What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4963273 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4963273?

Compensation: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $211.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4963273?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4963273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11761332-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4963273 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4963273?

Compensation: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $211.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4963273?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4963273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11761332-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4963273 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4963273 — net $11.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 August 2025	$7,200.00		Rent arrears to 12 August 2025
Water rates to end of tenancy	$211.80		Water rates to end of tenancy
Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in roof above		$4,800.00	Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in roof above
Compensation for failure to maintain - ranch slider		$1,000.00	Compensation for failure to maintain - ranch slider
Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in dining room		$1,600.00	Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in dining room
Total award	$7,411.80	$7,400.00
Net award	$11.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11.80

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4963273 — net $11.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 August 2025	$7,200.00		Rent arrears to 12 August 2025
Water rates to end of tenancy	$211.80		Water rates to end of tenancy
Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in roof above		$4,800.00	Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in roof above
Compensation for failure to maintain - ranch slider		$1,000.00	Compensation for failure to maintain - ranch slider
Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in dining room		$1,600.00	Compensation for failure to maintain - leak in dining room
Total award	$7,411.80	$7,400.00
Net award	$11.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the both the landlord and the tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $11.80 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,388.20 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord company was represented by its directors who managed the tenancy. The tenant appeared with her partner who also lived in the tenancy.
The tenancy property was a villa located in Ponsonby with a two-storey extension constructed at the rear of the property. The upstairs portion of the extension contained the main bedroom, ensuite and walk-in wardrobe.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for failure to repair and maintain the property, for bullying and harassment and for the landlord entering without giving proper notice. The tenant has also applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to repair and maintain. Onus and evidence
As with all claims before the Tribunal the party bringing the claim must prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and produced at the hearing. However the parties can be assured that all of the evidence has been carefully considered. The landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy began on 18 August 2019 and ended on 12 August 2024. At the outset rent was $1,400 per week but the rent rose over the course of the tenancy to $1,800 per week. The landlord provided rent records showing the tenant did not pay rent for the last four weeks of the tenancy and so was in arrears in the amount of $7,200.00.
The tenant did not dispute that she had not paid rent for the last four weeks of the tenancy. She said that she had claims that would offset the rent arrears.
Tenants cannot simply stop paying rent because they consider that they have claims that might offset rent payable. That is a matter for the Tribunal to determine.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved.
The landlord also sought water arrears in the amount of $380.87. The tenant accepted that she owed water rates over the period claimed by the landlord.
However on review of the Watercare invoices and the landlord’s summary it became apparent that the landlord had included the fixed charges in their calculations.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
I have therefore reviewed the Watercare invoices and have deducted the fixed charges. The amount owing is $211.80.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Carpet
The landlord said that the carpet was replaced in June 2017, just over two years prior to the start of the tenancy. They said that at the end of the tenancy the carpet in the bedrooms was marked to the point where it had to be replaced, even after having been cleaned by the tenant. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement but advised that their insurer accepted their claim and so they seek the excess of $550.00.
The tenant said that the carpet became marked as there were numerous tradespeople walking through the bedroom to access the roof outside for repairs.
The landlord did not provide any ingoing inspection photos of the carpet and so it was not possible for me to assess the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. I accept that some staining occurred, but I am not satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenants due to the fact that this was a high traffic area for tradespeople for a period during the tenancy.
This claim is not proven. For completeness I note that even if I had found this claim proved I would have been unlikely to award compensation as the Tribunal must consider depreciation when making awards for compensation. The carpet was very close to the end its estimated useful life 1 . Washing machine
The landlord said that they purchased the washing machine for the property in 2018 but during an inspection in 2024 noticed that the tenants had installed their own washing machine and had stored the landlord’s washing machine in a cupboard. The landlord said that the washing machine was not working and they had to purchase a new one. They produced a report from a repair company stating that the machine had been overloaded and the drum damaged. The landlord made an insurance claim and so sought the excess of $550.00.
The tenant said that the washing machine was old and didn’t work properly and was very noisy (video evidence produced) and so they purchased their own. They denied having caused the damage claimed. They also said that the washing machine was much older than the landlord claimed.
It is not necessary to determine whether the washing machine was damaged during the tenancy as the washing machine was nearly at the end of its estimated useful life 2 , even on the landlord’s evidence of age. This claim is therefore dismissed. Wardrobe repairs
The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the shelving in the walk-in wardrobe. The landlord produced photos showing that various brackets had come away from the wall causing the shelving to cave in. The landlord said that they noticed the damage during an inspection towards the end of the tenancy. They said that that the tenant “fixed” the shelving but did not do so properly and 1 See Inland Revenue Department IR265 Depreciation Schedules “Residential Chattels”. Carpet has an estimated useful life of 8 years. 2 The IRD Depreciation Schedules provide that washing machines have an estimated useful life of
66 years so their contractor had to re-do the job properly. They produced an invoice in the amount of $561.89 for the repairs.
The tenant claimed that the shelving had come crashing down because the landlord’s contractors were hammering on the roof not far away from the wall with the shelving. They said that the shelving was fixed into the gib and not the framing in numerous places and so was unstable.
The tenant also referred to the condition report included in the tenancy agreement that noted in the main bedroom that “wardrobe fitting buckled”.
Having reviewed the evidence I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the damage was caused by the tenants. In my view it is equally possible that the damage occurred because the shelves were originally secured into gib and not solid framing and were close to an area where hammering work was occurring.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Hallway and stairs
The landlord said that the tenant kept a dog for much of the tenancy, without their permission, and caused scratches to the wooden flooring in the hallway and three stairs. The landlord said that they had sanded and coated the floors with polyurethane in 2016, only three years before the tenancy began. The landlord has now had the work done again and claimed the amount of $690.00 for doing so.
The tenant said that they did not keep a dog. They said that there were existing scratches to the flooring and these were wear and tear.
The landlord did not provide any ingoing inspection photos of the condition of the flooring. I am not satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I note in addition that some wear and tear to wooden floors is to be expected since they were last coated with polyurethane in 2016.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Damage to walls
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy there were three screws affixed to the wall and that there was a command hook where some of the paint had come away. The landlord sought the sum of $180.00 for repairing the walls.
The tenant said that the screws were there at the start of the tenancy but accepted that they had installed the command hook..
The landlord did not provide any entry inspection photos so I am unable to find that the damage caused by the screws occurred during the tenancy. The damage was very minor in any event. The damage relating to the command hook appeared to be trivial.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Curtain
The landlord said that the tenant removed a custom-made curtain and replaced it with a different curtain. The landlord found a replacement for $383.97 and sought compensation of this amount.
The tenant said the curtain was old, mouldy and sun damaged and so they bought a new one. They said they left it behind for the landlord as they had no need for it.
The landlord accepted that the original curtain was 15 years old, well past its estimated useful life of 8 years. In my view the curtain was simply due for replacement.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. ONT cable
The landlord said that the tenant removed the ONT cable from the fibre box and that they sought compensation for the replacement cable purchased for $65.00.
The tenant said that she simply could not recall if there had been one there at the start of the tenancy. She said that she would have installed her own and could not recall if she had left the original one behind.
The landlord did not have any photos from the start of the tenancy proving that the ONT cable was in position, or from the end of the tenancy showing it missing.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Time and miscellaneous expenses
The landlord sought compensation for time spent by the directors sorting matters out at the end of the tenancy including time spent arranging contractors and travel.
As discussed at the hearing, owning and managing a rental property is a business and it is usual for landlords to incur costs as part of managing their business. Some landlords elect to contract those costs to professional property managers while others elect to do that work themselves.
The Tribunal will only order compensation for work done by landlords in very limited circumstances, usually where a landlord has personally done work to remedy a breach by the tenant that would otherwise be the responsibility of the tenant (for example cleaning). The Tribunal will not order compensation for ordinary business expenses.
The claim for time and expenses is not proven and is dismissed. The tenant’s claim Repairs and maintenance
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Section 45 states that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Leak above stairs
The tenant said that on 27 January 2023, during the Anniversary Day floods, a leak appeared in the ceiling above the stairs.
The tenant contacted the landlord who attended and patched the roof and the landlord notified their insurer and organised quotes for repair.
However the roof was still not fixed by December 2023 and so the tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking work orders. The Tribunal made orders by consent that the repairs be completed by 4 May 2024 and those works were undertaken by the date ordered.
The tenant said that the roof took too long to fix and that during the repairs she had to deal with contractors attending on an almost daily basis and that that for much of that time they had to access the roof and work area through the main bedroom. She said that contractors would often turn up unannounced, once when she was in the bathroom.
The tenant claims compensation for the length of time that it took for the leak to be repaired and for the inconvenience, stress and lack of privacy for the period during which the repairs were undertaken.
The landlord acknowledged that the works had taken much longer than intended. They said that they patched the roof themselves on an urgent basis, had an insurance assessor on site within two weeks of the leak and that the assessment was completed shortly after. They said that the delay had been caused because they opted to take a cash settlement so that they could engage the original contractor, but that from that point the timeline for repairs continued to stretch out due to their contractor’s other commitments. They said that they were also frustrated by the delay, followed up with the builder continuously, and in hindsight they should have gone with a different contractor. The landlord also acknowledged that their contractor did not communicate well with the tenant and that this would have been inconvenient and frustrating for the tenant.
It is unfortunate that the parties did not attend mediation as the landlord acknowledged these issues at the hearing. They acknowledged that there was a loss of amenity for the tenant during the leak and the period of repairs.
In reviewing all of the evidence I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation. She was paying full rent for the property when in fact the area where the leak occurred had not been fixed and she did not have full use of the property while the repairs were taking place.
I consider compensation in the amount of $4,800 to be appropriate. In calculating compensation I have awarded two full weeks rent (as it was at the time, being $3,200) for the 6- 8 weeks over which the repairs took place, being my assessment of loss of amenity over that period, and one week for the delay ($1,600). Ranchslider
The tenant said that after the Anniversary Day floods the ranchslider door to the outside became sticky and difficult to use. They said however that when the landlord’s cousin (who is a builder) attended to look at another issue he commented that the framing had shifted and was no longer aligned. This issue continued to worsen and they could not use the door.
The tenants produced a photo of the door showing the misalignment. They said that they could access the outside through another door but the ranchslider was the main access out to the garden and it was inconvenient not to be able to use it.
The parties disagreed on the repair that was required. The tenant said that some new rollers were all that was required. The landlord said that in fact a large pergola that had been fixed above the ranchslider and sunk down on one side which had caused the issue.
Regardless of the cause, it took six months for the ranchslider to be fixed. This mean that the tenants could not easily move between the lounge and the outside and so could not use the property as they wished.
The tenants are entitled to compensation for the lack of amenity that they experienced during this time. I consider $1,000 to be appropriate compensation in all the circumstances. In awarding this compensation I have made an assessment of the loss of amenity to the tenant in having to access the garden through a side door and not through the main ranchslider. Back fence
The tenant said that on Boxing Day 2024 they discovered that there was a hole in the back fence. They sent an email to the landlord letting them know, and in that email suggested that a truck might have backed into it. The back fence opens onto an alleyway, and it appears that delivery trucks use this alleyway.
The tenant said that the landlord’s cousin, who is a builder, attended approximately ten days later and simply attached the broken pieces back together and that the fence was not properly fixed until many months later. They said that it was not safe for there to be a gap in the fence during this time.
The landlord said that the damage occurred over the Christmas break and that there did not appear to be any urgency from the tenant’s perspective, that a rough repair was done and that the fence was fixed properly when the builders who were working on the property had completed the other, more urgent, work.
Having reviewed the correspondence between the parties I consider that the landlord has not breached their obligations in this instance. The time frame for the original rough repair was reasonable given the tone of the communications between the parties regarding this issue and the fact of the Christmas break.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Ensuite shower/dining room leak
The tenant said that at times the ensuite shower in the main bedroom would leak through the lights in the dining room. The tenant provided a video showing water dripping through the lights. The tenant said that the water damaged her table and that she was concerned that she or one of her guests might be electrocuted.
The landlord said that there was a waterproofing issue in the upstairs ensuite and that a trap had been installed to prevent leaking. However the trap had to be regularly cleared out as otherwise the leak would occur. The landlord said that this was a “quirk” of the tenancy and that they explained the issue to the tenant when they moved in.
The tenant said that she was always careful to clear the trap. The landlord produced a copy of a letter from a plumber who assessed a leak that occurred towards the end of the tenancy (and rendered the ensuite unusable for a number of weeks) which stated that the trap had not in fact been cleared.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I consider that the shower issue was more than a “quirk” to the property and that until the shower was fixed properly it was not in a proper state of repair. It was potentially dangerous for there to be risk of water leaking though the lights. Whether or not that could happen should not have depended on the tenant cleaning out the shower trap.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for this issue. I award compensation for the time that the ensuite that could not be used and for the occurrence of leaks during the tenancy.
I consider compensation of $1,600 to be appropriate. In ordering this amount in compensation I have considered the ongoing nature of the issue and the fact that the tenant did not have the use of the ensuite during the last weeks of the tenancy. Entering without notice
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenant said that the landlord entered on 7 March 2024 to view and assess the progress of repairs to the roof but did not give them proper notice.
The landlord produced copies of email correspondence with the tenant prior to the entry as follows: a. Email from landlord to tenant dated 23 February 2024 stating suggesting a list of work to be done and stating “I will be turning up to review progress of the roof onsite, I will remain in the areas that are being worked on. If you have any objections let me know and I will give proper notice and warning.” b. Email from tenant to landlord dated 26 February 2024 stating “I am having a surgery this week... and so would be grateful if you can make your site visit next week, and I can think about the list this week – understand the builders need to be here which is absolutely fine but just wanting to minimise people ...”
The landlord said that they then entered the following week on 7 March 2024 and were let in by the builder who showed them the repairs.
My interpretation of the correspondence between the parties is that the tenant has consented to the entry by the landlord. It is clear from the correspondence that the landlord would attend while the builder was present and so would make arrangements with the builder as to the exact timing. The tenant asked the landlord to attend the following week instead and the landlord did so.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Bullying and harassment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has bullied and harassed her.
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) RTA.
The tenant said that a neighbour reported that the entrance-way fence had been damaged by the NZ Fire Service attending a call out to the property, and the landlord contacted them to make enquiries about the damage. The tenant said that there was in fact no damage but several days later an unknown person intentionally damaged the fence.
The landlord did not seek compensation from the tenant for the damage and explained that they were simply seeking information from the tenant about the damage so that they could make an insurance claim.
Having reviewed the correspondence between the parties I do not consider there to have been any bullying or harassment. The correspondence between the parties is cordial and is focussed on issues relevant to the tenancy.
There did not appear to be any other evidence of bullying or harassment by the landlord. The landlord had issued a number of 14-day notices for rent arrears during the tenancy but there was no evidence submitted proving that these had been improperly issued.
The tenant’s claim to have been bullied and/or harassed is not proven and is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain. Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish intentional behaviour and are similar to a fine or penalty.
Exemplary damages are only available where the landlord has acted intentionally. Having reviewed all three proven maintenance issues, I do not consider that there was any intention on the part of the landlords. The landlords had every intention of fixing the issues but were focussed on using their original builder, who had constructed the extension. This led to unacceptable delays.
In making this finding I do not minimise the impact on the tenant. The tenant has suffered loss of amenity and inconvenience. However I consider that there is no basis on which to award exemplary damages in addition to the compensation already awarded to the tenant. Filing fees and name suppression
Both parties have paid a filing fee and both have had some success. I have therefore decided not to order that either party reimburse the filing fee paid by the other party.
As both parties have had some success I have made an order suppressing both parties names and identifying details (see section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4963273 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4963273 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions