What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4937853 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the prior Order dated 11 March 2026. This Order corrects the

How much money was awarded in case 4937853?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,057.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $17.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937853?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13274180-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4937853 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the prior Order dated 11 March 2026. This Order corrects the

How much money was awarded in case 4937853?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,057.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $17.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937853?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13274180-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4937853 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4937853 — net $1,801.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 December 2023	$2,057.42		241. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant still owed $17.27 in water rates arrears and $2,057.42 in rent arrears to 15 December
Water rates to 7 December 2023	$17.27		Water rates to 7 December 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment- contact		$300.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment- contact
Total award	$2,101.69	$300.00
Net award	$1,801.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,801.69

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4937853 — net $1,801.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 December 2023	$2,057.42		241. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant still owed $17.27 in water rates arrears and $2,057.42 in rent arrears to 15 December
Water rates to 7 December 2023	$17.27		Water rates to 7 December 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment- contact		$300.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment- contact
Total award	$2,101.69	$300.00
Net award	$1,801.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,801.69

Order

This order replaces the prior Order dated 11 March 2026. This Order corrects the bond amounts awarded in that Order and the typographical error in the landlord party name. 1 All other details remain the same.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1801.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,801.69 of the bond of $2240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay $438.31 of the bond of $2240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. 1 This reissue is served under the High Court Rules 2016 11.10 that allows for the correction of accidental slip or omission (the “slip rule”).

Reasons

Both parties attended: a. An initial hearing on 09 July 2024, that was adjourned, as the tenant had a cross application with her in hard copy that she was ready to file; b. A telephone case conference on Friday, 9 August 2024; and c. A hearing of the substantive issues on 26 March 2025. There was insufficient time to hear all the tenant’s substantive claims; d. The continuation of the substantive hearing set down for 23 May 2025 was adjourned due to the adjudicator suffering a bereavement; e. The continuation of the substantive hearing set down for 10 September 2025 was adjourned due to the tenant being medically unfit to attend; f. The continuation of the substantive hearing set down for 4 December 2025 was adjourned due to the landlord not being available on that date; g. The remainder of the tenant’s substantive claims were heard on 22 January 2026.
The tenant had not completed giving her evidence in relation to her breach of quiet enjoyment claim by the end of 22 January 2026 hearing and was given until Tuesday 27 January 2026 to submit that evidence. The landlord was given until 2 February 2026 to respond to this evidence with its defence.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; and c. Breaches of her privacy and quiet enjoyment/ harassment.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I 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.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to her.
Section 4591)(a) of the RTA places an obligation on a landlord to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 2
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 3 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 4 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 5 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 6 . 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 3 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
The tenant says [The letting agent] showed the tenant the property and before she took it. She said she had been the only person at the viewing, had been offered two other new properties and was given the hard sell by [The letting agent] to take the tenancy and was promised that health home standards upgrades would be done, some planter boxes removed, and the house made clean and tidy before the tenancy commenced. She stated that she relied on the letting agent’s promises to her detriment and would not have signed up to the tenancy had she known the promise would not be kept. Failure to provide the house in a reasonably clean state
The tenant says the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 7 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 8 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 9
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 10 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 11 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 9 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 10 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 11 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26].
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 12 , not commercially clean 13 , spotless 14 or to a hotel or motel standard 15 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 16 . A. Plastic chair and planter boxes
The tenant says she asked the landlord if she could throw out a broken and dirty plastic chair that was at the premise at the start of the tenancy. She says she got no response, and it remained at the premise taking up space and looking untidy for the entire tenancy. The move in inspection photographs, dated 1 September 2021, show the chair was in the garage with a ladder, that it was not broken, and it was clean.
The September 2023 photographs taken during a routine inspection, specifically 092, shows the chair was on the deck. This indicates that the chair may have been being used by the tenant during the tenancy landlord claims it was never told the chair was an issue and it was not aware of the chair having been left at the premise until these proceedings.
The tenant says the planter boxes were also an issue she raised before the tenancy commenced. She produced her handwritten notes dated 10 December 2021, that records a discussion she says she had with [Property manager 1] where the tenant requested the old chair and planter boxes be removed. She stated that she wrote handwritten notes after each routine inspection but did not share them with the landlord. They were for her records only.
The tenant appeared to be raising these issues as the chair was outside the property next to the rubbish bin at the end of the tenancy and the property manager has mistakenly thought it was the tenant’s chair and asked her to dispose of it. The tenant informed the property manager of the chair’s origin and history and confirmed that it was not the tenant’s property from the entry inspection photographs.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the presence of the plastic chair and planter boxes at the start of the tenancy did not breach the landlord’s obligation to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 12 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 13 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 14 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 15 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. E e 16 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. The landlord produced entry inspection photographs that prove the premise was in a reasonable standard of cleanliness generally and the chair was left in the garage and the planter boxes on the deck to be used by the tenant if she chose. It appears at some point she moved the chair out of the garage, whether she used it or not and that she did not use the planter boxes. Both items appear to be in a good condition at the start of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed because the tenant has not met the burden of proof with her evidence and the landlord has disproven the claim. B. Rubbish left at premise
The tenant claims the landlord left rubbish at premises that she had to pay to remove.
The entry inspection photograph 161 from the move in inspection report shows the premise looking clean and tidy and there is no presence of rubbish. Photographs 172 and 173 of the exterior of the premise show inside the rubbish bins were a- hacksaw, old shoes, bottles, and cans. This rubbish appears to take up no more space than no more than a quarter of the bin.
The tenant stated that at that time she had to pay to have the rubbish collected and had to pay $5.00 for this to be removed.
The landlord confirmed that the tenant did not ask for this to be removed and if she had done so, the landlord would have ensured it was removed.
The tenant was unable to produce sufficient evidence to prove the premise was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. The small amount of rubbish left in a rubbish bin by the prior tenants, means it was not spotless, but it was reasonably clean and tidy generally.
The landlord produced entry inspection photographs that prove the premise was in a reasonable standard of cleanliness generally, as would be assessed by the standard of an average reasonable bystander. Therefore, I dismiss the tenants claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages under this head of claim. Failure to maintain
The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Power outages
The tenant states there was no power during any rain event and this issue persisted through much of the tenancy. She says this was a significant issue due to the unprecedented amounts of rain in 2023.
The tenant confirms that she is aware of the advice the landlord received from two electricians about what repairs were required to stop this issue and that this professional advice was ignored. She claims the ongoing issues with power ultimately led her to end the tenancy, with a reduced notice period, and that the landlord refused to release her early from her obligations under the tenancy.
The tenant says the first time the issue with power outages and flickering of the lights was raised with the landlord was 19 April 2022, during a property inspection. The property manager says this issue is not noted in the property inspection report, there is no maintenance form raised in the property management system by the tenant, no email complaint, no 14-day notice and no text messages.
The tenant says she never used a property maintenance form at any time during the tenancy, and always raised issues in person during inspections and sometimes by email.
The tenant confirmed the next time the issue with power outages and flickering lights was raised with the landlord was 15 November 2022, during a property inspection. Again, the property manager says that this issue is not noted in the property inspection report, no maintenance form raised in the property management system by the tenant, no email complaint, no 14-day notice and no text messages.
The tenant says that she again raised this issue on 18 May 2023 at the next property inspection. The property manager says this issue is not noted in the property inspection report, there is no maintenance form raised in the property management system by the tenant, no email complaint, no 14-day notice and no text messages. The landlord also says that it finds it hard to accept that the tenant would not have emailed or text it about the issue, especially given the number of issues the tenant has sent by email.
On 9 July 2023, the parties agreed the tenant made an afterhours call to the landlord, to report that the power was tripping out and she had no power.
The landlord proved it sent the first electrician to the premise on 9 July 2023, in response to the afterhours call out by the tenant. The invoice records that the call out related to power tripping causing an outage. This work was not invoiced until 26 September 2023. The landlord says the electrician tried to identify the cause of the power continuously tripping out and that the electrician went to every power point and appliance and tested it.
On 20 July 2023, the tenant sent the landlord an email following up on whether any progress had been made in relation to the cause of the ongoing power issues. This email reads: “I assume you are aware of the latest electrical issues? Post the electrician needing to be called out on a cold winter's Sunday evening in recent weeks due to the entire house electricity mains tripping out repeatedly. He noted three issues requiring fixing but as per usual a blanket silence on fixing them is all that has transpired since his visit. This follows a pattern of what occurred post the plumber who attended the leaky water issues downstairs and wet carpet left untreated along with his ignored remedial recommendations. The most imperative remediation issue identified by the a/h electrician is a simple matter of replacing the leaky outdoor light fixtures to prevent likely recurrences of no power in rainy conditions These fittings are inexpensive and readily available from Mitre 10 or Bunnings!! Most people with a simple screwdriver and very little skills in handyman work can manage to fit them easily within 30mins. Is the owner bothering to attend to this or the two other issues he identified anytime soon? I e. Flickering lights in lounge and dodgy power switch in kitchen. It is not my job to explain in detail every maintenance issue and remedy. Your tradesmen should be doing that post visit. You should then be acknowledging them to me as your tenant and advising when they'll be fixed. Are my expectations not realistic? In case it's slipped your minds the current outdoor light fittings due to their age are not watertight, thus when it rains which is extremely common currently they will continue to short out the mains electrical circuit and cut off the entire power supply to the house. I don't know about you, but I quite like the idea of a reliable electricity source for the home’s fridge, heating, hot water supply, lighting and cooking on cold rainy winter days and nights given I dutifully pay $600pw or approx $31,200pa for a roof over my head. Is that not a reasonable expectation? Please note: I am not happy to have the homeowners visit again this Friday at 12pm! I have a lecture I need to attend. You also give me a mere 3 days’ notice. Can you not provide better notice if non urgent? You have conducted a usual 3 monthly inspection in the last few weeks. I should not need to have both [The property management company] and the owner separately visit constantly. You don't ask if it's ever convenient timing for me for these visits. Whilst my home is generally kept reasonably clean and tidy unfortunately I don't have a live in housekeeper to sparkle up the home at the drop of a hat to suit the owners need to visit and "look" again at the same worsening maintenance issues over and over again. Nothing has immeasurably changed since the last visit occurred bar today finally the front door was replaced and is easily lockable. Small mercies!”
The landlord says that every time the electrician came, it reported no issue with the switchboard, and therefore it had not been given direction on what needed to be repaired to fully remediate the ongoing power outage issues experienced by the tenant.
The tenant sought advise from the electrical professional that attended the property, who she claims confirmed the following to her: a. Modern power boxes have several circuits so that tripping does not impact the power to the entire house; b. The switchbox is old and is too small for the power drawn by the number of power points and appliances in the house; c. There is only one residual current device (“RCD”). Consequently, if there is an issue, the power to the whole house goes out. She noted that an RCD is a life-saving device which is designed to prevent people getting a fatal electric shock if they touch something live, such as a bare wire. It can also provide some protection against electrical fires.
On 21 July 2023, the property manager responded to the tenant’s 20 July 2023 saying: “Apologies for the late response. No, we have not heard about the electrical issues, and I don’t believe we sent someone there either. Can I please know who organised the electrician and what company they were from so we can get in touch with them and get a report of what's wrong? Once we know what the issues are we will have them rectified. Regarding the owner's visit tomorrow, unfortunately, this will go ahead as we are required by the RTA to give 48 hours’ notice which we did. Tenants don’t have to be present for inspections or maintenance visits. These issues have been raised by you and a few of these are new issues that neither I nor the owners were aware of. We are equally concerned with the mould and moisture issues in the house and would prefer to have these looked at without any further delays. I appreciate you want to be present for this visit however, as mentioned before the owners are unable to commit to if it makes you feel any better, I can come along with the owners too. Please let me know. Thanks”
The tenant found it extremely concerning that the property manager, that responded to the tenant’s 20 July 2023 email, had no record of the electricians visit on 9 July 2023, especially when it had related to an afterhours call out. This, the tenant says, gives rise to questions about the accuracy and reliability of the landlord’s records.
The landlord confirmed that the second electrician brought to its attention, on 28 November 2023, that the seal in an outdoor light was faulty and trapping water. It says the seal was replaced the same day and since the second electrician replaced the seal on the outdoor light there have been no further power outage issues. That appears to have been the only issue that the second electrician identified and raised with the landlord. I note that the owner of the property, that lived in the property for 18 months prior to the 18-month tenancy before this one, stated the outdoor lights had never worked since they purchased the property and that they and the prior tenant had never had any electrical issues.
The landlord also confirmed that both electricians recommended a final sub- circuit be individually protected by an RCBO unit, to prevent this complete loss of power in the event of a fault, and that the switch board be upgraded. It says the electrician did not indicate that this work was urgent, and the tenant appeared to it not to have any further issues since the outdoor lights were fixed.
The tenant says that the switchboard was not upgraded by the end of the tenancy, nor had a final sub-circuit been installed and protected by an RCBO unit to prevent the complete loss of power in the event of a fault in one part of the house.
The tenant states that she suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience every time the power went out as she had no heating, could not charge her phone when she has no landline and has medical issues and needs her phone, and had no access to cooking facilities.
The evidence produced confirms that the first time the landlord knew about the power outage issue was when the tenant emailed it on 20 July 2023. There is no compelling evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenant had raised this issue prior to that date. The evidence also proves the tenant called the afterhours electrician, but did not also contact the landlord. Therefore, the property manager did not become aware of this call out until the tenant’s 20 July 2023 email as the electrician did not send an invoice immediately.
The evidence also suggests the landlord took reasonable steps to send out an electrician, in a reasonable timeframe, whenever the tenant raised an electrical issue. It was under no obligation to have a RCBO unit or a new switchboard installed if it had been told by the electric’s that was not required urgently.
The landlord stated that it believed the tenant’s multi box caused the power issues. The tenant stated that there would be no overloading of power points if the two muti boxes the landlord had installed in the premise were properly RCD protected and that she had not put any multi boxes into the premise. She stated that the only multi boxes were an old one under the sink, that had no RCD overload, and that when the landlord installed a panel heater, they put in another multi box that would have overloaded the system. Photographs were provided to the Tribunal of the multi box under the sink that belonged to landlord. There was no evidence produced that proved the tenant had raised these muti box issues with the landlord and it failed to address the issues raised in a reasonable timeframe.
The property owners says it tried to inspect the switch board in the garage on their 21 July 2023 inspection, but due to the amount of ‘stuff’ packed in there they could not get access to it. They did however note that throughout the property there were many electrical items plugged into more than one multi-pin plug, in many cases at capacity with plugs plugged into them, including extension leads and double plugs, then plugged into an appliance. It states that having this many multi-in plugs in use, can cause a switchboard to overload and sometimes trip out.
It also noted that in photograph 107 of the 21 July 2023 inspection report, the tenant has a mobile heated towel rail sitting within the ensuite shower box, with a power lead laying on the floor, underneath the bathmat, then plugged into a lead, which is plugged into a multi-box power unit that has 240-volt power to it. The landlord made the point that this is a very unsafe practice to have live power in a wet area like this. It advised the tenant not to put/keep the mobile heated towel rail in the shower box with an electrical cord running under a potentially wet bathmat and to reduce the number of electrical items being plugged into these multi-pins units as it is unsafe and could cause the switch board to overload and trip out.
The tenant says the towel rail was placed there out of the way for the inspection and posed no risk. She stated that she normally kept in the bedroom, as it was used for ambient heating in the bedroom at night.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. B. Lights in lounge
The tenant says the lights in the lounge short circuited for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the first time the issue with the flickering of the lights was raised with the landlord was 19 April 2022, during a property inspection. The property manager says this issue is not noted in the property inspection report, there is no maintenance form raised in the property management system by the tenant, no email complaint, no 14-day notice and no text messages.
The tenant says the next time the issue with power outages and flickering lights was raised with the landlord was 15 November 2022, again during a property inspection. The property manager says this issue is not noted in the property inspection report, there is no maintenance form raised in the property management system by the tenant, no email complaint, no 14-day notice and no text messages.
The tenant says that when the second electrician came into the house, she raise the flickering lights, and that the electrician informed her that this issue was due to the age and type of recess fittings that often result in connection problems at the lamps.
The landlord denies this information being given to it by the election or the tenant. It also says there is nothing in the electrician reports about flickering inside lights. The reports indicate the electricians checked everything and everything appeared to be working fine. Further, the property manager confirmed she turned on all the lights during each routine inspection and they were all working.
The tenant says the electricians report does discuss this issue and pointed me to the [Electrician] report/invoice dated 28 November 2023 that records “inside lights flickering, age, type of recess fittings and will have connection problems at the lamps”.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. C. Kitchen rangehood
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan was old and barely sucked moisture, that she was promised a new one by the letting agent and it was never replaced. She stated that his is a claim based in equitable estoppel, because the letting agent’s misleading promise led her to sign up to a tenancy that she would never have signed up to but for the promise that the premise would be made fully healthy homes compliant. Further, she says that art of this misleading promise was was a promise the rangehood would be ducted outside and it never was. The tenant says this was noted in the original HHS inspection report
The tenant also claimed there was no door between the kitchen and master bedroom and, because the range hood was not working, her clothes got covered in fat.
The landlord confirmed: a. The tenant has raised this issue three times; b. Each time the landlord investigated the issue, including regular property manager checks during routine inspections, property manager checks when the issue was raised each time and the landlord having the rangehood checked and certified by the healthy homes inspector as compliant and working; c. When the landlord inspected it, the rangehood was working and sucking as it should; d. Due to the nature and layout of the property, the range hood cannot be vented to the outside, it has a catchment vent system and has been proven by the landlord to be certified as compliant with healthy homes standards.
The landlord produced a quote from [Contractor 1], dated 19 January 2022, for the installation of an extractor fan in the downstairs bathroom. This quote also confirms that the kitchen is exempt from having an externally venting range hood, as it is located on the middle floor, making external ducting impractical. Further, the contractor states “the existing cassette rangehood GR52 in overhead cabinetry has a set of carbon filters that recirculates air and complies with the ventilation standard”. The contractor also confirms it “removed kitchen rangehood filters to clean and sent photographs to [The owner] to advise existing filters look in good condition at present”.
The landlord also produced an email from [Contractor 1], dated 28 January 2022, explaining the healthy homes assessment report and why it said the kitchen fan was not compliant when it should have explained why it was exempted.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. D. Heat pumps
The tenant says that prior to agreeing to accept the tenancy, she negotiated with the landlord that the property owner would install three new heat pumps, one on each level of the premise, and she signed the tenancy agreement in reliance on the property owners promise, to her detriment. Further, she says that despite following up on the promise, no heat pumps had been installed during the tenancy.
The tenant says she was given a copy of the healthy homes assessment and knew the premise was not fully complaint when she signed up to the tenancy. Because she had that information and would not sign up to the tenancy without confirmation the premise would be brought up to standard, she says the letting agent, as representative of the landlord, made the various promises to her.
The tenant says that after she signed on to the tenancy, the landlord changed the healthy homes upgrades it had promised to something much lesser than promised. The tenant claims that what she was promised to induce her to sign up to the tenancy was false and misleading and she wouldn’t have taken the house if this promise had not been made. Further, she says she had been in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) the year prior as she is asthmatic, and so is her son, and they both had breathing issues in the premise as they require dry air.
The tenant says she was moving from a brand-new brick and tile house she had lived in for three years. She confirmed she had specifically asked the letting agent if the house was dam as there are very few doors in the house. She was told it was not damp and was given a copy of the HHs report.
The tenant produced handwritten notes from this viewing that were never given to the property manager or the owner of the premise. The tenant says that [Property manager 2] was the “next person that turned up” and didn’t know about the promise. However, the tenant stated that [Property manager 2] also promised the house would be HHS compliant and if that meant that the heat pump needed to be upgraded to a larger heat pump, it would be upgrades as recommended.
The landlord stated that if having a heat pump was so important to the tenant, she would have emailed it about it.
The tenant responded confirming she was not told until 21 December 2021, in an email from [Property manager 2], the “House needs additional heating. Panel heaters, one in hallway and one in the bedroom downstairs”. The tenant says that this means the landlord no longer intended to comply with the letting agent’s promise and the HHS report recommendation was ignored. The property managers confirmed the owners decided to take the cheaper option of installing panel heaters. The tenant says these were more costly for her to run and not as efficient at drying and heating the premise.
There is an email chain produced in evidence between [Property manager 2] and the tenant, starting on 21 December 2021 and going until 23 December 2021, where the tenant raises her issues again about the change in what she sees as an agreed plan to install heat pumps.
The landlord stated that the letting agent had no authority to bind the owners to a promise of heat pumps or anything else and if the tenant had the alleged promise in writing, they would have had to consider honouring the promise. However, the alleged promise is denied by the letting agent and the tenant has not produced any written evidence of this promise to prove her claim.
The property manager informed the tenant it was up to the owners what they did to comply with the HHS, as long as the premise was compliant by the required date.
The tenant said panel heaters may be compliant, but they are also costly to run and a fire risk, so she never used them.
The tenant reiterated that she would not have taken the house if she knew the heat pump would not be replaced. She also says that the fact the owners got quotes for HHS upgrades that included the installation of new heat pumps proves the owners knew of the promise and then changed their mind without informing the property management company. She claims there were major miscommunication issues between the owners and the property management company during the tenancy.
The landlord says the layout of the house is open plan three levels and the main lounge is in middle level. There was a heat pump on middle level at the time the tenancy started, but the premise needed extra heating in the downstairs areas, so panel heaters were installed in downstairs bedrooms to make sure the premise complied with heating requirements. The landlord provided photographs and a certificate saying the premise was fully compliant with the heating standard after the installation of two 1.5KW panel heaters, that produced 8.8kW of heat in total, on the ground floor. The owners confirmed they never intended to put additional heat pumps into the property.
The property managers denied that anyone from [The property management company] had promised heat pumps and that the letting agent would have never promise heat pumps during the viewing without having got instructions from the owners. They confirmed that this is standard practice for anyone working at [The property management company] as a property manager or letting agent cannot sign off an expense the owner has not already consented too.
The tenant has failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the letting agent and/or the property manager promised the installation of between one to three heat pumps before the tenancy agreement was signed. Had this promise been made, after consent by the owners, it would have been recorded in the tenancy agreement signed by the parties or at east emailed to the tenant by the letting agent or the property manager. The tenant has been unable to prove the promise she says she relied on to her detriment was ever made.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. E. Oven
The tenant says the oven worked but had a caustic soda smell when you turned it on, and it was rusty. Further, she claims the oven did not heat to more than reach more than 190 degrees.
The landlord says the first time the tenant mentioned this issue was at the 22 January 2026 hearing, but it had never received anything in writing about this issue during the tenancy. The landlord stated that there is sometimes a temporary caustic soda smell that results from cleaning, but the tenant says it was in the rubbers and vents and she could not get the smell out.
In the email with the tenancy agreement, the landlord gave the tenant 7 days to raise any issues with the property and she did not raise this issue. She has not issued any 14 da notices to the landlord, nor has she sent any emails or text messages about this issue.
The tenant says she moved into the premise during COVID-19 times and could not even have movers to help her. She was going through surgeries and treatments for gynaecological issues and the caustic soda smell and oven temperature did not seem like such a significant priority.
The tenant says she raised this issue with [Property manager 2] at first property inspection in December 2021 and that this was a very adversarial inspection as the tenant had been told to take out a letter box she had installed and was blamed for kitchen sink crack.
The tenant confirms she never raised the complaint in writing but was allegedly told by [Property manager 2] “that was the oven you were given” and “get an air fryer if you are not happy with it”. The tenant also confirms she did not raise this issue again in writing or otherwise, she just did not use it. The landlord denies this issue having been raised at the December 2021 inspection and notes it is not recorded in the notes from that inspection. The entry inspection report and photographs shows the oven is in good condition.
The landlord confirmed the same oven is still there and the new tenants have not reported any issues with it.
The tenant has failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the oven was faulty, and the landlord did not address an issues with it in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. F. Tap in kitchen
The tenant says the kitchen tap dripped for 12 months, as it was missing its filter at the bottom and when the landlord fixed the crack in the benchtop, 12 months after the tenancy started, the plumber refused to reinstall the old tap as it was worn and leaking and would continue to leak if not replaced.
The tenant has a 6 July 2022 email confirming the bench top replacement will be done soon and the landlord has proven the benchtop was replaced on 9 August 2022.
The tenant produced a photograph of the leak from tap under the bench, dated 11 August 2022. It was not attached to the email sent to the landlord on that date.
In an email to the landlord, dated 1 August 2022, the tenant states the tap was unregulated and messy, but makes no mention of a leak.
The parties confirm that the tap was leaking after the sink and new bench was installed, and the plumber came back to fix it on 19 August 2022. The parties also confirmed the tenant reported this leak on 10 August 2022. The landlord proved it called the plumber same day.
The owner says that when the plumber called the same day and said the tap needed to be fixed, and the owner agreed. The tap was replaced 19 August 2022.
I am not satisfied the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached his s45(1)(b) of the RTA in relation to this specific repair and maintenance issue. The claim is dismissed. G. Door and lock
The tenant says the front door paint had peeled off and the door laminate was starting to come away at the bottom of the door making it hard, if not impossible to shut it.
In the entry inspection report dated 1 September 2021, there is a comment under hallway “Front door painted, bottom corner deteriorating”.
The tenant says the door was bowed and strike plate had been cut so the door could lock. She says this was a cheap and ineffective fix. The tenant claims that to get the door to lock she had to put her full body weight on it.
The tenant says she first raised this issue with the property manager on 9 May 2022 and informed them she was having difficulty with locking and unlocking door. She told the property manager that [The property management company] would be held liable if she was burgled.
On 24 May 2022 the tenant got an email from the property manager apologising for the delay in getting this issue resolved. She confirmed [Contractor 2] was booked and that she could get a handyman to look at door that Friday if the tenant could be available. The tenant confirmed the handyman moved strike plate and replaced door handle.
In late May 2022 the male owner says he came and checked the door, and the locks were working. The owner claimed they made repairs to the bottom of the door and painted it, and it was working properly. They also confirmed there was never any bowing and that the only issue was with the deterioration of the laminate on bottom of the door.
The tenant then insisted there was an issue with the lock and so owners tried to arrange the handyman to come and change the lock.
The handyman was booked for 3 June 2022, but tenant was sick, and the visit delayed and then handyman got COVID. Then the tenant was in hospital. It is not clear but seems the lock was replaced in August 2022.
The 19 August 2022 property report notes that the bottom part of the door was split, the door hard to open and close and was not painted underneath.
The landlord says it inspected the property on 21 July 2023 and a brand-new door had been installed and painted. The tenant says the new door was an interior door that was not fit for purpose. The landlord denies this.
The landlord has produced an invoice from [Contractor 2], dated 20 July 2023, for replacement of the front door due to wear and tear (mainly in the right bottom corner). It notes that the front and rear panel/skin of the door has deteriorated and started to separate from the door causing an issue with the door when closing. The invoice is for: a. Supply and installation of new door; b. Lock installation (existing lock transferred to new door); c. Painting the door.
This issue was considered closed at the end of the 21 July 2023 inspection.
The tenant confirms she had no more issues with the door.
It is clear there were issues with the door, and that the landlord took steps to investigate and remediate these in a timeframe that was reasonable in all the circumstances. While the tenant may not have been satisfied with what the landlord’s saw as the issues and the urgency level versus what she saw as the issues and the urgency level, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA in relation to this specific repair and maintenance issue. The claim is dismissed. H. Downstairs bedroom humid and wet/damp carpet and carpet damage
The tenant says the corner of the bedroom, where there had been a previous leak, had some damaged carpet in one corner. This issue was raised in repeated emails from the tenant and investigated during the 21 July 2023 inspection.
The landlord says the carpet was in the same condition, prior to the tenant taking possession of the property more than two years ago, and while it does not look perfect, it is not wet or damp. It says its intention is to replace the carpet in the bedroom with new in the future, but not imminently, as it is purely a cosmetic issue now.
There is evidence that this issue was first raised in December 2022, after a severe weather event. The landlord produced an invoice from [Plumber]. It had been called after hours just after the storm on 10 December 2022. This invoice records that there was small amount of water in the corner, the gib damaged and they had cut small hole in the frame that showed signs of dampness. [The property management company] confirmed it told the owners about the plumber recommendations but before anything further could be done, the tenant’s son smashed up the pathway and put in small drain and scoria. The tenant says this did not fix the issue.
The owner says that very soon after 10 December 2022 wet weather event, there was a small amount of water ingress, and some mould was found under the plasterboard that had been there for a while. However, until the contractor had opened the plasterboard it had been unaware of the issue.
The owners stated they engaged a licensed building practitioner who dug away the area and put in soakage pits. This diverted the water away from that corner. It was then left exposed inside until fully dried out with dehumidifiers. After a few weeks, the contractor was satisfied there was no more water ingress, so closed the plasterboard up and repaired it. The owners confirmed there were no further issues after that.
[The property management company]’s representative advised that the tenant had then complained the water was dripping through the "outdoor" deck above and was splashing water inside when the sliding door was left open. The landlord showed photographic evidence that the upstairs deck is an external deck, and water can drip through the boards when it rains. As such, the landlord had advised the tenant not to leave the sliding door open when it is raining, and instead use the window for ventilation. This issue was considered closed in the landlord’s records at the end of the 21 July 2023 inspection.
The tenant emailed the landlord on 21 July 2023 regarding the carpet. She stated she was not happy with the plumber’s advice, the leak was not fixed, and nothing has changed. Further she states, “due to these combined issues, I will be temporarily relocating myself with necessary personal items to another property (but not my household furniture) and will seek assistance from the tenancy tribunal. The ongoing stress and dramas is far from desirable”.
The tenant stated that there was so much water ingress that the water had come through the plaster board wall lining causing massive amounts of mould and damage to son’s bed. She produced a video of what she says is a professional device used to test moisture levels on 29 March 2023 and 7 May 2023. There were no videos and photographs of the ranch slider leaking, the damp carpet or the alleged broken seal around the ranch slider. These moisture meter readings were not undertaken by a third-party professional contractor that had been paid to conduct the moisture readings and write a report on the findings. Therefore, I have placed a low weight on this evidence.
The tenant claims the dampness and mould is due to an exterior block wall being unpainted under the ground by the bedroom in question. She also claims the building has no eaves. She says the block wall is around 9 to 10 meters, so water comes straight down and flows into the house. She also claims the path slopes into the house and directs water into that room.
The tenant produced two videos that she says show these two sources where water comes in under the house by the bedroom wall. I found these to be inconclusive. She also claimed the plumber said the path needs to be straightened, a strip drain put along the block wall to take the water away from house, and the wall needs to be sealed and painted. The landlord has not seen any such recommendation from this plumber and argued that a plumber would not be qualified to undertake such as assessment on these kinds of issues. This, it says is more in the drainlayer and builders’ areas of expertise.
Tenant says from date of repair she had to use dehumidifier and taking out a bucket of water a day.
In the 21 July 2023 inspection report, the landlord confirms there had been heavy rain all night long and for a period of more than 2 days prior. It also noted 2023 had been one of the wettest years on record to date. The plaster board was dry to touch, it was not damp or cold and was showing no signs of any water leaks or mould. In addition, the carpet beneath was dry and showing absolutely no signs of dampness or mould.
The owners say they were present at this inspection and spent 15 minutes in that area and found no evidence of dampness or mould. The male owner is a qualified builder with more than 40 years leaky home remediation experience. It is more than likely that if there had been a leak in the bedroom, the owner would have picked it up in this inspection and there was no advantage to him of leaving any such leak unremedied.
The property manager gave evidence that at the Sept 2023 property inspection no evidence of a leak, dampness or mould was found. Photograph 18 shows that the carpet is not mouldy. In this inspection report there are two small dots in the hallway carpet that the property manager stated was dirt that wiped off. The tenant says what the property manager wiped off the carpet was mould, but she had no evidence to prove that claim.
The tenant has failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the there was an ongoing leak that the landlord failed to investigate and remediate in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities.
I also dismiss the tenant’s claims for the furniture, curtains etc that tenant says she threw out due to the mould issues that resulted from the landlord’s unproven breach. The tenant did not prove on the balance of probabilities the mould was due to the leak nor did she produce receipts for any replacement items, nor had she made claims to the landlord at the time of the alleged leak related breaches. I. Holes on front door frame and one window frame on first floor
The tenant says the front door frame and one window frame on the first floor, had a small hole in one corner of the timber frame.
The landlord notes in its inspection, on 26 June 2023, there are two small (approx. 5mm diameter- pin holes) holes. One on each frame, in one corner of the frame’s timber sills. The area was not wet or damp, but was showing some signs of rot, which for the age of the property is quite common to find on external window frames. Future maintenance would be to fill the holes and repaint the windowsills. The landlord found these small holes not to be causing leaks or draughts and therefore not to be on the list of urgent matters to address.
The report also confirms there is no water coming in the corner of the window and that it is a cosmetic hole in an over 20-year-old house.
The tenant says she told [Property manager 3] that she had to put a towel down near front door. [Property manager 3] denies this. The tenant also says she asked to repair it herself and was told no. The front door and window photographs for the June 2023 report do not show any significant issue with the small pin holes complained off.
The owner stated that it is impossible for water to come in those holes and that they would be filled and painted before the sale of property, as part of renovation.
The tenant has failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that there were concerning holes in the window and door frame that the landlord failed to investigate and remediate in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. J. Planter boxes- brand new and built with deck and left for the tenant’s enjoyment.
The tenant says she was told she was not to put anything in these planter boxes as cats would use them as dirt trays, so they filled with water and tree leave and started to rot and stench. The tenant put these upsides down and says she was then told not to do that either, so she had to keep cleaning them out when she was immune compromised.
The tenant says that during the 19 April 2022 property inspection the issue of the planter boxes was discussed and the property manager agreed to have them removed but never did.
The landlord denied this and stated the tenant could use them if she so wished for planting plants in. The tenant did not have any evidence that proved she had been told not to use the planter boxes nr that the property manager or owner had agreed to remove them.
The landlord was entitled to leave the planter boxes in place and was under no legal obligation to remove them.
The tenant has failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations in respect of the planter boxes.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities K. Windows
The tenant claims there was water ingress through every windowsill and she was constantly having to mop up water that ran down the walls staining the carpet in every room. The landlord denies this.
The tenant did produce some photographs of water stains on carpet. These photographs were not dated.
The tenant says that at every inspection in her handwritten notes she notes this slow seep when there is rain getting in and that this was always at the bottom of the window frames and the carpet would be wet. She stated she went around with towels to mop up the water.
The landlord says this was never raised with it, the tenant has not issued it with a 14-day notice to remedy or any formal written complaints by email or text. It also notes this issue is not mentioned in any inspection report, although the reports for last two years are very detailed. It also confirmed it never noticed any water damage under every window at any time during any inspection.
The tenant has failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was water ingress around the windows that the landlord failed to investigate and remediate in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenant claim the landlord 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 agreement commenced on 5 September 2021. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 90th day after the tenancy commenced, being 4 December 2021.
Prior to accepting the tenancy, the tenant asked for proof the premise complied with the healthy homes’ standards, during the initial viewing on 24 July 2021. The tenant was sent the healthy homes assessment report, dated 29 June 2021, on 24 July 2021 with the application form. This version of the healthy homes report shows the premise was not compliant with the heating and ventilation standard at that time.
The tenant does not believe the rental premise ever fully met the healthy homes standards and because the tenancy agreement did not contain most of the healthy homes information it is statutorily required to contain, the tenant says she had no real information about where the premise was in terms of level of compliance when the tenancy commenced. A. Ventilation Standard
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard requires that a premise must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bedrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms must have externally venting extractor fans or an acceptable continuous mechanical ventilation system that are externally vented.
The tenant says the downstairs bathroom did not have an externally venting extractor fan and nor did the kitchen.
The landlord produced a quote from [Contractor 1], dated 19 January 2022, for the installation of an extractor fan in the downstairs bathroom. This quote document also confirms that the kitchen is exempt from having an externally venting range hood as it is located on the middle floor, making external ducting impractical (expensive to duct through the house- all Units were COC signed of with these rangehoods and HHS certificate- had to change the filters regularly). Further, the contractor states “the existing cassette rangehood GR52 in overhead cabinetry has a set of carbon filters that recirculates air and complies with the ventilation standard”. The contractor also confirms it “removed kitchen rangehood filters to clean and sent photographs to [The owner] to advise existing filters look in good condition at present”.
The tenant says the landlord never changed the carbons filters during the tenancy. The landlord confirmed it is the tenant’s responsibility to change/clean filters on air conditioners and range hoods during a tenancy.
I find that the bathroom fan was not installed until 19 January 2022, when the compliance date was 4 December 2021. However, this was during the Covid-19 period when it was very difficult to get contractors to go into houses to undertake this type of installation. [City] had been in lockdown for 107 days, beginning in August 2021 and afterwards strict rules remained in force, under the traffic light system. Further, this breach is during the Christmas period where it is also difficult to get trades people.
I decline to award the tenant any compensation for the 46 days the landlord breached the ventilation standard due to the complicating Covid-19 restrictions in place at this time.
The landlord has proven the breach was not intentional, and it occurred more than 12 months prior to the tenant’ application to the Tribunal, so I am barred by section 109(2) of the RTA from awarding exemplary damages for this breach. B. Draught stopping standard
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property does not have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
The tenant says the front door frame and one window frame on the first floor, had a small hole in one corner of the timber frame that let draughts into the premise.
The original HHS reports was amended after a further inspection, and it confirms the premise meets draught stopping standards. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for breach of the draught stopping standard accordingly. C. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant says the water was ingress in most of the exposed glazing and in window box in lounge. She says she noticed it on first viewing and that Tenancy Services classified her claims not her and they may have classified this claim incorrectly. She agrees that the moisture and drainage issues she raised fall more into the repair and maintenance claims addressed above.
The tenants claim for breach of the drainage standard is dismissed. D. Heating standard
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard require landlords to provide one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room. The heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room.
The landlord has proven, as set out in the repair and maintenance issues above, that it fully complied with the heating standard, did not have to install a stronger heat pump and has produced a certificate of compliance that confirms the premise is heating standard compliant. I dismiss the breach of the heating standard claim accordingly Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 5 September 2021, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement. The tenant’s tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information, except the general statement agreeing to comply with the healthy homes’ standards.
The landlord says it did not provide this information as remedial work was being carried out up to the date the tenancy started, and the landlord was waiting for the healthy homes assessment report and compliance certificate so it could attach the report to the tenancy agreement.
The tenant confirm she never received the updated healthy homes assessment report or compliance certificate until after the mediation that relates to this proceeding.
The tenant stated that she had been given a copy of the original healthy homes report at the start of the tenancy by the letting agent and that she knew the house was not fully complaint and so negotiated that the house be made complaint by the statutorily required date.
I find that while the tenancy agreement itself does not record the level of compliance against the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy, the tenant confirmed she had received that information from the letting agent in the form of an assessment report.
I find that the landlord has not breached its obligations to provide the tenant with this information, as it was provided as an addendum to the tenancy agreement not in the body of the agreement itself.
The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed as she has failed to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Locks
The tenant claims she could not lock the premise for 1.5 years as there was no handle on the door and the lock was not aligned with the strike plate. She also claims the locks were damaged and front door was rotten.
Landlords are required to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. See section 46(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has produced an invoice from [Contractor 2], dated 20 July 2023, for replacement of the front door due to wear and tear (mainly in the right bottom corner). The front and rear panel/skin of the door have deteriorated and started to separate from the door now causing an issue with the door when closing. The invoice is for: a. Supply and installation of new door; b. Lock installation (existing lock to be transferred to new door); and c. Painting the door.
There was no evidence provided by the tenant that proves on the balance of probabilities that the lock did not work from the start of the tenancy to 20 July 2023 nor that the landlord breached its s46(3) of the RTA obligations to her. This claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her privacy and quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) 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. A. 21 July 2023 inspection
The landlord noted that at the end of its 21 July 2023 property inspection, the tenant advised that it inconvenienced her by attending the property to inspect the issues she had raised. It confirmed it had only ever requested to attend the property to view issues that the tenant herself has complained about or to make repairs by specialists’ tradesmen. It says it had replaced/repaired a few items previously and were always looking to ensure it takes care of the property and addresses any issues as quickly as it can. The landlord says it has always tried to ensure the tenants gets full enjoyment from living on the property and has tried to be as respectful and helpful as possible in dealing with repair and maintenance issues. The landlord was obligated to investigate any issues raised in a reasonable time frame. The evidence suggests the relationship had irretrievable broken down by this point and the tenant was reluctant to grant the landlord access as she perceived there to have been a lot of visits and no action in the past. I do not find that this incident constitutes a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. B. Threats of cars being towed
The tenant claims she received constant threats about the landlord having her and her son’s cars towed. She says she kept finding little piece of paper jammed down front of her car.
The landlord claims the body corporate manages the car parking spaces in accordance with the Body Corporate rules, which the tenant says she never received until after tenancy commenced.
The tenant proved she had not received the Body Corporate rules until after the tenancy commenced but the Body Corporate is required to enforce the car parking rules contained within it.
The tenant also says that the. Body Corporate rules allows for towing, but the tenant says she was worn down by the constant threats of being towed, nit by the landlord but by the Body Corporate that is a separate entity to the landlord.
The tenant confirmed she knew she had to display a parking permit, even though she was told this just after the tenancy started. She says she tried to comply with this Body Corporate rule, and first it went down between window and dashboard and blocked her air conditioning unit. She got a quote to have it removed for $300.00 or $400.00. She says that after this, she refused to display parking permit as it was but put a smaller copy of it into a registration pocket. She also put these small size copies on her visitors’ cars. The Body Corporate didn’t accept these copies as they were not the original permit given to her. After many complaints from the Body Corporate, [The property management company] confirmed it wrote to her to inform her that if she did not display the original parking permit her car might get towed.
The tenant claims there is nothing in Body Corporate rules that says she must display the permit, but it does say she has 7 days to remedy any breach after her receipt of a breach notice.
The landlord says it was very clear with the tenant that she was required to display the parking permit she had been given and advised her that the Body Corporate does tow cars if they have been there without a permit for so many days. There was also discussion about whether visitors’ carparks could be used by residents, as there was no parking on road.
The landlord states that there is a sign in the carparking area that cars parked without a permit will be towed. The tenant says everyone used visitor parks.
The evidence suggests the landlord did nothing more than ask the tenant to put the laminated permit she was given, in the car
I am satisfied that despite not receiving the Body Corporate rules prior to the tenancy starting, the tenant had been a carparking permit and she was not complying with carparking rules. The landlord asked her to comply and informed her of the potential consequences of her failure to display the permit she had been given and not her copies. In response to the air conditioning concern raised, [Property manager 3] gave the tenant a metal clip and asked the tenant to put her laminated permit in the car that she was given.
The tenant said she also had a motorcycle, with no windscreen to display the permit on and that she had raised this with [Property manager 3] a lot.
I find that the tenant was not being harassed nor was her quiet enjoyment being impinged upon. The evidence proves the tenant did not comply with the landlord’s request for her to display the original parking permit she had been given and tried to work with her toward a solution to the permit causing the air conditioning issues. The tenant’s claim is dismissed for failure to prove it on the balance of probabilities. C. Phone numbers given to contractors
The tenant claims she told not to give out her mobile number to third parties, due to witness protection issues. She had given evidence in a gang trial.
She was clear about why she was requesting the landlord seek her prior consent to before giving her number out. She says this reasonable request was ignored. This was ignored when the landlord gave [Contractor 1] her phone number without her permission. She states in doing so, it put her at risk and breached her privacy. She claims that every time there was a new property manager assigned to her, she explained that she required the name of the contractor and/or company to make sure they posed no risk to her due to any gang connections.
The tenant proved the landlord also gave her phone number to [The alarm company] for the smoke alarm inspection and to [The locksmith] who called her out of the blue to tell her it was coming in 30 minutes to get key to the lock. She says that every contractor was given her name and phone number without her consent or knowledge. The landlord accepts it gave out her number, for arranging dates and times for scheduled maintenance because she was so difficult to agreed access with and it thought the contractors had a better chance of agreeing access with her directly. The Privacy Act allows a tenant’s details to be given out if to contractors if that is the reason it was collected.
I find that the tenant had good reasons to be cautious about who had her phone number and address and that it was not unreasonable for her to request that the landlord give her information about who wanted access so that she could feel safe in her own home. The landlord could have arranged access for contractors itself and let them in to do the work, instead of giving out the tenant’s phone number. If that was not possible, the landlord could have sought consent form the tenant before giving out her number and expecting her to make herself available to let contractors in to undertake repair and maintenance work.
I find the landlord has committed an intentional and unlawful act and award the tenant $300.00 compensation for this breach. Because this breach first occurred more than 12 months before the tenant’s application to the Tribunal, no exemplary damages can be awarded because the Tribunal is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA from awarding any exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. D. Inspections
The tenant claims she had constant issues when it came to property inspections and then the owners coming separately for what she referred to as “tourist visits”. The owners stated they came to look at issues that the tenant raised and any issues the property managers had raised with them after property inspection.
The tenant claimed the owners made rude comments and breached the 48 hours’ notice requirements. The example she gave was when she was going [overseas] and gave the landlord two contact numbers for her daughter and [The tenant’s representative]. While the tenant was [overseas], the landlord sent an email to her and not her contact people, to say they were coming the next day. She was without the internet, so did not receive this notice until much later. She says at this time, landlord didn’t give the required 48 hours’ notice. The landlord claims it was seeking access for the purpose of carrying out repairs and maintenance, it sent the required 24 hours’ notice to the tenant’s address for service, and the tenant had not asked it to change or vary the address for service while she was away.
The tenant also claims the RTA says you can only do inspections once every 4 weeks and the landlord did them more often than that. The landlord has produced its routine property inspection reports, and these disprove the tenant’s claim.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim. The claim is therefore dismissed. E. Mailbox issue
The tenant claims the mailbox has a tiny slot for letters, and it couldn’t fit any parcels in it. She stated that there was no cover over front door, so parcels got saturated or baked.
The tenant was receiving more parcels than she would normally be due to the restrictions related to Covid-19, so she attached a letter box to the premise and was told it was a breach of the Body Corporate rules. She did not ask for permission before doing so. She was also told she was damaging the water tightness of the building as she had screwed the mailbox into the cladding and was told to remove the mailbox in a week, which she did.
The tenant was told she could place it around the corner on the fence, where she claims no one could see it. The tenant placed the letter box in a free-standing planter box and was accused of having an unlawful letter box by a property manager.
The tenant claims this is harassment as it was during Covid times, and it was unreasonable of the landlord not to allow her to keep the mailbox until after the pandemic had concluded.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not seek consent before installing the mailbox and that it did cause damage to the cladding and could have led to watertightness issues if left and that it was reasonable for the landlord to seek its removal. I find this requirement to remove the mailbox does not constitute harassment or a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The claim is therefore dismissed. F Keys
The tenant claims the owner’s son kept keys to the house, given to him by the property management company for months after doing a sink hole.
The landlord confirmed he had the owner’s keys and not [The property management company] keys and that he had given them back to the owners.
The tenant confirms she was told the property manager, [Property manager 4], could not access the house as the owners’ son had [The property management company]’s key. The tenant says this was a security risk.
The owners confirmed that their son had their keys for a short time and that he never had [The property management company]’s keys and that this must be a miscommunication.
The tenant had no evidence to prove the owner’s son had the keys for a significant period beyond the work he did at the premise. The owners confirmed their keys were at their house and they were entitled to retain those keys. The tenant’s claim is dismissed for insufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. G. Evidence of someone in the house when she was away- towel
The tenant claims that [Contractor 1] left a wet Sheridan towel beside her washing machine when he went to carry out some work at the premise. She also claims that some planters had been moved and there were other issues.
The tenant told the landlord after that no contractors could come unless she was home. She says that [The property management company] then stopped the contractor coming back to collect the towel. She said she waited for a month and took towel to local charity.
The landlord confirmed the towel was “left by a tradie mopping the floor” after an urgent water leak”.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim. The claim is therefore dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023 (LL says) 7 December 2023 (T says).
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant still owed $17.27 in water rates arrears and $2,057.42 in rent arrears to 15 December 2023. The tenant claims the tenancy ended on 7 December 2025 and she only owed $1,353.43 to that date.
Tenant was given 90 days’ notice on 18 October 2023, as the property was being marketed for sale. The last day of tenancy was 16 January 2024, but the tenant could give 28 days’ notice if she wanted to leave earlier.
On 27 October 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord asking for early release from the tenancy if she found somewhere else to live. She suggested 7 to 14 days, as she was constantly without power. On 3 November 2023 the landlord declined this request.
On 17 November 2023, the tenant gave formal notice to the landlord, via email, that she was moving out earlier than 16 January 2024. She then moved out on 7 December 2023. This did not fulfil the tenant’s obligation to provide 28 days’ notice.
On 18 November 2023, she sent a follow-up email, due to power having tripped out again and no power or unstable power. The tenant got a out of office response from [Property manager 5] that she was away until 4 December 2023.
The tenant got a reply from [Property manager 6] on 20 November 2023, telling her “I have to refer to the landlord or instructions”.
The tenant responded on 20 November 2023, saying that she was leaving in 14 days. She stated she was in hospital with pancreatitis, physically left property on 20 November and gave key back on 7 December 2023.
The landlord’s email reply, on 23 November 2023, confirms it has received the tenant’s termination notice on the 17th of November 2023 and that the 28 days’ notice starts from the 18th of November 2023 making the termination date the 15th of December 2024.
The tenant relies on s59 of the RTA and says she only had to give 2 days’ notice as the house was uninhabitable due to no power. She says she couldn’t cook, charge phone, had no lights etc. She proved she a broken ankle, as she had fallen the down the steps trying to restore power. None of these claims have been upheld in the repairs and maintenance section of this decision.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove these amounts were still owing at the end of the tenancy, which I find to be 15 December 2023.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims, her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with its claims, so I must reimburse its filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings, however I do not consider that the public interest in this matter outweighs some detrimental repercussions of the tenant that is in witness protection.
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of both parties names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4937853 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4937853 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions