Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4999310 — Rent arrears at 38B Crestview Rise, Papakura, Papakura 2110
Decided 24 Jul 2025 · Published 24 Jul 2025 · Application 4999310
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Cheyenne-Olivia Vivien Exton-Joyce owes [The landlord/s] $3,339.79 (“the debt”) being $287.71 for rent arrears to 29 May 2025, water charges of $385.08, reinstatement of the bond of $2,640.00, and the filing fee.
- Cheyenne-Olivia Vivien Exton-Joyce must pay the debt by 5pm on Tuesday 17 June 2025.
- Payments will be allocated in the following order: current rent, rent arrears, bond, outgoings, and the filing fee.
- If the tenant fails to pay the debt (other than the filing fee) within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 38B Crestview Rise, Papakura, Papakura 2110 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
- The filing fee is payable immediately.
- The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Tuesday 17 June 2025. The tenant must allow access for the work to be performed between 8am and 7pm of any day on 24 hours’ notice: a. Install a weather strip to the front exterior door to prevent moisture ingress; b. Investigate and repair the external side-gate so that it can be closed securely.
- It is declared that the tenant is not liable to pay [Locksmith]’s invoice dated 20 January 2025 for $178.25.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 29 May 2025.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, outgoings, reinstatement of the bond, and compensation. Background
- The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 7 July 2023 to 11 July 2024. On 1 May 2024 the landlord issued a notice to increase the rent from $660.00 to $680.00 from 12 July 2024. The tenant has continued to pay $660.00 per week because of maintenance issues. The rent is paid by WINZ.
- The landlord was successful at a previous Tribunal hearing and the bond of $2,640.00 was reimbursed to the landlord. The bond was partly applied towards rent arrears ($1,877.15) with the balance ($763.85) applied towards other claims. Subsequently a rehearing was granted. Rent and Water
- The rent arrears to 29 May 2025 are $287.71. The landlord explained that, if the payment of the bond were to be reversed, the rent arrears would be $2,844.86 less a payment of $660.00 on 27 May 2025. This would leave rent arrears of $2,184.86 - equivalent to 22 days of arrears.
- The current water arrears are $563.33 which includes $178.25 for access cards for a digital lock. The tenant said the water charges were high for three months when no one was living at the premises. In her order dated 22 January 2025, the previous Adjudicator said the tenant was in hospital with one of her children between June-August 2024. In my view, the water charges for this period appear to be consistent with the earlier and later months, making allowance for the fluctuations caused by estimated and actual meter readings.
- There is no evidence to suggest that the rent increase did not reflect the market rent, and it was not argued that the notice was invalid. I find that the rent increase was effective.
- I find that the tenant owes a total of $672.79 for rent and water ($287.71 plus $385.08). The bond of $2,640.00 must also be reinstated so that the total liability is $3,312.79. Defence and Set Off
- Before deciding whether to terminate the tenancy, it is necessary to consider the matters raised by the tenant by way of defence/set off.
- The tenant raised the following issues: • The electricity was surging and tripping, and this was not fixed until the day before the last hearing (which was on 22 January 2025). The landlord had initially sent a tradesman not an electrician. An LED light was replaced, and this seemed to have fixed the issue. • She had informed the landlord of a gas smell. The gas stove elements are popping and according to the manual this is suggestive of a gas leak. The tenant said there was still a gas smell sometimes. • The side gate had not been fixed causing a safety hazard for her children. • In October 2024 she was locked out when the keyless entry would not work. After they regained entry, the tenant had to pay for a locksmith to attend because the door was not locking. • The landlord had taken 4 days to send a plumber for an urgent issue with an overflowing drain, flooding the bathroom. The landlord requested proof before they would send a plumber. • The front door leaks into the hallway/lounge when it rains. The tenant showed a video of water ponding in the hallway near the door. • The landlord sent her several water bills at the same time in early 2025, which she could not pay immediately. The landlord threatened to cut her water off.
- The landlord said she was not aware of power surges affecting the electrics. She knew about the LED light. There is a work order dated 17 January 2025 for this to be fixed.
- The landlord said a gasfitter was sent to check the outside gas unit. There is a work order dated 19 December 2024. An invoice from a plumbing company dated 17 January 2025 states: “Urgent call out fee for checked [sic] the gas leak issue and found no leaks or faults on 19 th of December 2024”.
- The landlord said she would follow up on the side-gate. I will issue a work order that this be investigated and fixed as necessary.
- The landlord said the front door requires good quality batteries. Inside the lock there is a slide, and when this was reset in the right place the door was locking. There is an invoice from a locksmith dated 20 January 2025. The invoice records that the door was not auto-locking because someone (probably the tenant when replacing the batteries) had inadvertently activated the manual mode button. The locksmith had restored the auto-lock function. The invoice recorded the tenant stating that the keypad was unresponsive – this was remedied by providing the tenant with two access cards.
- The landlord said she would follow up on the weather-strip which is to be installed on the front door. This had been identified at the last inspection about a month ago. I will issue a work order that this be installed.
- The landlord denied threatening to cut the water off. Analysis
- Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
- A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect. This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)). Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances.
- The tenant’s case was presented with few supporting documents. In my view, the available evidence does not show that the landlord failed to respond in a timely way to issues with the electrical system, the front door entry, or the gas system which is used for hot water and cooking. The tenant may wish to consider issuing a formal 14-day notice to remedy if there are any problems in the future.
- The tenant described a distressing situation of a leak affecting the bathroom. The tenant provided an email from the landlord dated 20 February 2024 asking for photographs and videos of the blocked toilet. The landlord asked for these to arrange for a plumber to assess the issue. Apparently this caused the tenant to take steps which made the problem worse. It is difficult to know what the tenant told the landlord, but if she indicated there was an emergency, I consider a plumber should have been contacted immediately.
- The landlord was arguably in breach of its maintenance obligation in respect of the toilet blockage. Based on the tenant’s evidence, there was something of an emergency and the landlord needed to take steps to send a plumber without first asking for photographs. There is a plumbing invoice dated 15 March 2024 ($345.00) which the landlord included in the claim. This recorded that the toilet had been blocked with “heaps” of wet wipes. It follows that the toilet blockage was probably caused by the tenant, who has not proved that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
- Ultimately, I consider that both parties have arguably breached their obligations. I decline to award compensation to either party for the toilet blockage.
- There is evidently an issue with water seeping into the premises under the front door. There is a drainage tray on the floor just inside the front door which appears to be overloaded by the ingress of water. It has been about a month since the landlord identified this issue. It is appropriate to make a work order.
- The tenant provided an email from the landlord requesting that the water account be brought up to date, but it does not threaten to turn off the water supply. I find that this allegation is not proved. There is also an email from the landlord proposing separate payments for the water invoices that were sent together in early 2025. The landlord noted that three invoices in January and February 2025 had been sent to the tenant at the same time.
- In its order dated 28 January 2025, the Tribunal referred to five invoices from July to December 2024. The Adjudicator discounted the water charges by 50% in reliance on an implied term that invoices be provided regularly. The tenant has been credited accordingly in the landlord’s records. I consider that the Tribunal’s previous findings were in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the matter. This means that the award for water charges is as set out above.
- The tenant said she was charged $450.00 for the cost of resolving the issue with the front door lock. The invoice was for $178.25, which has been on-charged to the tenant.
- There is a clause in the tenancy agreement which states that the tenant agrees to pay any reasonable call-out charges where no fault is found. I have considered whether this clause is inconsistent with or modifies the landlord’s maintenance obligations and is therefore subject to section 11 (Act to apply despite contrary provisions).
- While I would accept that a landlord is entitled to recover the cost of unnecessary call outs, here there was an issue with the digital lock settings on the front door, even if it was inadvertently caused by the tenant. There was also a possible fault with the keypad. In my view, this was a maintenance issue for the landlord. The invoice should not have been on-charged to the tenant, and I deduct this from the claim. Conclusion
- The outcome in this case is that the tenant owes rent and water arrears and is required to reinstate the bond. The landlord says they have lost confidence in the relationship and requests termination. I accept there are grounds for a termination order if the bond payment were to be treated as reversed and added back to the arrears.
- On the other hand, the tenant has established some maintenance issues, although it was unwise to withhold part of the rent. If WINZ are willing to pay the rent and water arrears and reinstate the bond of $2,640.00 within a short timeframe, I consider the tenancy should continue. The tenancy should be terminated if the bond is not reinstated. It is important that the landlord have security for the tenant’s ongoing obligations. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
- The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.