding whether exemplary damages should be ordered, we must take into consideration factors such as the landlord’s intention, and whether it would be just to make an order. We recognise that the landlord has been faced with various difficulties in accessing the property, and that goes to the justice of whether an order to punish should be made or not. We conclude that it would not favour an exemplary damage award.
However, we did consider that compensation should be awarded. The reason is that the tenants were paying rent to receive premise’s that met a particular standard, and we concluded the tenant was not getting what he was paying rent for. It is very difficult to quantify what the tenant’s loss would be, the best we can do step back and consider all the circumstances, such as the level of rent paid, and the detriment to the tenant, and the amount that we consider would be best represent a fair order. Having done that, we conclude a fair order of compensation is $250.00 and that is ordered.
We note for completeness, that the tenant describes injuries from the flaking pool surface, as a part of his claim. The accident compensation act 2001, includes what is known as the ‘ACC Bar’. This provision confirms that injury claims for personal injuries arising from events that could be covered within the Accident Compensation Commission legislation, such as the described injuries, cannot be the subject of claims in civil courts and Tribunal’s otherwise. To the extent we have been unable to take into consideration making any order for compensation for injuries sustained to a person. Claim 4 – Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant states that after the December agreement was signed, various rules around the parties’ interactions were agreed, and that included reviewing when the tenancy would end. In this case the tenant says that the landlord wanted to market the premise earlier than was agreed. Further he claims the landlord wanted to come to the premises without adequate notice.
The tenant states the landlord came to the premises on 27 May 2024, and was banging on the door to come in.
On 30 May 2024, it was agreed with the police that the landlord could undertake an inspection of the house, which she did do.
Ultimately, the landlord advertised the premise, which resulted in prospective tenants coming to the house, knocking on the door, and wanting to come in for a viewing.
The tenant considers these actions of the landlord are intended to exert power over him and that they constitute a form of harassment and a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premise.
At the hearing we asked the tenant whether he had any video evidence showing these events of the landlord coming to the premise and doing the actions described. The tenant states that he did not have any videos showing that angle of the premise.
The landlord refutes the allegations of the tenant and believes that the story has been made up by the tenant to meet his particular needs.
The landlord considers that she has complied with the December agreement.
The landlord states that she did not attend and bang on the doors or threaten to break the windows if she was not allowed in.
The landlord states that she knows her obligations as a landlord well and has complied with them.
The landlord states that she is certain the cameras the tenant had around the premise would have captured the events described, but there is no video evidence because these events did not happen.
The landlord also notes that one of the statements from the tenant related to matters prior to the last hearing. Analysis
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The RTA further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997, which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as:
Words, conduct, or action (usually repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The allegations made in this case are as inconsistent. On the one hand we have the tenant stating that the landlord came to the premises, angry and demanding entry to the premises. On the other hand, we have the landlord disputing that occurred. We have been unable to find any convincing reason why the tenant’s version of events should be preferred to that of the landlord.
We have taken into consideration the written statements provided in support of this claim, but ultimately find that limited weight can be placed on them. The witnesses were not called to the hearing to give evidence and have not been cross-examined or challenged on their statement.
We also consider there is merit to the landlord’s argument that the tenant has security cameras around the premises but has not provided video evidence of the alleged harassment. We have considered the photographs of the security cameras, and consider that where they are placed, if the landlord came to the premise behaving in the manner described, that it is more likely than not there would have been some video evidence supporting that.
It is normally the situation that where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then a decision maker will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated. This is not to say that the party needs to establish their claim at any level greater than the balance of probabilities. They do not.
We note the New Zealand Court of Appeal judgment in T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR 462, in which the principal Judgment was delivered by the then president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Woodhouse, in which his Honour stated: For myself I would say at once that the provision for questions of fact to be "decided on a balance of probabilities" when that is considered merely in terms of the required standard of proof is the definition of a constant. There are no gradations, whatever might happen to be the subject matter. What is required is an affirmative demonstration that the relevant and suggested inference is more probable than not. Nothing less than this will be sufficient. At the same time no more is necessary. But having said that it is not only usual but in any evidential context it is logically right for conclusions in the area of inference and judgment to be influenced both by the purpose to which they are directed and the significance of the assessment being made. Just as there are shades of possibility so the point at which there is satisfaction as to probability will vary depending upon the subject matter. Whether the occurrence under review will seem to be something that is probable or possible or even unlikely is bound to be affected in this way; and as a natural process of thought it has been widely accepted and acted upon throughout the common law world when attempts have been made to explain the civil onus of proof.
His Honour then went on to discuss other decisions of the courts, and that: In my view those various observations are all aimed at explaining the simple need to be careful in estimating whether or not the inference to be drawn is in truth probable rather than merely possible. It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it. No doubt, as Lord Scarman said in the Khawaja case, the decision in the end is "largely a matter of words". I would simply add that the exercise of that kind of caution or care must not be taken to such a stage that the level of satisfaction required by a Judge on some particular occasion really amounts to introducing a new and more stringent standard of proof than the balance of probabilities actually requires. [Tribunals emphasis]
This approach was further confirmed in the more recent judgment of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in AMI Insurance Limited v Devcich and others [2011] NZCA 266, in which Justices Glazebrook, Allan and Simon France confirmed: It is well established that there is no intermediate standard of proof between the criminal and civil standards: see the unanimous decision to that effect of the Supreme Court in [Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55]. That is not to say that the Court may not have regard to the seriousness of the allegations in a given case in applying the ordinary civil standard of proof. That was made clear in Z v Dental Complaints by McGrath J, writing also for Blanchard and Tipping JJ: [102] The civil standard has been flexibly applied in civil proceedings no matter how serious the conduct that is alleged. In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard. [Tribunals emphasis]
The allegations made by the tenant are very serious, and we must conclude taking into consideration the approach advocated by the courts above, that the tenant has not proven those allegations to the balance of probabilities. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Neither party has been particularly successful in the claims, we find the filing fees should be covered by both parties equally, so we make no further order in relation to the charge.

BOND

As we explained that the hearing, the bond gets released based on the respective outcomes of each parties’ claims. That order is made accordingly.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression but given neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, both parties name suppression applications are dismissed. R Woodhouse and M Pollak 11 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900837 — Property damage at 27 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900837 — Property damage at 27 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

BOND

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

BOND

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions